Monterey Park City Council
May 21, 2025

City Council of Monterey Park
The City Council Acting on Behalf of the Successor Agency of the Former Redevelopment Agency, the Housing Authority, the Monterey Park Financing Authority and the Monterey Park Geologic Hazard Abatement District Agenda

Regular Meeting
Monterey Park City Hall Council Chambers
320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754

Wednesday, May 21, 2025
6:30 PM
Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.

Land Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

General Information
Documents related to an Agenda item are available to the public in the City Clerk’s Office located at 320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754, during normal business hours and the www.montereypark.ca.gov/AgendaCenter.

The public may watch the meeting live on the city’s cable channel MPKTV (AT&T U-verse, channel 99 or Charter Communications, channel 182) or by visiting the city’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/133/City-Council-Meeting-Videos. Per the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call City Hall at (626) 307-1359 for reasonable accommodation at least 24 hours before a meeting. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible.

Public Participation
You may speak up to 5 minutes on an/each Agenda item. You may combine up to 2 minutes of time with another person’s speaking. No person may speak more than a total of 10 minutes. The Mayor and City Council may change the amount of time allowed for speakers. Written Communication will be accepted up to 24 hours before the meeting by completing an online form at www.montereypark.ca.gov/writtencomm.

While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow the City Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council may briefly respond to comments after Public Communications is

closed. Persons may, in addition to any other matter within the City Council's subject-matter jurisdiction, comment on Agenda Items at this time. If you provide public comment on a specific Agenda item at this time, however, you cannot later provide comments at the time the Agenda Item is considered.

1. Call to Order
Mayor

2. Flag Salute
The Monterey Park Police Explorers

3. Roll Call
Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang

4. Agenda Additions, Deletions, Changes and Adoptions

5. Public Communications

6. Staff Communications

6.A. Police Department

6.B. Public Works

7. Presentation

7.A. Recognition of Eagle Scout Project at Fire Station 61

8. Old Business

9. Consent Calendar
All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.

9.A. Adopting a Resolution updating the City’s reimbursement policies in accordance with AB1234, to include an additional pre-approved conference for Elected Officials

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution updating the City’s reimbursement policies in accordance with AB1234, to include an additional pre-approved conference for Elected Officials; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

9.B. Update on Community Block Development Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding in the FY 2026 Presidential Budget Request, and Consideration of Sending Letter in Support of Maintaining Funding

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving updates on the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 “skinny” budget proposal;

2. If desirable, sending a letter on behalf of the City requesting support of maintaining funding for Community Block Development Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) in the Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations process; and

3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

9.C. Consideration of Sending Letter of Support on behalf of the City to the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD)

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. If desirable, sending a letter on behalf of the City supporting the request of the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD);

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

9.D. Consideration of a resolution authorizing the release of covenant and agreement for an off-site parking area located at 2100 Saturn Street, formerly 2030 Saturn Street, and directing the City Manager to execute related documents

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a resolution authorizing the release of a covenant and agreement for 12 off- site parking spaces located at 2100 Saturn Street (formerly 2030 Saturn Street) and directing the City Manager to execute related documents; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the request and draft Resolution according to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). This administrative activity is for general policy making and will not result in any physical changes to the environment. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

9.E. Amendment to Agreement No. 2241-AA with Comprise Technologies Inc. for Library Public Computer Management, Printing and Content Filtering

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to Agreement No. 2241-AA with Comprise Technologies, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for library public computer management, printing and content filtering for a term of three years for $25,442; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

9.F. First Amendment to Agreement No. 2259-AC with Smart Energy Systems, LLC for the SMART workforce management program

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Agreement 2259-AC with Smart Energy Systems, LLC to increase the annual subscription cost to $45,090 and to add a one-time cost of $67,000 for upgrades; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

9.G. Approval of Fifth Amendment to Agreement 2003-AB with United Pumping Service, Inc. for hazardous waste management services

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Fifth Amendment to Agreement 2003-AB with United Pumping Service, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for continued hazardous waste management services for an additional amount of $155,000 through June 30, 2028; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the extension under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively. This activity contemplates administrative and policy decisions that would result in the disposal of hazardous waste consistent with State mandates. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

10. Public Hearing

11. New Business

11.A. Authorizing Mayor Pro Tem Yang to attend the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) Israel Seminar for Asian American and Pacific Islander Leaders

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Acknowledging that participation in the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) Israel Seminar for Asian American and Pacific Islander Leaders is related to an important governmental function, and authorizing Mayor Pro Tem Yang to attend;

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

11.B. Consider dissolution of the Design Review Board (DRB) and creating the Economic and Business Development Commission (EBDC) by consolidating the Business Improvement Advisory Committee (BIDAC) and Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC)

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Introducing and waiving first reading of an Ordinance _________ dissolving the Design Review Board (“DRB”);

2. Adopting a resolution consolidating the Business Improvement Advisory Committee (“BIDAC”) and the Economic Development Advisory Commission (“EDAC”) into the Economic and Business Development Commission (“EBDC”);

3. Appointing the members of the EBDC; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the draft Ordinance and Resolution according to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). This activity is for general policies and procedure- making intended to promote economic development and streamlining of planning processes.

Accordingly, this activity is exempt from further review.

11.C. Renewal of Contract with Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and a conduct a public hearing to consider introduction and first reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 6 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code regarding public health services and incorporation of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code.

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for public health services;

2. Introducing and waiving the first reading of an ordinance amending Title 6 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code;

3. Setting the second reading and Public Hearing for June 18, 2025; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

12. City Communications (City Council)

13. Future Agenda Items

14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce)

15. Adjourn

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.A.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Adopting a Resolution updating the City’s reimbursement policies in accordance with AB1234, to include an additional pre-approved conference for Elected Officials

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution updating the City’s reimbursement policies in accordance with AB1234, to include an additional pre-approved conference for Elected Officials; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

On April 16, 2025 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-R23, which updated the City's reimbursement policies in accordance with government codes §§ 53232.2 and 53232.3 and expanded the list of pre-approved events in Exhibit A that the Council may participate to include the Asian American Pacific Islanders Leadership Elected and Appointed (“AAPI LEAD”) Conference and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”) Conference. Per Council request, the resolution attached supersedes Resolution No. 2025-R23 and updates the list of pre-approved events to include the California LGBTQ+ Leadership Summit.

Background:

Assembly Bill 1234 (2005) (“AB 1234”) became effective January 1, 2006. AB 1234 required cities to adopt a written policy for reimbursement of “actual and necessary” expenses incurred by City Council members and members of bodies created by the City Council that are subject to the Brown Act. On April 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-R23, updating the policy to ensure it was current and encompassed relevant conferences for elected officials. City Council requested that the policy be updated again to include one additional conference, the California LGBTQ+ Leadership Summit.

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

Costs associated with conferences will be included as part of each fiscal year's budget process.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution

Staff Report
May 21, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Resolution

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 53232.2 AND
53232.3.

BE IT
RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monterey Park as follows:

SE
CTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. El
ected and appointed City Officials are responsible for promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Among other things, these duties may require City Officials to:

1. Di
scuss the City’s concerns with state and federal officials;

2. Par
ticipate in regional, state and national organizations that affect the City’s interests;

3. At
tend educational seminars designed to improve City Officials’ skills and provide information;

4. Pr
omote public service and morale;

5. At
tend meetings, ceremonial events and other activities sponsored by constituents, neighborhood groups, business organizations and similar groups;

6. Pr
omote economic development; and

7. Meet
with constituents, business owners and others with an interest in the City.

B. It
is in the public interest to reimburse City Officials’ expenses incurred in connection with these activities consistent with the provisions of this Resolution.

SE
CTION 2: Declaration of Policy. This Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 11629 in its entirety and is adopted in accordance with Government Code §§ 53232.2 and 53232.3 so that the City of Monterey Park may reimburse appropriate expenses incurred by elected and appointed City officials while on authorized travel or otherwise engaged in the conduct of City business. Absent City Council approval, and only in extraordinary circumstances, the City will not reimburse City Officials an amount greater than allow ed by this Resolution for expenses incurred during the course of conducting City business.

Resolution No.

SECTION 3: Definitions. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this Resolution:

A. “Cit
y Officials” means members of the elected and appointed officials; B. “R
eimbursement” means all forms of payment for expenses incurred by City Officials in the course of their official duties whether paid directly by the City (including, without limitation, with a City-issued credit card) or advanced by City Officials with personal funds and later reimbursed from City funds.

SE
CTION 4: City Business – Authorized Activities:

A. Ex
penses incurred while engaging in the following City business activities are generally authorized expenses if all requirements of this Resolution are fulfilled:

1. Com
municating with representatives of regional, state and national government on City adopted policy positions;

2. At
tending educational seminars designed to improve City Officials’ skill and information levels. A list of recognized meetings is attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference;

3. Par
ticipating in regional, state and national organizations whose activities affect the City’s interests;

4. Rec
ognizing service to the City (for example, thanking a longtime employee with a retirement gift or celebration of nominal value and cost);

5. At
tending City events; and

6. Att
ending meetings with constituents, neighborhood groups, business organizations, and attending conferences for the City-approved purpose of attracting or retaining businesses to the City.

B. Ex
penditures incurred in connection with activities or events not listed in Paragraph A above require prior approval by the City Council.

SE
CTION 5: Unauthorized Expenses: The City will not reimburse City Officials for expenses incurred outside the scope of the City Official’s duties including, for example and not limited, the following:

A. The per
sonal portion of any trip. For example, if a City Official elects to travel to an event in advance or stay longer on personal business, the City need only

Resolution No.

r
eimburse the City Official for roundtrip travel costs and costs incurred during the event’s duration;
B. P
olitical or charitable contributions or events;
C. F
amily expenses, including partner’s expenses when accompanying a City Official on City-related business, as well as children- or pet-related expenses; D. E
ntertainment expenses, including theater, movies (either in- room or at the theater), sporting events (including gym, massage and/or golf related expenses), or ither cultural events;
E. No
n-mileage personal automobile expenses, including repairs, traffic citations, insurance or gasoline; and
F. P
ersonal losses incurred while on City business.

G. E
xpenses for which City Officials receive reimbursement from another agency are not reimbursable.

H. A
ny questions regarding the propriety of a particular type of expense should be resolved by the City Council before the expense is incurred.

S
ECTION 6: Transportation.

A. G
enerally. City Officials must use the most economical mode and class of transportation reasonably consistent with scheduling needs and cargo space requirements, using the most direct and time- efficient route. Government and group rates must be used when available.

B. A
irfare. Airfares that are equal or less than those available through the Enhanced California Department of General Services ( “DGS”) Statewide Travel Program Government Airfare Program offered through the California State Association of Counties ( https://www.counties.org/node/2079) are presumed to be the most economical and reasonable for purposes of reimbursement under this policy.

C. A
utomobile

1. A
utomobile mileage is reimbursed at Internal Revenue Service rates presently in effect (see www.irs.gov). These rates are designed to compensate the driver for gasoline, insurance, maintenance, and other expenses associated with operating the vehicle. This amount does not include bridge and road tolls, which are also reimbursable.

Resolution No.

2. O
nly travel for City business outside of Los Angeles County is authorized for reimbursement.

3. A
City Official may leave from his/her home for City business. However, the City will not reimburse mileage that exceeds mileage from City Hall to the destination point,
D. C
ar Rental. Rental rates that are equal to or less than those available through the State of California’s Department of General Services website (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OFAM/Travel/Resources/Page-Content/Resources-List- Folder/Car-Rental) are considered the most economical and reasonable for purposes of reimbursement under this policy.

E. T
axis/Shuttles. Taxis or shuttles fares may be reimbursed, including a 15 percent gratuity per fare, when the cost of such fares is equal or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or when such transportation is necessary for time-efficiency.

F. A
irport Parking. Long-term parking must be used for travel exceeding 24-hours.

G. O
ther. Checked baggage handling fees as charged by the airline.

S
ECTION 7: Lodging
A. Lod
ging expenses will be reimbursed only at the single occupancy rate for rooms.

B. Lod
ging expenses will be reimbursed when travel on official City business reasonably requires an overnight stay.

C. C
onferences/Meetings. If lodging is associated with a conference, lodging expenses must not exceed the group rate published by the conference sponsor for the meeting in question if such rates are available at the time of booking.

D. O
ther lodging. Travelers must request government rates, when available. A listing of hotels offering government rates in different areas is available at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OFAM/Travel/Resources/Page-Content/Resources-List- Folder/Lodging. Lodging rates that are equal or less to government rates are presumed to be reasonable and hence reimbursable for purposes of this policy. In the event that government rates are not available at a given time or in a given area, lodging rates that do not exceed the IRS per diem rates for a given area are presumed reasonable and hence reimbursable.

S
ECTION 8: Meals and Incidental Expenses.

Resolution No.

A. F
or meals associated with City business within Los Angeles County, a City Official may claim a per diem in accordance with the meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) rates established by United States General Services Administration (GSA).

B. For
meals associated with City business outside of Los Angeles County where an overnight stay is required, a City Official may claim a per diem in accordance with the meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) rates established by United States General Services Administration (GSA).

1. The t
ime calculations for per diem starts when the City Official begins travel.

For each 24-hour period thereafter, the City Official can claim the full per diem amount.

2. Rec
eipts are not required to claim per diem.

3. Any
reimbursement claim for expenses that exceed the per diem rate may constitute additional income for tax purposes.

C. The
City does not pay for alcohol/personal bar expenses.

SE
CTION 9: Telephone/Fax/Cellular. City Officials will be reimbursed for actual telephone and fax expenses incurred on City business. Telephone bills should identify which calls were made on City business. For cellular calls when the City Official has a particular number of minutes included in the City Official’s plan, the City Official can identify the percentage of calls made on public business.

SE
CTION 10: Cash Advance Policy
A. Fr
om time to time, it may be necessary for a City Official to request a cash advance to cover anticipated expenses while traveling or doing business on the City’s behalf. Such a request for an advance should be submitted to the City Manager fourteen (14) days before the need for the advance with the following information:

1. The p
urpose of the expenditure(s);

2. The b
enefits of such expenditure to the residents of the City;

3. The an
ticipated amount of the expenditure(s) (for example: hotel rates, meal costs, and transportation expenses); and

4. The
date of the expenditure(s).

B. Any
unused allowance must be returned to the City’s Finance Department within two business days of the City Official’s return, along with an expense report and

Resolution No.

r
eceipts documenting how the advance was used in compliance with this Resolution.

SE
CTION 11: Credit Card Use Policy.

A. Ci
ty does not issue credit cards to individual City Officials but does have a credit card for selected City expenses. City Officials may use the City’s credit card for such purposes as airline tickets and hotel reservations by following the same procedures for cash advances. Receipts documenting expenses incurred on the City credit card and compliance with this policy must be submitted within five business days of use.

B. Ci
ty credit cards may not be used for personal expenses, even if the City Official subsequently reimburses the City.

SE
CTION 12: Expense Report Consent and Submission Deadline.

A. Al
l cash advance expenditures, credit card expenses and expense reimbursement requests must be submitted on an expense report form provided by the City.

B. Ex
pense reports must document that the expense in question met the requirements of this policy. For example, if a meeting is with a legislator, the City Official should explain whose meals were purchased, what issues were discussed and how those relate to the City’s adopted legislative positions and priorities.

C. Ci
ty Officials must submit their expense reports within thirty (30) days after an expense is incurred, accompanied by receipts documenting each expense.

Restaurant receipts, in addition to any credit card receipts, are also part of the necessary documentation.

D. Inabi
lity to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in the expense being borne by the City Official.

E. Al
l expenses are subject to verification that they comply with this policy.

SE
CTION 13: Reports to City Council. At the City Council meeting following an activity, each City Official must briefly report on meetings attended at City expense. If multiple City Officials attended, a joint report may be made.

SE
CTION 14: Compliance With Laws. Some expenditures may be subject to reporting under the Political Reform Act and other laws. All agency expenditures are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

SUBJ
ECT 15: Violation of this Policy. Use of public resources or falsifying expense reports in violation of this Resolution may result in any or all of the following:

Resolution No.

A. Loss
of reimbursement privileges;
B. A de
mand for restitution to the City;
C. Th
e City’s reporting the expenses as income to the City Official to state and federal tax authorities;
D. Ci
vil penalties of up to $1,000 per day and three times the value of the resources used; and
E. Pr
osecution for misuse of public resources.

SE
CTION 16: Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts were made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the C ity's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SE
CTION 17: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SE
CTION 18: Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

SE
CTION 19: Severability. If any part of this Resolution of its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SE
CTION 20: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SE
CTION 21: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

Resolution No.

SECT
ION 22: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May 2025.
_________
_______________________
Vinh T. Ngo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________
_________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED
AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
By:__
________________________
Justin A. Tamayo, Assistant City Attorney
Stat
e of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss.

City of Monterey Park )
I, Maychelle Yee, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, do hereby certify that the for egoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Monter ey Park at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of May, 2025 by the following vote:

Aye
s: Council Members: Wong, Sanchez, Lo, Yang, Ngo
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Dated this 21st day of May, 2025.

Mayc helle Yee, City Clerk
Cit y of Montrey Park, California

Resolution No.

E

XHIBIT A
Nam
e of Conference
• Any conference or travel approved in advance by the City Council. • League of California Cities Annual Conference
• Annual Meeting of the Employee Relations Inst. League of California Cities • Annual League of California Cities Conference for Planning Commissioners • Annual
Legislative Conference League of California Cities
• National Conference of the International City/County Managers Association • Mayors and Council Members Institute League of C alifornia Cities • California Joint
Powers Authority Annual Meeting
• California
LGBTQ+ Leadership Summit
• Annual Meeting of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA)
• National Conference of American Planning Association (APA) • Lea
gue of California Cities Mayors and Council Members Department • Asian
American Pacific Islanders Leadership Elected and Appointed A nnual Conference
• Independent Cities Association Summer Conference
• Independent
Cities Association Winter Conference
• California Contract
Cities Spring Conference
• California Contract
Cities Fall Conference
• California Contract Cities Sacramento Conference
• California JPIA Risk Management Conference
• International
Conference of Shopping Centers: National Conference
• International
Conference of Shopping Centers: Southern California Conference • Southern California Association of Governments: Annual Planning Session • National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Annual Conference
• National League of Cities: Annual Congressional City Conference • National League of Cities: Annual Congress of Cities an Exposition • U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting
• U.S. Conference of Mayors Annual Meeting

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.B.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Martha Garcia, Director of Finance
Shawn Igoe, Public Works Director
Subject: Update on Community Block Development Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding in the FY 2026 Presidential Budget Request, and Consideration of Sending Letter in Support of Maintaining Funding

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving updates on the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 “skinny” budget proposal;

2. If desirable, sending a letter on behalf of the City requesting support of maintaining funding for Community Block Development Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) in the Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations process; and

3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

The Executive Office of the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 “skinny” budget proposal includes the elimination of several federal funding programs, including CDBG and HOME programs. This typically funds State and local investment in housing, infrastructure, public facilities, community centers, housing rehabilitation, real estate, and code enforcement. In Monterey Park, CDBG Funds support projects within the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Fair Housing Services, and Business Improvement Projects; the HOME Funds support homeowner/rental rehabilitation. Elimination of this federal funding source would impact the City’s ability to complete or continue these projects and require alternative funding sources. It is recommended that City Council consider sending a letter to the State Senate and the US House of representatives requesting support of continued CDBG and HOME funding.

Background:

The CDBG and HOME programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides funding to local governments to support infrastructure, public facilities, housing rehabilitation, and other community needs that primarily benefit low- and moderate-income residents. On Friday, May 2, 2025, the President released the "skinny" budget request. Within this proposal, President Trump outlined a variety of spending cuts,

including cuts to CDBG and HOME funding. This proposal impacts funds typically allocated for State and local investment in housing, infrastructure, public facilities, community centers, housing rehabilitation, real estate, and code enforcement.

The City of Monterey Park relies on CDBG and HOME funds to deliver key CIP projects, Housing Rights services, Business Improvement projects and homeowner/rental rehabilitation projects. The FY 2025-26 preliminary budget, includes approximately $850,000 for CDBG and HOME Funds. These funds are reserved to support specific projects including ADA sidewalk repairs, public restrooms renovations, and low-income homeowner/rental rehabilitation programs. If the proposed cuts are adopted this would require the City to seek alternate funding sources or discontinue such programs. Additionally, there would be a need to use the City’s General Fund to cover the shortfall of approximately $15,000 for salaries and benefits in FY2025-26. It is recommended that City Council consider sending a letter to the State Senate and the US House of representatives requesting support of continued CDBG and HOME funding. The letter highlights the importance of CDBG and HOME funding for Monterey Park’s ongoing capital improvements, homeowner/rental rehabilitation programs, business improvement projects, and essential services. Staff is requesting Council approval to transmit this letter as part of the City’s formal advocacy efforts.

Strategic Plan Goal:

Fiscal Impact:

Elimination of this federal funding source would impact the City’s ability to complete orcontinue these p rojects and require alternative funding sources, including the General Fund. At minimum, the City would need to use the General fund to cover a $15,000 shortfall for salaries and benefits in FY2025-26.

Attachments:

1. City of Monterey Park FY 26 Skinny Budget Request Letter

2. Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request from the Executive Office of the President

Staff Report
May 21, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Monterey Park FY 26 Skinny
Budget Request Letter

Pride in the Past • Faith in the Future

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

320 West Newmark Avenue • Monterey Park • California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov

City Council
Henry Lo
Vinh Ngo
Jose Sanchez
Thomas Wong
Elizabeth Yang

City Clerk
Maychelle Yee

City Treasurer
Amy Lee
May 15, 2025

The Honorable Alex Padilla
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Adam Schiff
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Judy Chu
United States House of Representatives
2423 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: City of Monterey Park Concerns in the FY 2026 Presidential Budget Request

Dear Senator Padilla, Senator Schiff, and Congressmember Chu,

I write regarding the FY26 Presidential Budget Request, specifically in support of continued funding under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Community Block Development Grants and HOME Investment Partnership funding.

These programs are important to the well-being of our community. CDBG and HOME funds are instrumental in supporting local infrastructure projects, economic development, and essential services that improve the quality of life for residents.

The City of Monterey Park relies on these funds to deliver key Capital Improvement Projects including ADA sidewalk repairs and public restrooms renovations. Funds also support the City’s low-income rehab programs.

Eliminating these programs would have a detrimental impact on our community. I kindly request your support to maintain funding for CDBG and HOME in the FY 2026 appropriations process. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Vinh T. Ngo
Mayor
City of Monterey Park

Staff Report
May 21, 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request
from the Executive Office of the President

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON , D .C . 20503
THE D IRECTOR May 2, 2025
The Honorable Susan Collins
Chair
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chair Collins:

This letter provides President Trump's recommendations on discretionary funding levels for fiscal year (FY) 2026. They are being provided in advance of the President's full fiscal plan to reach balance and restore confidence in America's fiscal management, so that your Committee may commence with debate and consideration of appropriations bills for the upcoming fiscal year.

The recommended funding levels result from a rigorous, line-by-line review of FY 2025 spending, which was found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.

We also considered, for each program, whether the governmental service provided could be provided better by State or local governments (if provided at all). Just as the Federal Government has intruded on matters best left to American families, it has intruded on matters best left to the levels of government closest to the people, who understand and respect the needs and desires of their communities far better than the Federal Government ever could.

Cutting such spending from the discretionary budget leads to significant savings: the President is proposing base non-defense discretionary budget authority $163 billion-22.6 percent-below current-year spending, while still protecting funding for homeland security, veterans, seniors, law enforcement , and infrastructure . Over 10 years, this restraint would generate trillions in savings, necessary for balancing the budget.

At the same time, the Budget proposes unprecedented increases for defense and border security. For Defense spending, the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border. Under the proposal , a portion of these increases-at least $325 billion assumed in the budget resolution recently agreed to by the Congress-would be

provided through reconciliation , to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources needed to complete the mission. This mandatory supplement to discretionary spending would enable the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others, to clean up the mess President Trump inherited from the prior administration and harden the border and other defenses to protect America from foreign invasion. Providing these resources through reconciliation ensures that the money is available when needed, and not held hostage by Democrats to force wasteful non-defense discretionary spending increases as was the case in the President's first term.

The attached tables provide overviews of the discretionary request, in total and by major agency, and a detailed listing of the specific recommended changes that will be incorporated into forthcoming appropriations bill language.

I look forward to working with you to achieve significant budgetary savings for the American people within the spending programs under your jurisdiction.

Sincerely,
Russell T. Vought
Director
Enclosure

Major Discretionary Funding Changes
$ Change
from 2025 Program Name Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Enacted (in millions)
Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Increases
The Budget includes $2.9 billion for a new America First Opportunity (A1OF) Fund. This Fund would focus on strategic investments that make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. The America First Opportunity (A1OF) A1OF would be able to: support some of America’s most enduring and critical partners such as India +2,900 Fund and Jordan; support activities critical to keeping American safe, such as repatriations; counter China and other near-peer rivals; and fund new activities to strengthen America’s national security priorities.

The Budget increases the U.S. International DFC to support U.S. national security and American Development Finance Corporation interests through billions in loans and guarantees that would generate returns to the taxpayer and +2,820 (DFC) reduce reliance on foreign aid. This investment includes $3 billion for a new revolving fund to allow DFC to recycle any realized returns from its initial investments without further appropriation.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
U.S. economic and development aid has been funneled to radical, leftist priorities, including climate change, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and LGBTQ activities around the world. The Budget Economic Support Fund, Development eliminates funding for these programs and combines duplicative accounts into the single A1OF, Assistance, Democracy Fund, and -8,326 which supports the foreign programs that serve American interests and advance the President’s Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and objectives abroad. The Budget simultaneously strengthens the DFC to shift America’s global posture Central Asia from handouts to investments, returning a profit for the taxpayer while making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

International Disaster Assistance,
Migration and Refugee Assistance, and
Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance (ERMA)—International
Humanitarian Assistance (IHA)
-3,207
The Budget reduces unaffordable levels of disaster assistance far in excess of what other countries contribute. The Budget provides $1.5 billion in ERMA for the President to use at his discretion and consolidates wasteful and duplicative accounts into a new $2.5 billion IHA account to fund disaster relief when it fulfills the President’s foreign policy aims. 1

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase State and USAID Operations -2,462
Consistent with Executive Order 14169, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” the Budget ensures that foreign aid spending is efficient and consistent with U.S. foreign policy under the America First agenda. The Budget reorganizes USAID into the Department of State to meet current needs and eliminates non-essential staff that were hired based on DEI and preferencing practices, inconsistent with Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”
International Narcotics Control & Law
Enforcement (INCLE) -1,160
The majority of INCLE funds go to reforming criminal justice systems in foreign governments, rather than to narcotics enforcement, which is primarily undertaken by: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Central Intelligence Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and Department of Defense (DOD) elements. The Budget eliminates failed rule-of-law programs in distant countries, while providing $125 million to fund programs that support the counter-drug, organized crime, and border security missions that directly impact the United States.

Peacekeeping Missions -1,614
The Budget does not provide funding for wasteful United Nations (UN) and other peacekeeping missions due to recent failures and high level of assessments. The United States has a history of paying for more than its fair share of international peacekeeping activities. Further, UN peacekeepers have been accused of narcotics trafficking across multiple continents, especially in the Central African Republic where peacekeepers smuggled gold, diamonds, and drugs.

Assessed and Voluntary Contributions
to International Organizations -1,716
The Budget pauses most assessed and all voluntary contributions to UN and other international organizations, including for the UN Regular Budget, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the World Health Organization. This is consistent with Executive Order 14199, “Withdrawing the United States From and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations.” To preserve maximum negotiating leverage, the President can choose to fund these international organizations out of the A1OF if he chooses.

Educational and Cultural Exchanges -691
Inspector General reports have documented insufficient monitoring for fraud and inefficient, wasteful programming at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Foreign students receiving technical and high- demand training leave to take those skills overseas, including back to near-peer rivals, having deprived American students of places to acquire those skills. This program is no longer affordable. 2

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Transition Initiatives (TI) -75
TI funds short-term assistance that aims to shape political outcomes in distant countries with no practical impact on U.S. security. It often results in further destabilization and funds a wasteful tangle of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and partisan cutouts pushing a leftist agenda around the world. The Budget eliminates the TI account.

Complex Crisis Fund -55
The Complex Crisis Fund is a catch-all slush fund for nation-building projects and political interference. Rather than offering life-saving assistance or creating beneficial ties for the United States, it has been weaponized to mandate DEI and LGBTQ policies be implemented in recipient countries as a condition of aid to small businesses with no connection to the United States. The Budget eliminates this woke, ill-structured account and redirects crisis funding to the IHA and ERMA accounts, where they would further the President’s America First objectives around the world.

National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) -315
Under the Biden Administration and at the start of the Russia/Ukraine war, the NED blocked public access to its grant details after having never provided disclosure in the manner required by Federal law. In March 2025, it was discovered that NED funded the Ukraine disinformation organization that doxed U.S. journalists called for prosecutions of allies of the President, and attacked the Vice President, Joe Kent, and others as “foreign propagandists of the Russian Federation.” NED also funded the now-infamous Disinformation Index Foundation that targeted and blacklisted conservative media outlets like Federalist, Newsmax, TAC, the Blaze, NYP, etc. The Budget eliminates funding for NED.

Global Health Programs/Family
Planning -6,233
The United States is the largest global contributor to programs that provide so-called family planning services through liberal NGOs, and have funded abortions. This stands in direct conflict with the President’s action reinstating the “Mexico City Policy.” The Budget protects life and prevents a pro- abortion agenda from being promoted abroad with taxpayer dollars. The Budget focuses on life- saving assistance and preventing infectious diseases from reaching the United States. The U.S.

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief funding is preserved for any current beneficiaries.

Food for Peace (Title II) -1,619
The Food for Peace program spends $1.6 billion to ship food overseas, which often takes a year or more to arrive at its intended destination, resulting in about one-third loss and waste. The program also distorts and undermines local and regional markets where the aid often could be purchased for less and with less waste. There are far more efficient food aid programs that the Budget preserves. 3

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Other International Programs
Contribution to the Global
Environmental Facility and Climate
Investment Funds
-275
The Budget proposes to eliminate contributions to the Global Environment Facility and the Climate Investment Funds, which promote woke Green New Deal policies that are misaligned with Administration priorities.

Contributions to Multilateral
Development Banks (African
Development Bank, African
Development Fund)
-555
Consistent with Executive Order 14169, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” the Budget proposes to eliminate contributions to the African Development Fund, which is not currently aligned to Administration priorities. The Budget also includes $3.2 billion over three years for the U.S. Government contribution to the International Development Association 21, where other donors and institutions should take on more of the burden sharing. This fulfills the President’s promise to no longer dole out foreign aid dollars with no return on investment for the American people.

Other Treasury International
Reductions -86
The Budget likewise proposes to eliminate several of the Department of the Treasury’s international assistance programs, including the Debt Restructuring account, and contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. This proposal fulfills the President’s promise to put America first and eliminate wasteful foreign aid spending.

Department of Education (ED)
Increases
Charter Schools +60
According to this year’s National Assessment of Educational Progress, 70 percent of 8th graders are below proficient in reading, and 72 percent are below proficient in math. Federal control has replaced local decision-making, creating a one-size-fits-all system that is decimating student achievement. This centralized approach has weakened States’ ability to deliver quality education and eroded parents’ direction of their children’s education. More local school options are needed, so the Budget invests $500 million, a $60 million increase, to expand the number of high-quality charter schools, which have a proven track record of improving students’ academic achievement and giving parents more choice in the education of their children.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Preserve Title I and Streamline K-12
Programs -4,535
The Budget provides streamlined, flexible funding directly to States so that they have the discretion to support those activities that make the most sense for their respective communities. This long- overdue consolidation would lower substantially the costs of both administration and compliance, 4

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase and ensure that a greater proportion of the funds provides support for students and their families. The K-12 Simplified Funding Program consolidates 18 competitive and formula grant programs into a new $2 billion formula grant designed to reduce ED’s influence on schools and students and reduce bureaucracy. At the same time, the Budget delivers on the President’s promise by preserving full funding for Title I, the supplemental Federal financial assistance to school districts for children from low-income families. This new, simplified funding structure requires fewer Federal staff and empowers States and districts to make spending decisions based on their needs, consistent with the recent reduction in workforce and Executive Orders. The new approach allows States and districts to focus on the core subjects—math, reading, science, and history—without the distractions of DEI and weaponization from the previous administration.

Special Education Simplified Funding
Program --
The Budget delivers on the President’s promise to preserve special education funding, while simplifying the workload to reduce the Federal footprint. The Special Education Simplified Funding Program consolidates seven Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs to provide States and school districts greater flexibility to support students with special education needs, maintaining funding at the 2025 level. The consolidation furthers the Administration’s goal of limiting the Federal role in education by reducing the number of programs at ED, the number of staff needed to administer them, and the administrative burden on States so more dollars go to students instead of bureaucrats. Parents of students with disabilities would remain empowered to direct these funds because the Federal IDEA law would remain in place; maintaining a base set of Federal funds means they can also be withdrawn from States and districts who flout parental rights.

TRIO programs and Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)
-1,579
TRIO and GEAR UP are a relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) to engage with low-income students and increase access.

The lack of action by IHEs also meant that States and local school districts needed additional support to prepare low-income students for college. Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means. IHEs should be using their own resources to engage with K-12 schools in their communities to recruit students, and then once those students are on campus, aid in their success through to graduation. A renewed focus on academics and scholastic accomplishment by IHEs, rather than engaging in woke ideology with Federal taxpayer subsidies, would be a welcome change for students and the future of the Nation. 5

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Federal Work-Study (FWS) -980
The Budget returns FWS to the States and IHEs that financially benefit from it—consistent with the Administration’s efforts to move decisions closer to students and reduce the Federal footprint. In its current form, FWS is a handout to woke universities and a subsidy from Federal taxpayers, who can pay for their own employees. Reform of this poorly targeted program should redistribute remaining funding to institutions that serve the most low-income students and provide a wage subsidy to gain career-oriented opportunities to improve long-term employment outcomes of students.

Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants (SEOG) -910
SEOG contributes to rising college costs that IHEs have used to fund radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success. It is duplicative of, and less targeted than, Pell Grants. For example, undergraduate students with higher family incomes receive a larger award on average than similarly situated undergraduates with the lowest family income level ($1,019 compared to $891). In addition, nearly 40 percent of SEOG aid is awarded through private institutions who have their own agendas and fewer low-income students, compared to the only 19 percent awarded through public, two-year colleges, which serve the highest proportion of low-income students. This program is ineffective, poorly targeted, and inconsistent with the Administration’s priorities.

English Language Acquisition -890
To end overreach from Washington and restore the rightful role of State oversight in education, the Budget proposes to eliminate the misnamed English Language Acquisition program which actually deemphasizes English primacy by funding NGOs and States to encourage bilingualism. The historically low reading scores for all students mean States and communities need to unite—not divide—classrooms using evidence-based literacy instruction materials to improve outcomes for all students.

Adult Education -729
K-12 outcomes will improve as education returns to the States, which would make remedial education for adults less necessary. The Budget redirects resources to programs that more directly prepare students for meaningful careers. This reallocation would also better support the innovative, workforce-aligned, apprenticeship-focused activities the Department seeks to promote through strategic investments in the current fiscal year. Further, this program has dismal results—in the most recent reported year, only 43 percent of participants had any measurable skills gains.

Migrant Education and Special
Programs for Migrant Students -428
The Budget eliminates programs that work to the detriment of children’s academic success by encouraging movement from, rather than stability and consistency in, a single location. These programs have not been proven effective, are extremely costly, and encourage ineligible non-citizens to access U.S. IHEs, stripping resources from American students.

ED Program Administration -127
As the Department winds down its operations and reduces its workforce, the Budget provides $293 million for program administration, a reduction of $127 million, or 30 percent. Although this 6

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase amount does reflect the considerably reduced need for staff, costs remain. Program Administration funding is needed for: personnel compensation and benefits for staff retained; fixed and variable costs in non-personnel categories; and costs from deferred resignations, voluntary retirements, and reductions in force.

Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Ed (FIPSE) and
Graduate Assistance in Areas of
National Need
-195
IHEs and States—not the Federal Government—should be responsible for funding institutional reforms and innovative programs. These additional resources have allowed colleges and universities to fund ideologies instead of students, while still raising tuition costs. The Congress has also abused FIPSE by using it to fund initiatives unrelated to students or institutional reforms, including earmarking $1.2 million for San Diego Community College’s LGBTQIA+ PRIDE Center staffing.

Strengthening Institutions -112
Again, IHEs with their States and local communities—not the Federal Government—should be responsible for fiscal health of an institution and promoting student success. These funds have been used to promote DEI, inconsistent with the Administration’s priorities and Executive Orders. It is not the responsibility of Federal taxpayers to support a new “Guided Pathways Village, expanding the current Learning Communities and creating a new Ethnic and Pride Inclusion Center for historically underserved students, including LGBTQ+ students.”
The Budget proposes to end Federal taxpayer dollars being weaponized to indoctrinate new teachers.

Institutional and nonprofit grantees have used these taxpayer funds to train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies. Training materials included inappropriate and unnecessary topics such as: Critical Race Theory; DEI; social justice activism; “anti-racism”; and instruction on white privilege and white supremacy. In addition, many of these grants included teacher and staff recruiting strategies implicitly and explicitly based on race.

Teacher Quality Partnerships -70 Examples from the grant applications included:
 requiring practitioners to take personal and institutional responsibility for systemic inequities (e.g., racism) and critically reassess their own practices;  receiving professional development workshops and equity training on topics such as “Building Cultural Competence,” “Dismantling Racial Bias,” and “Centering Equity in the Classroom”;
 acknowledging and responding to systemic forms of oppression and inequity, including racism, ableism, “gender-based” discrimination, homophobia, and ageism; 7

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase  building historical and sociopolitical understandings of race and racism to interrupt racial marginalization and oppression of students in planning instruction relationship building discipline and assessment;
 providing “targeted practices in culturally relevant and responsive teaching abolitionist pedagogies and issues of diversity in classroom management;” and  providing spaces for critical reflection to help educators confront biases and have transformative conversations about equity.

Eliminating this program would allow States and districts to have more control of teacher preparation, recruitment, and retention based on their local context.

Training and Advisory Services—
Equity Assistance Centers -7
The Budget eliminates Equity Assistance Centers that have indoctrinated children. Funds have been weaponized to force local districts to implement Washington-directed DEI practices against their will. Consistent with the Administration’s priority to return control of education to States and districts, ending this program would restore rightful merit-based practices at school and ensure districts do not have to implement weaponized, woke policies. The program is also ineffective and has continuously failed to meet most performance measures.

Child Care Access Means Parents in
School (CCAMPIS) -75
The Budget proposes to eliminate CCAMPIS because subsidizing child care for parents in college is unaffordable and duplicative. Funding can instead be secured through the Child Care Development Block Grant. Further, IHEs could offer to accommodate this need among their student population, and many do.

Howard University -64
The Budget reduces funding for Howard University to the 2021 Budget level to more sustainably support the Nation’s only federally-chartered Historically Black College and University (HBCU). The 2025 enacted amount included the conclusion of a one-time $300 million, multiyear Federal commitment to the construction of their new hospital. 8

$ Change
from 2025 Program Name Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Office for Civil Rights (OCR) -49
To refocus away from DEI and Title IX transgender cases, the Budget provides OCR with $91 million, a reduction of $49 million, or 35 percent, compared to the 2024 enacted level. After clearing through a massive backlog in 2025, this rightsizing is consistent with the reduction across the Department and an overall smaller Federal role in K-12 and postsecondary education. At this funding level, OCR would continue to ensure that schools and other institutions that receive Federal financial assistance for education programs and activities comply with Federal civil rights laws and Presidential Executive Orders while removing their ability to push DEI programs and promote radical transgender ideology.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Increases
Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) +500
Building on the work of the President’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission and Executive Order 14212, “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,” the Budget provides $500 million for the MAHA initiative, which would allow the Secretary to tackle nutrition, physical activity, healthy lifestyles, over-reliance on medication and treatments, the effects of new technological habits, environmental impacts, and food and drug quality and safety across HHS.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
LIHEAP -4,025
This Administration is committed to lowering energy costs for American families by unleashing energy production. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is unnecessary because States have policies preventing utility disconnection for low-income households, effectively making LIHEAP a pass-through benefitting utilities in the Northeast. Further, LIHEAP rewards States like New York and California, two of the top recipients for LIHEAP funding, which have implemented anti-consumer policies that drive up home energy prices. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised significant program integrity concerns related to fraud and abuse in LIHEAP. In 2010, GAO investigators audited seven States and found names of 11,000 dead people and hundreds of prisoners used as applicants for funds. More than 1,000 Federal employees whose Federal salary exceeded maximum income threshold received benefits and, in several cases, people living in million-dollar houses received benefits. The Budget proposes to end this program and to instead support low-income individuals through energy dominance, lower prices, and an America First economic platform.
9

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien
Children Programs (UAC) -1,970
Refugee arrivals have dropped significantly under Executive Order 14163, “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program,” and those who do arrive should not expect American taxpayers to support them. Further, these funds were weaponized by the Biden-Harris Administration to give cash handouts, medical services, and job training to illegal immigrants. The Budget proposes eliminating these programs. The Budget also re-focuses the UAC program on its core mission of sheltering unaccompanied alien children while also protecting them from child trafficking and labor exploitation. As the New York Times exposed, the Biden-Harris Administration operated this program like an assembly line, prioritizing the quick release of children to insufficiently vetted sponsors over the children’s safety. An employee at an HHS Services Office testified in 2024 about human trafficking at the southern border. She was horrified to discover that “children were being trafficked with billions of taxpayer dollars by a contractor failing to vet sponsors and process children safely, with government officials complicit in it.”
Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) -770
The Budget proposes to eliminate dollars that flow to Community Action Agencies who carry out their own agendas. These grants are laden with equity-building and green energy initiatives, such as the California Community Action Partnership, that focus its efforts on bringing “DEI to the forefront,” by “offering focus groups, extensive training opportunities, and engaging in fruitful partnerships,” on “how we could transform the systems and structures that hold these inequities in place, looking at policies and resource flows, power dynamics and really mental models that we need to shift in order to change the system.” According to HHS, a Community Action Agency in Wisconsin used “CSBG funds to combine clean energy with affordable housing in the pursuit of both economic and environmental justice.” Americans in need of job-training and a helping hand would be better served by programs funded at the Departments of Labor and Agriculture. According to GAO’s 2019 study of the program, HHS “cannot assure the Congress and the American public that the funding is meeting its intended purpose to reduce the causes of poverty.” Preschool Development Grants (PDG) -315
Consistent with the Administration’s priority to return education to the States, which are best equipped to fund and tailor education programs to the needs of their residents, the Budget eliminates PDG. PDG literally does not fund any preschool for children and their families. It funds “capacity building and strategic initiatives.” These unproductive funds have been weaponized by the Biden- Harris Administration to extend the Federal reach and push DEI policies on to toddlers. As an example, the Minnesota Department of Education’s “guiding principles,” for implementation of its PDG program include “intersectionality” and “racial equity.” 10

Program Name
Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) Consolidations
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
-1,732
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase The Budget consolidates a variety of programs that were formerly part of HRSA, including the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program activities that do not focus on core healthcare and support services directly to patients, such as: education and training (-$74 million); multiple Maternal and Child Health programs (-$274 million), which are duplicative of other Federal programs or could be addressed through block grant funding; multiple Health Workforce Programs (-$1 billion) which provide scholarships and support for individuals to enter high-paying medical careers; and family planning programs (-$286 million), which use taxpayers funds to nonprofits that are not aligned with several Administration policies. The Budget maintains $6 billion for priority activities that were formerly part of HRSA.

Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) Programs -3,588
The Budget refocuses CDC’s mission on core activities such as emerging and infectious disease surveillance, outbreak investigations, and maintaining the Nation’s public health infrastructure, while streamlining programs and eliminating waste. The Budget proposes merging multiple programs into one grant program and giving States more flexibility to address local needs. Specifically, the Budget proposes consolidating funding for Infectious Disease and Opioids, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and Tuberculosis programs into one grant program funded at $300 million.

The Budget eliminates duplicative, DEI, or simply unnecessary programs, including: the National Center for Chronic Diseases Prevention and Health Promotion; National Center for Environmental Health; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; the Global Health Center; Public Health Preparedness and Response, which can be conducted more effectively by States; and the Preventive Health and Human Services Block Grant, the purposes for which can be best funded by States. The Budget refocuses CDC on emerging and infectious disease surveillance, outbreak investigations, preparedness and response, and maintaining the Nation’s public health infrastructure. The Budget maintains more than $4 billion for CDC.
11

Program Name
National Institute of Health (NIH)
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
-17,965
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase The Administration is committed to restoring accountability, public trust, and transparency at the NIH. NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.

While evidence of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic leaking from a laboratory is now confirmed by several intelligence agencies, the NIH’s inability to prove that its grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology were not complicit in such a possible leak, or get data and hold recipients of Federal funding accountable is evidence that NIH has grown too big and unfocused. Further, the NIH has been involved in dangerous gain-of-function research and failed to adequately address it, which further undermines public confidence in NIH. The NIH has also promoted radical gender ideology to the detriment of America’s youth. For example, the NIH funded a study titled “Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones,” in which two participants tragically committed suicide. The Budget proposes to reform NIH and focus NIH research activities in line with the President’s commitment to MAHA, including consolidating multiple overlapping and ill-focused programs into five new focus areas with associated spending reforms: the National Institute on Body Systems Research; National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research; National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Institute of Disability Related Research; and National Institute on Behavioral Health. The Budget also eliminates funding for the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities (-$534 million), which is replete with DEI expenditures, the Fogarty International Center (-$95 million), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (-$170 million), and the National Institute of Nursing Research (-$198 million). NIH research would align with the President’s priorities to address chronic disease and other epidemics, implementing all executive orders, and eliminating research on climate change, radical gender ideology, and divisive racialism. This new structure retains the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health. The Budget maintains $27 billion for NIH research.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Eliminations
-1,065
This Administration is committed to combatting the scourge of deadly drugs that have ravaged American communities. Unfortunately, under the previous administration, SAMHSA grants were used to fund dangerous activities billed as “harm reduction,” which included funding “safe smoking kits and supplies” and “syringes” for drug users. The Budget proposes to refocus activities that were formerly part of SAMHSA and reduces waste by eliminating inefficient funding for the Mental Health Programs of Regional and National Significance, Substance Use Prevention Programs of Regional and National Significance, and the Substance Use Treatment Programs of Regional and National Significance. These programs either duplicate other Federal spending or are too small to have a national impact. These eliminations also promote federalism as these services are also 12

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase supported by mental health and substance use disorder block grant funding. The Budget maintains $5.7 billion for activities that were formerly part of SAMHSA.

Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ) -129
AHRQ is supposed to support research to examine the quality, safety, and affordability of healthcare delivery from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinical professionals. However, much of its research is wasteful or duplicative of research conducted elsewhere in the Department, such as NIH. The Budget eliminates funding for duplicative and wasteful grants and contracts, including those not aligned with the Administration’s priorities. The previous administration used AHRQ to publish information wholly unrelated to MAHA, including a document titled, “Reducing Healthcare Carbon Emissions: A Primer on Measures and Actions to Mitigate Climate Change.” AHRQ has also pushed radical gender ideology onto children, funding a project at the Seattle Children’s Hospital titled, “Using Telehealth to Improve Access to Gender-Affirming Care for BIPOC and Rural Gender-Diverse Youth.” The Budget increases accountability by prioritizing AHRQ’s statistical work, eliminates the digital health portfolio, ends new grants, and offloads contracts and interagency agreements not associated with statistical activities. In the Budget, consistent with the recent announcement of HHS reorganization, AHRQ’s functions are now a part of the new HHS Office of Strategy.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) Program Management -674
This cut will have no impact on providing benefits to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. The Budget eliminates funding that had been used to carry out non-statutory, wasteful, and woke activities while maintaining funding for core Medicare and Medicaid operations, such as ending unnecessary DEI and support contracts. It eliminates health equity-focused activities and Inflation Reduction Act-related outreach and education activities.

Administration for Strategic
Preparedness and Response (ASPR)
Hospital Preparedness Program
-240
The Budget eliminates funding for ASPR’s Hospital Preparedness Program, which has been wasteful and unfocused. This proposal remedies those flaws by allowing States and Territories to properly scope and fund hospital preparedness.
13

$ Change
from 2025 Program Name Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Administration for a Healthy
America— Sexual Risk Avoidance
Program and Teen Pregnancy -180 Prevention Program, HHS Office on Women’s Health,
HHS Office of Minority Health
The Budget eliminates the Sexual Risk Avoidance Program, which serves less than one percent of youth nationwide, and is duplicative of the mandatory Sexual Risk Avoidance Education program administered by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The Budget also eliminates the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program which is similar to the mandatory Personal Responsibility Education program administered by ACF. The Budget also reduces funding levels for the HHS Office of Minority Health and Office on Women’s Health to promote efficiency and invest in areas that align with Administration priorities. These programs were previously under the Office of Assistant Secretary of Health. Consistent with the recently announced HHS reorganization, the Budget relocates these programs within the newly formed Administration for Healthy America.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Increases
Drinking Water Programs +9
The Budget provides $124 million in funding for the critical drinking water mission at EPA, protecting Americans, and especially children, from unsafe or contaminated water. The $9 million increase from the 2025 enacted level is to properly equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking water disasters, directly helping people on the ground recover from such emergencies.

Indian Reservation Drinking Water +27 Program
The Budget increases funding for Tribes to retain access to critical funding for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on their lands, with a total level of $31 million for the grant program.

While the Budget rightfully returns responsibility for State infrastructure to the States, it also prioritizes funding for Tribes to be able to maintain their water infrastructure.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Clean and Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Funds -2,460
EPA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) was designed decades ago to give money to States via formula allocation for seed money to set up their own water infrastructure loan programs without continued annual appropriations. When it comes to water infrastructure, the States should be responsible for funding their own water infrastructure projects. Contrary to that design, in practice, the program has been heavily earmarked by the Congress for projects that are ultimately not repaid into the program and bypass States’ interest and planning. In addition, the SRFs are largely duplicative of the EPA’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program and the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Water and Wastewater Loan and Grant program, and they received a massive investment in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The Budget proposes to return the SRFs to their intended structure of funds revolving at the State level, and therefore provides the 14

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase decreased funding level of $305 million total to allow States to adjust to alternative funding sources for their water infrastructure.

Categorical Grants -1,006
EPA’s Categorical Grant programs have become a crutch for States at the expense of taxpayers— many of whom receive no benefit from these grants. With a majority of these statutes having been on the books for several decades, States and local governments should be capable and empowered to fund their own programs in order to comply with the law. As such, the Budget includes the elimination of 16 categorical grants, and maintains funding at 2025 enacted levels for Tribes. These reductions promote federalism by allowing States to achieve primary enforcement authority for these programs, while also encouraging States to innovate and find more efficient ways to meet their responsibilities under delegated authority.

Hazardous Substance Superfund -254
EPA’s Superfund program is charged with cleaning up contaminated areas and responding to emergencies, such as oil spills and natural disasters. The Congress imposed large taxes in IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act to help finance the Superfund program. Between these $1.6 billion in taxes estimated to be available in 2026 and litigation recoveries from responsible parties, there is no need for additional funding for Superfund cleanup, which is reflected in the Budget.

Office of Research and Development -235
The President is committed to Making America Healthy Again. This framework includes ensuring that the American people have clean air and water, and is making investments that benefit human health. The Budget puts an end to unrestrained research grants, radical environmental justice work, woke climate research, and skewed, overly-precautionary modeling that influences regulations— none of which are authorized by law. Instead, the Budget provides $281 million for statutorily required research in support of core mission areas that help the American people.

Environmental Justice -100
EPA’s environmental justice program is eliminated in line with the vision the President set forth in Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit- Based Opportunity,” terminating radical preferencing and restoring and protecting civil rights for all Americans. This elimination would put an end to taxpayer funded programs that promote divisive racial discrimination and environmental justice grants that were destined to go to organizations that advance radical ideologies.

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
(DERA) Grants -90 DERA grants distort the market by subsidizing select technologies, picking winners and subverting consumer choice. This program is a waste for taxpayers and should be eliminated. 15

$ Change
from 2025 Program Name Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Atmospheric Protection Program -100
The Atmospheric Protection Program is an overreach of Government authority that imposes unnecessary and radical climate change regulations on businesses and stifles economic growth. By prioritizing climate change over job creation and energy independence, the program has burdened American industries with costly mandates, ultimately hurting consumers and taxpayers. This program is eliminated in the 2026 Budget.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Increases
DHS +43,800
Amounts for DHS in the 2026 Budget complement amounts that the Administration has requested as part of the reconciliation bill currently under consideration in the Congress. Reconciliation would allocate more than $175 billion in additional multiyear budget authority to implement the Administration’s priorities in the homeland security space of which at least an estimated $43.8 billion would be allocated in 2026. Reconciliation funding in 2026 would enable DHS to fully implement the President’s mass removal campaign, finish construction of the border wall on the Southwest border, procure advanced border security technology, modernize the fleet and facilities of the Coast Guard, and enhance Secret Service protective operations. Reconciliation would also provide funding to bolster State and local capacity to enhance security around key events and facilities, and prepare for upcoming special events like the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics. 16

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Non-Disaster Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Grant
Programs
-646
The Budget reduces wasteful and woke FEMA grant programs, refocusing the agency on sound emergency management. FEMA under the previous administration made “equity” a top priority for emergency relief and declared that DEI was mandatory. The Budget would end activities such as webinars promoting the distribution of disaster aid based on “intersectional” factors like sexual orientation and prioritizing “investment in diversity and inclusion efforts...and multicultural training” over disaster prevention and response. FEMA will no longer “instill equity as a foundation of emergency management.” FEMA discriminated against Americans who voted for the President in the wake of recent hurricanes, skipping over their homes when providing aid. This activity will no longer be tolerated. Programs like “Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention” were weaponized to target Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. Other eliminated programs, such as National Domestic Preparedness Consortium lack authorization from the Congress and duplicate the efforts of existing Federal and State programs. FEMA’s Preparedness Grants Portfolio, as well as State-level programs, are better suited to dealing with this range of issues. The Budget reduces bloat and waste while encouraging States and communities to build resilience and use their unique local knowledge and ample resources in disaster response.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA) -491
The Budget refocuses CISA on its core mission—Federal network defense and enhancing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure—while eliminating weaponization and waste. The Budget also removes offices that are duplicative of existing and effective programs at the State and Federal level. The Budget eliminates programs focused on so-called misinformation and propaganda as well as external engagement offices such as international affairs. These programs and offices were used as a hub in the Censorship Industrial Complex to violate the First Amendment, target Americans for protected speech, and target the President. CISA was more focused on censorship than on protecting the Nation’s critical systems, and put them at risk due to poor management and inefficiency, as well as a focus on self-promotion.

Shelter and Services Program -650
The Budget proposes eliminating the Shelter and Services Program, which disburses grants used to facilitate mass illegal migration. This program and its predecessor, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program—Humanitarian, funded radical leftist NGOs, who spent funding to facilitate mass illegal migration into the interior of the Nation, as America saw during the previous administration.

Democrat-run cities and States use these grants to undermine the rule of law by transporting and sheltering illegal migrants, weakening the United States from within, taking resources away from American citizens, and promoting crime and decay in America’s cities. The funds explicitly serve “noncitizen migrants” released from DHS custody.
17

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) Screening -247
The Budget reduces Transportation Security Officer levels, consistent with the President’s goal to reduce wasteful Government spending and abuse of Government programs. Despite constant budget increases since their inception, TSA has consistently failed audits while implementing intrusive screening measures that violate Americans’ privacy and dignity. During the previous administration, the agency was also abused to facilitate mass illegal migration by allowing illegal migrants to fly into the interior without proper documentation.

Department of Justice (DOJ)
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Reduce Duplicative and Unnecessary
State and Local Grant Programs -1,019
While preserving and bolstering effective public safety programs, the Budget proposes to eliminate nearly 40 DOJ grant programs that are duplicative, not aligned with the President’s priorities, fail to reduce violent crime, or are weaponized against the American people. Specifically, the Budget eliminates programs that manipulate the legal system on ideological grounds, such as Community Based Approaches to Advancing Justice, as well as programs that focus on so-called hate crimes in clear violation of the First Amendment. Further, the Budget shuts off the spigot that awards taxpayer-backed grants to radical organizations like the National Center for Restorative Justice, which encourages no cash bail and other extreme proposals that put U.S. communities in harm’s way.

This also includes elimination of grants that provided $6 million to an organization that focuses on “equity and liberation resources for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, and White Allies,” $2 million to a Puerto Rican nonprofit that focuses on addressing “structural racism and toxic masculinities,” $1.5 million to the radical Vera Institute for Justice, and $1 million to the National Opinion Research Center to “investigate the social ecological context of anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime reporting.” Further, the Budget realigns Violence Against Women Act funding with its original core mission to combat violence against women and directly serve victims—eliminating extraneous programs that divert resources from these core functions. For example, grant funding from the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) had been offered for biological men. In addition, OVW’s Rural Program grants were sent to train community-based Fa’afafine advocates—an organization of biological men that describes themselves as a “third-gender.” 18

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Reform and Streamline the FBI -545
The Budget reflects the President’s priority of reducing violent crime in American cities and protecting national security by getting FBI agents into the field by cutting FBI D.C. overhead and preserving existing law enforcement officers. Importantly, the Administration is committed to undoing the weaponization of the FBI that pervaded the previous administration, which included targeting peaceful pro-life protesters, concerned parents at school board meetings, and citizens opposed to radical transgender ideology. Therefore, the Budget reflects a new focus on counterintelligence and counterterrorism, while reducing non-law enforcement missions that do not align with the President’s priorities. Examples of these reductions include DEI programs, pet projects of the former administration, and duplicative intelligence activities that are already effectively housed in other agencies.

DEA International Capacity in Non-
Focus, Wealthy Countries -212
The Administration is committed to putting an end to deadly drug trafficking, which starts with secure borders and a commitment to law and order. That is why the Budget prioritizes DEA resources on traffickers of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs that are driving America’s overdose crisis. Further, the Budget targets DEA’s foreign spending to regions with criminal organizations that traffic significant quantities of deadly drugs into the United States—Mexico, Central America, South America, and China—while reducing the Agency’s presence in places that are equipped to counter drug trafficking on their own, such as Belgium, England, France, Austria, and Poland.

Refocus ATF Enforcement and
Regulatory Priorities -468
The Budget bolsters the Second Amendment by cutting funding for ATF offices that have criminalized law-abiding gun ownership through regulatory fiat. The previous administration used the ATF to attack gun-owning Americans and undermine the Second Amendment by requiring near- universal background checks; subjecting otherwise lawful gun owners to up to 10 years in prison for failing to register pistol braces that make it possible for disabled veterans to use firearms; the imposition of excessive restrictions on homemade firearms; and the revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses, which shut down small businesses across the Nation. The Budget re-prioritizes resources toward illegal firearms traffickers fueling violent crime and crime gun tracing that State and local law enforcement need to track down dangerous criminals, such as MS-13 gang members. 19

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase General Legal Activities -193
The Budget reflects the President’s priorities by focusing funding for General Legal Activities on funding for the Civil Division ($441 million), and due to its focus on immigration litigation, the Criminal Division ($220 million). However, the Budget reduces funding for the Civil Rights Division, which the previous administration weaponized against States implementing election integrity measures, local police departments, and pro-life Americans. Further, it reduces funding for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, which served as the legal arm of the previous administration’s radical environmental and climate agenda, and developed DOJ’s discriminatory “environmental justice strategy.”
Department of Defense (DOD)
DOD Topline +113,300
The Budget delivers on the President’s promise to achieve peace through strength by providing the resources to rebuild America’s military, re-establish deterrence, and revive the warrior ethos of America’s Armed Forces. In combination with $113 billion in mandatory funding, the Budget increases Defense spending by 13 percent, and prioritizes investments to: strengthen the safety, security, and sovereignty of the homeland; deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific; and revitalize the U.S. defense industrial base. Specifically, the Budget:
 ends wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on woke climate and DEI programs and redirects resources to support the warfighter;
 makes a down-payment on the development and deployment of a Golden Dome for America, a next-generation missile defense shield that would protect the U.S. from missile threats coming from any adversary;
 expands U.S. shipbuilding capacity by investing in America’s shipyards and industrial base, increasing wages, and modernizing infrastructure;
 supports U.S. space dominance to strengthen U.S. national security and strategic advantage;  funds the F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance platform, the world’s first crewed sixth- generation fighter aircraft and the most advanced, capable, and lethal aircraft ever built;  protects America’s homeland from threats at the border and the ongoing invasion of the U.S.;
 modernizes the Nation’s nuclear deterrent; and
 recognizes America’s servicemembers’ sacrifice to the Nation with a 3.8 percent pay raise. 20

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Department of Energy
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
IIJA Cancellation -15,247
The Budget cancels over $15 billion in Green New Scam funds committed to build unreliable renewable energy, removing carbon dioxide from the air, and other costly technologies burdensome to ratepayers and consumers. The Budget also ends taxpayer handouts to electric vehicle and battery makers and cancels the Carbon Dioxide Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act—a Biden Administration program of so little interest that not a single dollar has been awarded to date.

This amount consists of unplanned and unobligated balances, meaning the cancellation would not impact any currently awarded projects.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) -2,572
The Budget reorients EERE programs to early-stage research and development programming, eliminating funding for Green New Scam interests and climate change-related activities like the Biden Administration’s Justice40. EERE has also been responsible for a slew of unpopular regulations, harmful to Americans in their day-to-day lives, such as banning gas stoves and incandescent light bulbs. This proposal would support technologies that promote firm baseload power and other priorities established in relevant Executive Orders, such as bioenergy.

Office of Science -1,148
The Budget reduces funding for climate change and Green New Scam research. The Budget maintains U.S. competitiveness in priority areas such as high-performance computing, artificial intelligence, quantum information science, fusion, and critical minerals.

Environmental Management (EM) -389
The EM program performs activities at 14 active cleanup sites and operates a geologic disposal facility (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico). The EM topline is being reduced by $389 million, which reflects a reduction of about $178 million for the transfer of responsibility from the EM program to the National Nuclear Security Administration for the Savannah River site in South Carolina, where plutonium pit production capabilities would be developed. The Budget maintains the Hanford site in Washington at the 2025 enacted level but reduces funding for various cleanup activities at other sites.
21

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Advanced Research Project Agency‒
Energy (ARPA-E) -260
The Budget reduces funding for ARPA-E, to a fiscally responsible level for high risk, high reward research advancing reliable energy technologies and other critical and emerging technologies. Green New Scam technologies are not supported. Examples of previous ARPA-E projects include $4 million for a “wearable thermal regulatory” system to regulate body temperatures to reduce use of air conditioning units and heaters, and $2 million for virtual reality experiences to eliminate the need for travel on the claim that every roundtrip trans-Atlantic flight emits enough carbon dioxide to melt 30 square feet of Arctic ice. ARPA-E also spent more than $55 million on “Plants Engineered to Replace Oil,” a program to eliminate the use of food crops in the production of transportation fuels.

Office of Nuclear Energy -408
The Budget reduces funding for non-essential research on nuclear energy to focus on what is truly needed to achieve national dominance in nuclear technology. This includes developing innovative concepts for nuclear reactors, researching advanced nuclear fuels, and maintaining the capabilities of the Idaho National Laboratory.

Office of Fossil Energy -270
The Budget restores the name and function of the Office of Fossil Energy to its original purpose, which is funding for the research of technologies that could produce an abundance of domestic fossil energy and critical minerals.

Department of Transportation
Increases
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Operations +359
The Budget reflects the Administration’s commitment to safe and efficient air travel by providing robust funding for FAA operations, requesting an increased amount of $13.8 billion. This funding level would support the Administration’s air traffic controller hiring surge and salary increases, which are critical to addressing the air traffic controller shortage, as well as FAA’s ongoing updates to its outdated telecommunications systems.

FAA Facility and Radar Upgrades +824
The Budget delivers an historic $5 billion investment in the modernization of the systems and facilities that comprise U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). In addition to a previously-provided $1 billion advance appropriation, the Budget requests an additional $4 billion for NAS upgrades including a $450 million down-payment on a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar radar replacement program. A substantial amount will also be requested as mandatory funding through reconciliation. 22

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Infrastructure for Rebuilding America
Program (INFRA) +770
The Budget provides $770 million, on top of the $1.5 billion in provided by IIJA, for the INFRA grants program, which uses rigorous benefit-cost analysis to assist nationally-significant highway, port, and freight rail projects on a competitive basis. This funding level would make America an even better place to do business, promoting innovation and supporting the President’s Made in America economy.

Rail Safety and Infrastructure Grants +400
The Administration is committed to improving the safety, efficiency, and reliability of passenger and freight rail network. The tragic disaster in East Palestine, Ohio, which the previous administration failed to adequately respond to, illustrated the need for a significant investment in this sector.

Therefore, the Budget provides $500 million for Rail Safety and Infrastructure grants, a 400-percent increase over 2025 levels, to improve the safety of America’s railways and to protect their neighboring communities.

Shipbuilding and Port Infrastructure +596
The Administration recognizes the urgent need to reinvigorate the U.S. shipbuilding and maritime industries, which are vital to growing the role of the United States in a global Maritime Transportation System that manages over $5.4 trillion in goods and services annually. This system is indispensable for U.S. national and economic security, facilitating robust trade and the seamless movement of goods across domestic and international markets. That is why the Budget provides an unprecedented $105 million for the Assistance to Small Shipyards program to jumpstart America’s domestic shipbuilding supply chain from the bottom up. Also unprecedented, the Budget delivers $550 million for the Port Infrastructure Development Program which, when combined with the previously-provided $450 million advance appropriation, would drive $1 billion in maritime infrastructure projects at ports coast to coast.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Essential Air Service (EAS)
Discretionary Funding -308
The EAS program funnels taxpayer dollars to airlines to subsidize half-empty flights from airports that are within easy commuting distance from each other, while also failing to effectively provide assistance to most rural air travelers. Spending on programs is out of control, more than doubling between 2021 and 2025. The Budget reins in EAS subsidies by proposing a mix of reforms to adjust eligibility and subsidy rates to help rural communities’ air transportation needs in a more sustainable manner. This would save American taxpayers over $300 million from the 2025 level. 23

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Department of Commerce
Increases
Fair Trade and Trade Enforcement +134
The Budget includes $134 million in targeted investments to strengthen trade enforcement and aggressively protect American innovation. This includes an additional $122 million for the Bureau of Industry and Security, a more than 50-percent increase, to protect the Nation’s technological competitiveness and counter threats from China. These new funds would also address unfair and unbalanced trade through increased antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, and build the analytical tools necessary to address supply chain and sourcing risks and revive the industrial and manufacturing base essential for America’s economic and national security.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Economic Development Administration
(EDA) and Minority Business
Development Agency (MBDA)
-624
EDA programs are not simply wasteful, they have been hijacked and operate as spending earmarks for politicians’ favored projects as well as subsidies for idealogues who prioritize “racial equity” and the radicalized climate agenda. EDA has funded projects like resurrecting dead comedians as holograms at the National Comedy Center in New York, constructing a “Pride Plaza” in Portland, Oregon, and supporting Evergreen Climate Innovations, a “decarbonizing” group in Chicago. As part of the President’s federalism agenda, eliminating EDA would drive economic decision-making out of Washington and to States and localities. The Economic Development Assistance Program had significant funding increases in the last administration that have not been spent. The Budget proposes to rescind these unobligated balances, enhancing accountability and reducing waste.

MBDA violates the Civil Rights Act and maintains a lengthy history of inserting “equity” and other DEI practices into its programs. In fact, last year, a U.S. District Court found MBDA’s “social disadvantage based on race or ethnicity” in its funding decisions to be unconstitutional.

Discriminatory DEI practices are the core mission of MBDA, and the agency is fully eliminated.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)—Operations,
Research, and Grants
-1,311
The Budget terminates a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs, which are not aligned with Administration policy-ending “Green New Deal” initiatives. For example, NOAA’s educational grant programs have consistently funded efforts to radicalize students against markets and spread environmental alarm. NOAA has funded such organizations as the Ocean Conservancy and One Cool Earth that have pushed agendas harmful to America’s fishing industries. These NOAA grants were funding things such as: George Mason University’s “Policy Experience in Equity Climate and Health” fellowship, a workshop for “transgender women, and those who identify as non- binary,” and NOAA Climate Adaptation Partnerships, which funded webinars that promoted a children’s book “designed to foster conversations about climate anxiety” as therapy. 24

$ Change
from 2025 Program Name Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Enacted (in millions)
The Budget rescopes NOAA’s Geostationary and Extended Observations satellite program to achieve nearly $8 billion in lifecycle cost savings, and cancels contracts for instruments designed primarily NOAA—Procurement of Weather for unnecessary climate measurements rather than weather observations. The Budget empowers -209 Satellites and Infrastructure NOAA to directly negotiate contracts for satellites, eliminating unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and promoting innovation, while continuing to modernize core weather-monitoring capabilities and maintaining first launch in 2032.

National Institute of Standards and NIST has long funded awards for the development of curricula that advance a radical climate agenda. -325 Technology (NIST) NIST’s Circular Economy Program pushes environmental alarmism with its university grants.

To advance the America First Trade Policy, the Budget refocuses ITA’s footprint to align with key geostrategic interests, including: countering China’s malign and predatory market influence in International Trade Administration -145 developing nations; securing access to critical energy and mineral resources; building affordable, (ITA)—Global Markets resilient, and sustainable supply chains; and facilitating and accelerating investments that create American jobs.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
State Rental Assistance Block Grant
(Tenant-Based Rental Assistance,
Public Housing, Project-Based Rental
Assistance, Housing for the Elderly,
and Housing for Persons with
Disabilities)
-26,718
The Budget empowers States by transforming the current Federal dysfunctional rental assistance programs into a State-based formula grant which would allow States to design their own rental assistance programs based on their unique needs and preferences. The Budget would also newly institute a two-year cap on rental assistance for able bodied adults, and would ensure a majority of rental assistance funding through States would go to the elderly and disabled. A State-based formula program would also lead to significant terminations of Federal regulations. In combination with efforts related to opening up Federal lands, this model would incentivize States and the private sector to provide affordable housing. This proposal would encourage States to provide funding to share in the responsibility to ensure that similar levels of recipients can benefit from the block grant.

The Budget includes $25 million in housing grants for youth aging out of foster care. 25

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) -3,300
The Budget proposes to eliminate the CDBG program, which provides formula grants to over 1,200 State and local governments for a wide range of community and economic development activities.

CDBG is poorly targeted, and the program has been used for a variety of projects that the Federal Government should not be funding, such as improvement projects at a brewery, a plaza for concerts, and skateboard parks. This type of a program is better funded and administered at the State and local level. For example, the Town of Greenwich in Connecticut’s famously affluent “Gold Coast” does not need Federal grants, yet it received nearly $4 million in CDBG funding in the last five years and spent it on wasteful projects like theater arts programming for students and public swimming pool renovations.

HOME Investment Partnerships
Program -1,250
The Budget eliminates HOME, a formula grant that provides State and local governments with funding to expand the supply of housing. The Federal Government’s involvement increases the regulatory burden of producing affordable housing. State and local governments are better positioned to address comprehensively the array of unique market challenges, local policies, and impediments that lead to housing affordability problems.

Native American Programs and Native
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant -479
The Budget streamlines housing assistance for Native Americans by eliminating competitive grant programs and focusing available resources on the main formula grant to Tribes. Consistent with similar Budget proposals eliminating housing programs, the Budget eliminates the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant. The program has large balances and only one grantee, which would be more appropriately funded by the State of Hawaii.

Homeless Assistance Program
Consolidations -532
The Budget consolidates the Continuum of Care and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS programs into a more targeted Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program that provides short- and medium-term housing assistance, capped at two years, to homeless and at-risk individuals. The Budget delivers on the President’s pledge to eliminate street homelessness by quickly connecting homeless individuals to shelter, recognizing that State and local governments are better positioned to coordinate homeless assistance, and proposing a formula change to better target the ESG formula to areas where homelessness needs are most severe.

Surplus Lead Hazard Reduction and
Healthy Homes Funding -296 This set of programs has unobligated balances that should be depleted prior to receiving further appropriations.

Self-Sufficiency Programs -196
HUD’s “Self-Sufficiency Programs” are supposed to promote self-sufficiency among housing assistance recipients. In reality, these programs are duplicative in purpose and struggle to achieve or track program outcomes. Such programs like these would be better left to State and local governments that are better suited to support these individuals. 26

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Pathways to Removing Obstacles
(PRO) Housing -100
Consistent with the Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” the Budget proposes to eliminate PRO Housing, which was used by the previous administration to advance “equity” under the guise of an affordable housing development program. Instead, the Budget proposes allowing States and local governments to address affordable housing and development challenges within their communities.

Fair Housing Grants -60
The Budget eliminates the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), which provides competitive grants to public and private fair housing organizations to advocate against single family neighborhoods and promote radical equity policies inconsistent with the Administration’s efforts to eradicate DEI programs. The Budget also eliminates the National Fair Housing Training Academy, which provides training for Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and FHIP professionals as well as funding to translate HUD materials to languages other than English. The Budget, however, maintains support for FHAP, which funds State and local enforcement agencies that collectively process about 80 percent of the Nation’s fair housing complaints under the Fair Housing Act.

Department of Labor (DOL)
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Make America Skilled Again (MASA)
Grant Consolidation -1,640
Consistent with the Administration’s efforts to promote the full range of post-secondary education and training options, the Budget proposes to give States and localities the flexibility to spend workforce dollars to best support their workers and economies, instead of funneling taxpayer dollars to progressive non-profits finding work for illegal immigrants or focusing on DEI. Under the last administration, these grant programs funded things such as: certifying Minnesota employers that were “committed to advancing DEI in their workplace cultures and communities”; promoting the hiring of illegal aliens and migrants; sometimes providing them subsidized housing in addition to a job; and green jobs in California. States would now have more control and flexibility to coordinate with employers and would have to spend at least 10 percent of their MASA grant on apprenticeship, a proven model that trains workers while they earn a paycheck and offers a valuable alternative to college.
27

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Job Corps -1,584
The Budget eliminates Job Corps, which has been a failed experiment to help America’s youth—and, in some cases, has harmed them. The program has been plagued by a culture of violence, assault, sex crimes, drug infractions, and death. A 2017 GAO report found there were nearly 50,000 reported safety violations and 265 deaths in just 10 years of the program. Not only is Job Corps financially unsustainable, with an exorbitant per-graduate cost (some centers spend more than $400,000 per graduate), it fails to give young people the start they need in their careers. In fact, an audit of Job Corps from DOL’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found program graduates made less than the poverty threshold. This program has often made participants worse off, which is severely misaligned with the President’s priority to improve job opportunities and economic growth for all Americans.

Senior Community Service
Employment Program (SCSEP) -405
SCSEP purports to provide job training and subsidized employment to low-income seniors, but fails at its goal: to move seniors to unsubsidized, gainful employment. In reality, it is effectively an earmark to leftist, DEI-promoting entities like the National Urban League, the Center for Workforce Inclusion, and Easter Seals. It also is duplicative of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training and DOL’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funding, including the new MASA grant program. Seniors would be better served by programs operated by State and local governments, with proven track records of increasing wages.

Department of the Interior (DOI)
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project -609
The Budget provides $1.2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. The Budget reduces funding for programs that have nothing to do with building and maintaining water infrastructure, such as habitat restoration. Instead, the Budget focuses Reclamation and the Central Utah Project on their core missions of maintaining assets that provide safe, reliable, and efficient management of water resources throughout the western United States.

Operation of the National Park System -900
The National Park Service (NPS) responsibilities include a large number of sites that are not “National Parks,” in the traditionally understood sense, many of which receive small numbers of mostly local visitors, and are better categorized and managed as State-level parks. The Budget would continue supporting many national treasures, but there is an urgent need to streamline staffing and transfer certain properties to State-level management to ensure the long-term health and sustainment of the National Park system.
28

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase NPS Historic Preservation Fund -158
Many historic preservation projects have matching funds from State, local, and private sources, rendering the Historic Preservation Fund highly duplicative. Further, the projects are often of local, rather than national, significance. The Budget would continue funding projects in partnership with HBCUs, which have a unique history.

NPS Construction -73
The Biden Administration wasted Federal funding on construction projects at sites that are more appropriately managed at the local level. This reduction complements the Administration’s goals of federalism and transferring smaller, lesser visited parks to State and tribal governments. At the same time, the Budget allows NPS to prioritize larger projects at the Nation’s crown jewel parks. The President’s deregulatory agenda will ensure that the Great American Outdoors Act funding for construction would go further than ever before.

NPS National Recreation and
Preservation -77
Many National Recreation and Preservation grants are already supported by State, local, and private sector efforts, including large amounts of mandatory funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Stateside Grants. Further, these projects are not directly tied to maintaining national parks or public lands, which have a large backlog of maintenance and are more important to address than community recreation initiatives.

Bureau of Indian Affairs Programs that
Support Tribal Self-Governance and
Tribal Communities
-617
The Budget focuses on core programs for tribal communities. The Budget eliminates the Indian Guaranteed Loan program for tribal business development because it is duplicative of several other programs across the Federal Government that offer loans to small businesses and which tribal businesses are eligible for and receive. The Budget also terminates the Indian Land Consolidation Program, which has received bipartisan criticism for being ineffective. In addition, the Budget also reduces funding for programs that directly fund tribal operations such as roads, housing, and social services in order to focus on core priorities for tribal communities, such as law enforcement.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public
Safety and Justice -107
The Budget streamlines the tribal law enforcement program to reduce redundancies and inefficiencies with other law enforcement agencies. The Budget would encourage BIA’s law enforcement program to improve accountability and reform its service to tribal communities. Further, tribal governments can apply for grants from DOJ and DHS for law enforcement and emergency services.

Bureau of Indian Education
Construction -187
The Bureau of Indian Education Construction account has been plagued by poor program management, cost overruns, and delays in school construction and repairs. The reduction of inefficient projects from this account would accompany a renewed effort to improve the program’s performance.
29

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
programs
-564
USGS provides science information on natural hazards, ecosystems, water, energy and mineral resources, and mapping of Earth’s features. The Budget eliminates programs that provide grants to universities, duplicate other Federal research programs and focus on social agendas (e.g., climate change) to instead focus on achieving dominance in energy and critical minerals.

Bureau of Land Management
Conservation Programs -198
The Obama Administration and the Biden Administration abused the Antiquities Act to designate vast swathes of land and water as off-limits to any development, recreation, grazing, hunting, mining, etc. This has hamstrung development of valuable energy and mineral resources. The Budget proposes deep reductions to undo these excessive designations. The Budget also reduces the Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat Management program to reduce funds given to left-wing environmental non- profits that work against development of energy and mineral resources and have other sources of funding for their projects.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) State, Tribal, and NGO
Conservation Grant Programs
-170
These non-essential USFWS grant programs fund conservation of species managed by States, Tribes, and other nations, wasting taxpayer dollars on species better managed by local or international interests. These dollars are also duplicative of other Federal programs in USDA and the Department of Commerce, as well as the large amounts of mandatory funding available through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Renewable Energy Programs -80
The Budget proposes to eliminate support for Green New Deal technologies. The elimination is consistent with the President’s first-day executive actions, including Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” and a Presidential Memorandum pausing all onshore and offshore wind leasing and permitting.

USFWS Ecological Services -37
USFWS’ Ecological Services program and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources are jointly responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Budget consolidates these two programs into a single program housed within DOI, consistent with the President’s efforts to improve performance and reduce the Federal bureaucracy, as well as his deregulatory agenda. 30

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Federal Wildland Fire Service
(consolidation of USDA and DOI
Wildland Fire Management programs
under a unified agency within DOI)
--
Federal wildfire risk mitigation and suppression responsibilities currently are split across five agencies in two departments: the U.S. Forest Service in USDA and BIA, Bureau of Land Management, USFWS, and NPS in DOI. This dispersed nature of the Federal mission creates significant coordination and cost inefficiencies that result in sub-optimal performance. The Budget reforms Federal wildland fire management to create operational efficiencies by consolidating and unifying the Federal wildland fire responsibilities into a single new Federal Wildland Fire Service at DOI, including transferring USDA’s current wildland fire management responsibilities. The new service would be distinct in command and appropriations from existing wildland firefighting agencies and would streamline Federal wildfire suppression response, risk mitigation efforts, and coordination with non-Federal partners to combat the wildfire crisis.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Increases
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) +15 FSIS inspects meat, poultry, and egg product plants to ensure food safety nationwide. Several States have their own equivalent inspection program, and FSIS shares in the cost of these programs.

Increases are needed to support increased production and demand for services.

Rental Assistance Grants +74
The Budget provides funding to renew the rental assistance grant contracts at $1.7 billion. This prevents the default of the $9 billion in USDA underwritten multifamily housing direct loans, that depend on the rental assistance grants for the debt service.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) -602
The Budget eliminates wasteful, woke programming in NIFA, such as activities related to climate change, renewable energy, and promoting DEI in education that were prioritized under the Biden Administration. In addition, the Budget reduces funding for formula grants because they generally do not achieve the same results as competitive programs. Instead, the Budget focuses on the President’s goal of advancing the competitiveness of American agriculture through the merit-based Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. The Budget protects funding to youth and K-12 programs such as 4-H clubs, tribal colleges, and universities. This investment would help prepare future generations of farmers. It also ensures HBCUs are amply funded. 31

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
and USDA Research Statistical
Agencies
-159
The Administration is committed to prioritizing research that supports American agriculture.

However, many of the current ARS facilities are in disrepair. The Budget reduces funding for research sites across the Nation that have exceeded their ideal lifespan and reduces funding for research projects that are not of the highest national priority. The Budget also makes small reductions to the Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service to stop climate-politicized additional scopes added by the Biden Administration while ensuring all critical analysis and data collection continues.

Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS)—Private Lands Conservation
Operations
-754
The Budget eliminates discretionary funding for conservation technical assistance because it has historically received over a billion dollars in mandatory funding, in addition to funding at the State and local levels. While funding has helped producers deploy conservation practices on their lands, many have been forced to participate in the program in order to comply with State environmental regulations such as California’s Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, which regulates agricultural runoff. These cost drivers should be connected to the resource demands they impose.

NRCS Watershed Operations -16
The Budget eliminates funding to renovate locally owned dams in the NRCS Watershed Programs.

Funding for this type of activity is the responsibility of the local dam owners. In addition, these programs received an enormous influx of funding through IIJA. Currently, there is over $100 million in unobligated balances between the two programs.

Rural Development Programs -721
USDA’s Rural Development programs are streamlined to focus on programs that have demonstrated efficient results and are an appropriate Federal role. Infrastructure loans are prioritized for aging rural water and wastewater systems, as well as technical assistance through the “Circuit Rider” program balanced with reductions in the grants. Other specialty water grants and earmarks are not funded except where the tax base cannot support loans, including maintaining funding for Native American Tribes. Community facility grants are eliminated, as the Congress has eroded these grants by earmarking nearly 100 percent of them. No new USDA funding is needed for broadband expansion, as existing balances and other Federal resources are meeting planned growth. The Budget would also eliminate programs that are duplicative, too small to have macro-economic impact, costly to deliver, in limited demand, available through the private sector, or conceived as temporary. These include rural business programs, single family housing direct loans, self-help housing grants, telecommunications loans, and rural housing vouchers. Rural Development salaries and expenses are reduced commensurately.
32

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Farm Service Agency (FSA) Salaries
and Expenses: Farm Production and
Conservation-Business Center (FPAC-
BC)
-358
The first Trump Administration streamlined services to farmers by placing the FSA, NRCS, and Risk Management Agency under one umbrella: FPAC-BC. The staff-heavy FSA struggles with hiring due in part because of labor market competition. Staff shortages have left leased premises underutilized, resulting in waste. The Budget reduces funding in order to reflect the Agency’s plans for efficiencies, which include improving online services so that farmers are receiving top-notch service to meet their needs.

National Forest System Management -392
The Budget reduces salaries and expenses by $342 million, and saves an additional $50 million by eliminating funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program, and reducing funding for recreation, vegetation and watershed management, and land management regulation. The Budget fully supports the President’s bold actions in Executive Order 14225, “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” to improve forest management and increase domestic timber production, and the Administration’s goal of restoring federalism by empowering States to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders. The requested funding level supports the highest priorities in forest management, including timber sales, hazardous fuels removal, mineral extraction, grazing, and wildlife habitat management.

Forest Service Operations -391
The Budget reduces funding for expenses including salaries and facility leases to streamline the Agency’s management structure and rightsize their real property footprint. This is in line with the President’s goal of restoring federalism, by increasing State authority over land management within their borders.

State, Local, Tribal, and NGO
Conservation Programs -303
The Budget reduces grant programs that subsidize management of State and privately-owned forests.

This program has been plagued by oversight issues, including allegations of impropriety by both the Agency and State governments. While the Budget provides robust support for Federal wildland fire management activities alongside States and local partners, these partners should be encouraged to fund their own community preparedness and risk mitigation activities.

Forest and Rangeland Research (Except
Forest Inventory and Analysis) -300
The President has pledged to manage national forests for their intended purpose of producing timber.

The Budget reduces funding for the Forest and Rangeland Research program because it is out of step with the practical needs of forest management for timber production, but maintains funding for Forest Inventory and Analysis, a longstanding census of forest resources and conditions. 33

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP) -425
CSFP was established to ensure that low-income seniors over 60 meet their daily nutritional needs.

To further improve the health of seniors consistent with the President’s MAHA initiative, the Budget ends CSFP (which has been misused for DEI and logrolling) and replaces it with MAHA food boxes.

The MAHA food boxes remove administrative middlemen to provide higher-quality food directly to seniors. Unlike the current approach using food banks, which provide those in need with shelf-stable foods that are high in sodium and other harmful ingredients, MAHA boxes would be filled with commodities sourced from domestic farmers and given directly to American households. This approach of boxing commodities was highly successful at the end of the first Trump administration as a COVID pandemic response.

McGovern-Dole Food for Education
Program -240
The McGovern-Dole Food for Education program buys agricultural commodities from U.S. farmers and donates them in the form of foreign aid. Only a small portion of the program’s funding goes toward purchasing U.S. commodities, given the high transportation costs and large portion of funding provided for technical assistance. While these donated commodities totaled only $37 million in 2023 (0.01 percent of all U.S. crop sales), they undercut commodity prices in markets abroad. USDA has numerous programs that support farmers in difficult times, but this program is neither necessary nor efficient as support for U.S. farmers. In addition, years of empirical data from GAO and the USDA OIG show high costs with dubious results overseas. The elimination of this program is consistent with the elimination of other in-kind international food donation programs in the Budget, including Food for Progress and Food for Peace Title II Grants.

Department of the Treasury
Increases
Rural Financial Award Program +100
The Budget furthers investment in rural communities by creating a new $100 million award program that would provide access to affordable financing and spur economic development in rural America.

This new program would require 60 percent of Community Development Financial Institutions’ (CDFIs’) loans and investments to go to rural areas, and would leverage existing administrative resources within the Department of the Treasury’s CDFI Fund to increase access to capital, infrastructure financing, and main street business development. 34

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) -2,488
The Budget ends the Biden Administration’s weaponization of IRS enforcement, which targeted conservative groups and small businesses. The elimination of certain complex tax credits and technology improvements would increase IRS efficiency. The reduction would protect functions in Taxpayer Services.

CDFI Fund Discretionary Awards -291
Consistent with the President’s goal of reducing the Federal bureaucracy, the Budget recommends eliminating CDFI Fund discretionary awards. Past awards may have made race a determinant of access to loan programs to “advance racial equity,” funded products and services that built so-called “climate resiliency,” and framed American society as inherently oppressive rather than fostering unity. The CDFI industry has matured beyond the need for “seed” money and should at this point be financially self-sustaining. Remaining funding supports oversight and closeout of prior awards, maintaining CDFI certification, and support for New Markets Tax Credit administration and the zero- cost Bond Guarantee Program.

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Increases
Medical Care +3,309
The Budget provides increased funding for healthcare services tailored to U.S. veterans’ needs both at VA medical centers and in the community. This funding level, in combination with mandatory funding from the Toxic Exposures Fund of $50 billion, would ensure that the Nation provides the world-class healthcare to America’s veterans that they deserve. In addition, veterans who qualify for access to care with local community providers would be empowered to make the choice to see them, rather than having to drive in some cases hours to access the nearest VA facility. Of this total, the Budget provides a $1.1 billion increase for the President’s commitment to ending veterans’ homelessness. This new funding and authorities would empower VA to be directly responsible for programs and financial support helping homeless and at-risk veterans with rental assistance, augmenting VA’s existing case management and support services, to help veterans get back on their feet.

Electronic Health Record
Modernization (EHRM) +2,173
VA’s EHRM effort is moving the Department from a decades-old legacy system to a modern system that is interoperable with DOD and other Federal partners, as well as participating community care providers, allowing clinicians to easily access a veteran’s full medical history anywhere they seek care. The Secretary has made accelerated VA EHRM rollout—which had stalled under the Biden Administration—a top priority effort.
35

$ Change
from 2025 Program Name Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Information Technology (IT) Systems -493
VA has over 1,000 distinct IT systems, including many legacy systems, some of which are decades old. The President has directed the U.S. DOGE Service to work with Agency Heads to improve the quality and efficiency of Government software and IT systems. The Budget protects VA’s core mission systems that deliver healthcare, benefits, and cemetery services to America’s veterans, while reducing spending on duplicative legacy systems and pausing procurement of new systems until VA and the U.S. DOGE Service team can conduct a full review.

General Administration -37
These targeted cuts eliminate DEI programing, reduce nonessential outreach activities, and institute a reduction in force to cut bureaucratic overhead in line with the President’s Executive Order 14210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.” This level provides funding for the critical VA missions providing healthcare, benefits, and cemetery services for America’s veterans.

Corps of Engineers—Civil Works (Corps)
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund -1,071 (HMTF) Surplus
The Administration supports investments in the Nation’s infrastructure. In particular, Federal navigation channels serve an important role in facilitating domestic and international commerce. The HMTF, whose funding is subject to annual appropriations, finances operation and maintenance projects for the Nation’s water channels. However, HMTF’s scope has grown far beyond its original mission. Spending out of the HMTF has increased from $1.7 billion in 2020 to $2.8 billion in 2025.

Of the $2.8 billion appropriated in 2024, $1.4 billion remained unobligated in the first quarter of 2025. There is no need to request more funding than necessary, which is why the Budget reduces funding for HMTF. In this request, spending on projects that are not a Federal responsibility (e.g., dredging of berths) is limited, whereas projects like maintaining commercial navigation on Federal channels are prioritized.

Corps WIFIA program -7
The Corps WIFIA program provides direct loans and loan guarantees for non-Federal dam safety projects. The Budget eliminates this program because there is no demonstrated need in the private market for Federal financial assistance for these types of projects. In addition, the program is duplicative of other programs, such as FEMA’s National Dam Safety Program and the EPA’s WIFIA Program. In addition, this program is arguably outside of the Corps’ mission, which is to provide engineering expertise for military construction and civil works projects—not serve as a creditor to private entities.
36

$ Change
from 2025 Program Name Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Enacted (in millions)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Increases
By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Human Space Exploration +647 Mars-focused programs, the Budget ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient.

Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
In line with the Administration’s objectives of returning to the Moon before China and putting a man on Mars, the Budget would reduce lower priority research and terminate unaffordable missions such Space Science -2,265 as the Mars Sample Return mission that is grossly overbudget and whose goals would be achieved by human missions to Mars. The mission is not scheduled to return samples until the 2030s.

The Budget refocuses NASA on beating China back to the Moon and putting the first human on Mission Support -1,134 Mars. To achieve these objectives, it would streamline the workforce, IT services, NASA Center operations, facility maintenance, and construction and environmental compliance activities.

The Budget eliminates funding for low-priority climate monitoring satellites and restructures the gold-plated, two-billion-dollar Landsat Next mission while NASA studies more affordable ways to Earth Science -1,161 maintain the continuity of Landsat imagery, which is used by natural resource managers, States, and industry.

The Budget phases out the grossly expensive and delayed Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule after three flights. SLS alone costs $4 billion per launch and is 140 percent over budget. The Budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the Moon with more cost-Legacy Human Exploration Systems -879 effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions. The Budget also proposes to terminate the Gateway, a small lunar space station in development with international partners, which would have been used to support future SLS and Orion missions.

Space Technology -531
The Budget reduces Space Technology by approximately half, including eliminating failing space propulsion projects. The reductions also scale back or eliminate technology projects that are not needed by NASA or are better suited to private sector research and development. 37

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase International Space Station -508
The Budget reflects the upcoming transition to a more cost-effective commercial approach to human activities in space as the space station approaches the end of its life cycle. The Budget reduces the space station’s crew size and onboard research, preparing for a safe decommissioning of the station by 2030 and replacement by commercial space stations. Crew and cargo flights to the station would be significantly reduced. The station’s reduced research capacity would be focused on efforts critical to the Moon and Mars exploration programs.

Aeronautics -346 The Budget eliminates climate-focused “green aviation” spending while protecting the development of technologies with air traffic control and defense applications, producing savings.

Office of Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Engagement
-143
NASA’s primary role is space exploration and, similar to prior generations that were inspired by the Apollo lunar landings, NASA will inspire the next generation of explorers through exciting, ambitious space missions, not through subsidizing woke STEM programming and research that prioritizes some groups of students over others and have had minimal impact on the aerospace workforce.

National Science Foundation (NSF)
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
General Research and Education -3,479
The Budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science. NSF has fueled research with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies, such as a grant to the University of Nebraska to create “affinity groups” for bird watchers and a $15.2 million grant to the University of Delaware to develop and evaluate policy interventions to “achieve sustainable equity, economic prosperity, and coastal resilience in the context of climate change.” Similarly, Columbia University received $13.8 million to “advance livable, safe, and inclusive communities.” Funding for Artificial Intelligence and quantum information sciences research is maintained at current levels.

Broadening Participation -1,130
NSF “Broadening Participation” programs have funded projects such as: “Reimagining Educator Learning Pathways Through Storywork for Racial Equity in STEM”; “addressing White Supremacy in the STEM profession”; and preparing “the next generation of DEI leaders to promote long-term, sustainable racial equity initiatives.” These efforts would no longer receive Federal dollars and all DEI-related programs at NSF are eliminated.
38

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase Agency Operations and Awards
Management -93 The Budget reduces non-essential programs in NSF, and this reduction to operations aligns with the Agency’s reduced size.

Small Business Administration (SBA)
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
Entrepreneurial Development Programs
(EDP) Consolidation -167
The Administration is committed to supporting small businesses throughout the United States through tax cuts, deregulation, and responsible, targeted support. However, reforms at SBA are clearly warranted, as the previous administration unconstitutionally used the SBA to advance its divisive agenda, awarding billions in funding to certain businesses based solely on race and gender.

Therefore, the Budget ends 15 specialized and duplicative programs, leaving only the Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) program. Eliminated programs include, “Women’s Business Centers” and SCORE, which in 2023 posted “Six Ways to Support LGBTQIA-Owned Businesses,” and provided resources based on race. SBDCs would be directed to provide any of the appropriate services previously offered by the eliminated programs in a manner that is consistent with the Administration’s priorities. Importantly, the SBDC request includes a $10 million increase to ensure there is not a disruption in business technical assistance services for veteran-owned small businesses.

Salaries and Expenses (S&E) -111
The Budget provides $250 million for SBA’s S&E, which would rightsize SBA’s 34 percent S&E budget growth since 2021. The reduced S&E request also reflects a reduction in staffing costs associated with reimagining and consolidating the Agency’s EDP.

Small Agency Eliminations
Cuts, Reductions, and Consolidations
• 400 Years of African American
History Commission
• Corporation for National and
Community Service (operating as
AmeriCorps)
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting
• Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service
-3,586
The Budget includes the elimination of, or the elimination of Federal funding for, the following small agencies—consistent with the President’s efforts to decrease the size of the Federal Government to enhance accountability, reduce waste, and reduce unnecessary governmental entities. Past Trump Administration Budgets have also supported these eliminations. Remaining funds account for costs of orderly shutdowns.
• Institute of Museum and Library
Sciences
39

Program Name
$ Change
from 2025
Enacted
(in millions)
Brief Description of Program and Recommended Reduction or Increase • Inter-American Foundation
• Marine Mammal Commission
• National Endowment for the Arts
• National Endowment for the
Humanities
• Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation
• U.S. African Development Foundation
• U.S. Agency for Global Media
• U.S. Institute of Peace
• U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness
• Woodrow Wilson Center
• Presidio Trust
• Delta Regional Authority
• Denali Commission
• Northern Border Regional
Commission
• Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission
• Southwest Border Regional
Commission
• Great Lakes Authority
Consistent with the Administration’s efforts to restore federalism, eliminate taxpayer waste, and reduce the Federal role in local economic development initiatives, the Budget eliminates six small regional commissions. Elimination removes an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in an already bloated grant-making system to achieve greater efficiencies. Once established, these entities are perpetually funded by taxpayers to cater to geographic special interests. States and local governments are better positioned to fund and address unique regional and geographic economic development challenges. Unlike the smaller, unnecessary commissions, the Budget continues funding for Appalachian Regional Commission’s (ARC) operations at $14 million, while grantmaking is funded through balances and IIJA funds, which saves taxpayers $186 million compared to the 2025 enacted level. ARC serves a region uniquely hard-hit by the loss of good coal mining jobs and the opioid crisis.

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation (ONHIR) -2
ONHIR began over 50 years ago to facilitate the relocation of Navajo and Hopi people living on each other’s land. The statute directs that ONHIR “shall cease to exist when the President determines that its functions have been fully discharged” and the Congress has already directed ONHIR to begin planning for Office closure. An orderly closure of this office and transfer of residual responsibilities to other agencies is long overdue.
40

Table 1. Proposed 2026 Discretionary Request by Discretionary Category (Budget authority in billions of dollars)
2026 Request Less
2025 2026 2025 Enacted
Enacted 1 Request Dollar Percent
Base Discretionary Funding....................................................... 1,613.1 1,450.0 -163.1 -10.1% Defense ............................................................................................. . 892.6 892.6 --- -- - Non-Defense 2 ................................................................................... 720.5 557.4 -163.1 -22.6% Pending Reconciliation Resources Affecting Base Discretionary Funding: 3 Defense .......................................................................................... --- 119.3 +119.3 --- Non-Defense................................................................................... --- 43.8 +43.8 --- Base Discretionary, including reconciliation resources.............. 1,613.1 1,613.1 --- -- - Defense ............................................................................................. . 892.6 1,011.9 +119.3 +13.4% Non-Defense 2 ................................................................................... 720.5 601.2 -119.3 -16.6% Non-Base Funding: 4
Emergency Funding........................................................................... . 117.7 -2.3 -120.0 -101.9% Program Integrity............................................................................... 2.5 3.1 +0.6 +22.6% Disaster Relief.................................................................................... 22.9 26.6 +3.7 +16.3% Wildfire Suppression.......................................................................... 2.8 2.9 +0.1 +3.6% Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act............................................. 66.1 43.7 -22.5 -34.0% Other Exempted appropriations........................................................ 5.9 4.0 -1.8 -31.4% Total, Non-Base Funding........................................................... 217.8 78.0 -139.9 -64.2% Total, Discretionary including reconciliation resources............. 1,830.9 1,691.1 -139.9 -7.6% Please note: some totals may not add due to rounding.
1 The 2025 enacted column reflects OMB scoring of appropriations enacted in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4) and the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (division B of Public Law 118-158). This level does not include $2.9 billion in emergency funds provided for 2025 by the Congress that were not designated as emergency by the President since those amounts are not available for obligation.
2 The base non-defense total for 2025 includes $9.4 billion in emergency funds that are considered to be for base activities. 3 H. Con. Res. 14, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2025, as passed by the House and Senate includes instructions to provide additional funding for defense, homeland, and law enforcement activities. The Administration assumes at least $325 billion ($175 billion for border security/non-defense and $150 billion for defense) will be enacted in a reconciliation bill later this year to meet these instructions and the funds will supplement discretionary resources for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, as well as the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy for fiscal years 2026-2034. For 2026, the Administration assumes approximately $163.1 billion of these funds will be spent with $119.3 billion for defense activities and $43.8 billion for border/non-defense activities.
4 Non-base funding reflects appropriations for anomalous or above-base activities such as emergency requirements, program integrity, disaster relief, and wildfire suppression, or amounts that have been explicitly exempted from counting for budget enforcement in authorization Acts. These amounts continue to be presented outside of base allocations.

Table 2. 2026 Discretionary Request by Major Agency
(Budget authority in billions of dollars)
2026 Request Less
2025 2026 2025 Enacted
Enacted 1 Request Dollar Percent
Base Discretionary Funding: 2
Cabinet Departments:

Agriculture 3,4 ......................................................................................................... 27.3 22.3 -5.0 -18.3% Commerce:

Commerce, excluding Nonrecurring Expenses Fund rescission........................... . 10.2 8.5 -1. 7 -16.5% Nonrecurring Expenses Fund rescission.............................................................. -9.6 --- +9.6 -100.0% Defense, including reconciliation resources 5........................................................ 848.3 961.6 +113.3 +13.4% Education............................................................................................................... 78. 7 66.7 -12.0 -15.3% Energy (DOE).......................................................................................................... 49.8 4 5.1 -4.7 -9.4% National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).............................................. 24.0 24.0 --- --- Other DOE, excluding NNSA................................................................................ 25.8 21.1 -4. 7 -18.2% NNSA, including reconciliation resources 5 ........................................................ 24.0 30.0 +6.0 +25.0% Health and Human Services (HHS) 6....................................................................... 127.0 93.8 -33.3 -26.2% Homeland Security, including reconciliation resources 5....................................... 65.1 107.4 +42.3 +64.9% Housing and Urban Development (HUD):

HUD program level............................................................................................. 77.0 43.5 - 33.6 -43.6% HUD receipts....................................................................................................... -6.7 -10.3 -3.6 N/A Interior 4................................................................................................................. 16.8 11.7 -5.1 -30.5% Justice.................................................................................................................... . 36.0 33.2 -2.7 -7.6% Labor...................................................................................................................... 13.3 8.6 -4.6 -34.9% State and International Programs 3,7 ...................................................................... 58.7 9.6 -49.1 -83.7% State and International, excluding rescissions and cancellations....................... . 59.6 31.2 -28.4 -47.7% Transportation....................................................................................................... 25.2 26 .7 +1.5 +5.8% Treasury 7............................................................................................................... 14.2 11.5 -2.7 -19.0% Veterans Affairs..................................................................................................... . 129.2 134.6 +5.4 +4.1% Veterans Affairs, including Toxic Exposures Fund............................................... 159.7 187.2 +27.6 +17.3% Major Agencies:

Corps of Engineers................................................................................................. 5.9 5.0 -0 .9 -15.2% Environmental Protection Agency......................................................................... . 9.1 4.2 -5.0 -54.5% General Services Administration............................................................................ -0.9 0.5 +1.3 N/A National Aeronautics and Space Administration................................................... . 24.8 18.8 -6.0 -24.3% National Science Foundation................................................................................. . 8.8 3.9 -4.9 -55.8% Small Business Administration............................................................................... 0.9 0.6 -0.3 -33.2 % Social Security Administration (SSA) 6.................................................................... 12.7 12.7 --- --- Changes in mandatory program offsets 8.............................................................. . -36.0 -34.0 +2.0 -5.4% Other Agencies...................................................................................................... . 27.0 21.0 -6.0 -22.2% Subtotal, Base Discretionary, including reconciliation resources........................... 1,613.1 1,613.1 --- -- -

Table 2. 2026 Discretionary Request by Major Agency
(Budget authority in billions of dollars)
2026 Request Less
2025 2026 2025 Enacted
Enacted 1 Request Dollar Percent
Non-Base Discretionary Funding: 9
Emergency Requirements:

Agriculture..........................................................................................................

Commerce..........................................................................................................

Defense.............................................................................................................. .

Energy................................................................................................................ .

Homeland Security.............................................................................................

Housing and Urban Development...................................................................... .

Interior............................................................................................................... .

Transportation................................................................................................... .

Corps of Engineers............................................................................................. .

Environmental Protection Agency......................................................................

Small Business Administration........................................................................... .

Other Agencies...................................................................................................

40.2 2.5

11.8 0.1

30.8 12.0

3.1 8.1

1.5 3.3

2.2 2.0
--- -40.2 N/A
---- 2 . 5 N / A
--- -11.8 N/A
-2.3 -2.4 N/A
--- -3 0.8 N/A
--- -12.0 N/A
--- -3.1 N/A
--- -8.1 N/A
--- -1.5 N/A
--- -3.3 N/A
--- -2.2 N/A
--- -2.0 N/A
Subtotal, Emergency Requirements...................................................................... . 117.7 -2.3 -120.0 -101.9% Program Integrity:

Health and Human Services............................................................................... . 0.6 0.6 --- -- - Labor.................................................................................................................. . 0.3 0.4 +0.1 +29.2% Social Security Administration ........................................................................... 1.6 2.1 +0.5 +30 .3% Subtotal, Program Integrity................................................................................... . 2.5 3.1 +0.6 +22.6% Disaster Relief: 10
Homeland Security............................................................................................. 22.5 26.5 + 4.0 +17.6% Small Business Administration........................................................................... . 0.4 0.1 -0.2 -61.8% Subtotal, Disaster Relief....................................................................................... 22.9 26.6 +3. 7 +16.3% Wildfire Suppression:

Agriculture 4....................................................................................................... . 2.4 2.5 +0.1 +3.8% Interior 4............................................................................................................. 0.4 0.4 +* +2.8% Subtotal, Wildfire Suppression.............................................................................. .

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funding: 11
Agriculture..........................................................................................................

Commerce..........................................................................................................

Energy................................................................................................................ .

Health and Human Services............................................................................... .

Homeland Security.............................................................................................

Interior............................................................................................................... .

Transportation................................................................................................... .

Environmental Protection Agency......................................................................

Other Agencies...................................................................................................

2.8 0.9

1.1 10.8

0.8 1.1

2.3 36.8

12.0 0.2

2.9 +0.1 +3.6%

0.9 --- ---
* - 1.1 -99.5%
-6.2 -17.0 -157.0%

0.7 -0.1 -12.5%

1.0 -0. 1 -8.9%

2.3 -0.0 -0.2%

32.7 -4.1 -11.1%

12.0 --- ---

0.1 -0.1 -25.9%
Subtotal, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funding.................................... 66.1 43.7 -22.5 -34.0%

Table 2. 2026 Discretionary Request by Major Agency
(Budget authority in billions of dollars)
2026 Request Less
2025 2026 2025 Enacted
Enacted 1 Request Dollar Percent
Other Exempted Funding: 11
Education........................................................................................................... . 0.2 0.2 --- -- - Health and Human Services............................................................................... . 0.4 0.2 -0.1 -36.0% Justice................................................................................................................ . 0.3 0.3 --- -- - Corps of Engineers............................................................................................. . 2.8 1.7 -1.1 -39.9% Environmental Protection Agency...................................................................... 2.2 1.6 -0.6 -26.8% Subtotal, Other Exempted Funding........................................................................ 5.9 4.0 -1.8 -31.4% Subtotal, Non-Base Discretionary Funding............................................................ 217.8 78.0 -139.9 -64.2% Total, Discretionary Budget Authority, including reconciliation resources............ 1,830.9 1,691.1 -139.9 -7.6% Please note: some totals may not add due to rounding.
* $50 million or less.
1 The 2025 enacted column reflects OMB scoring of appropriations enacted in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4) and the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (division B of Public Law 118-158). This level does not include $2.9 billion in emergency funds provided for 2025 by the Congress that were not designated as emergency by the President since those amounts are not available for obligation. 2 Base funding for 2025 includes $9.4 billion in emergency funds that are largely considered for base activities. 3 Funding for Food for Peace Title II Grants is included in the State and International Programs total. Although the funds are appropriated to the Department of Agriculture, the funds are administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 4 The Full 2026 Budget will reflect a proposal to consolidate and unify the Federal wildland fire responsibilities into a single new Federal Wildland Fire Service at the Department of the Interior, including transferring Agriculture's current wildland fire management resources and responsibilities. 5 The Administration assumes enactment of a reconciliation bill later this year that will include at least $325 billion in additional resources (including $175 billion for border/non-defense and $150 billion for defense) to supplemental certain discretionary activities. For 2026, the Administration assumes a total of $163.1 billion will be allocation with $113.3 billion going to the Department of Defense, $43.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $6 billion for NNSA.
6 The SSA total includes funding for administrative expenses from the Hospital Insurance and Supplementary Medical Insurance trust funds. Although the funds are appropriated to HHS, the costs are incurred by SSA in support of the Medicare program. 7 The State and International Programs total includes funding for the Department of State, USAID, Treasury International, and 11 international agencies while the Treasury total excludes Treasury's International Programs. 8 The limitation enacted and proposed in the Justice Department's Crime Victims Fund program, rescissions enacted in the Internal Revenue Service in 2025, and cancellations enacted and proposed in the Children's Health Insurance Program in HHS make up the bulk of these offset s. 9 Non-base funding reflects appropriations for anomalous or above-base activities such as emergency requirements, program integrity, disaster relief, and wildfire suppression, or amounts that have been explicitly exempted from counting for budget enforcement in authorization Acts. These amounts continue to be presented outside of base allocations.
10 The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 had authorized an adjustment to the discretionary spending caps for appropriations designated by the Congress as being for "disaster relief" provided those appropriations are for activities carried out pursuant to a determination under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The 2026 Blueprint maintains the same methodology for determining the funding ceiling for disaster funding for 2026 and OMB currently sets its request at the estimated ceiling of $26.6 billion. 11 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds and Exempted funds are amounts that are not counted for purposes of budget enforcement and are therefore counted as part of non-base funding. The exempted funds include 21st Century Cures appropriations in HHS, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act advance appropriations, certain revenues provided for the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program, and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund appropriations in the Corps of Engineers.

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.C.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Consideration of Sending Letter of Support on behalf of the City to the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. If desirable, sending a letter on behalf of the City supporting the request of the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD);

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

The San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD) has reached out to request the City of Monterey Park's support as it pursues state funding and FEMA reimbursement to address public health risks following the 2025 Eaton Fire. The email received by Mayor Ngo and City staff is attached for reference along with information about SGVMVCD's response to the Eaton Fire. A sample letter to the San Gabriel Valley Legislative Caucus is also attached for City Council’s consideration.

Background:

The San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District provides services to 26 cities, which include: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bradbury, Claremont, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monterey Park, Monrovia, Pasadena, Pomona, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, Temple City, West Covina and Walnut. The District also services many unincorporated Los Angeles County communities in San Gabriel Valley.The District was formed as an independent special district in 1989 to protect residents from vector-borne diseases. Joseph Leon has been appointed by the City Council to represent the City of Monterey Park on the SGVMVCD Board of Trustees.

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this item.

Attachments:

1. Attachment San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD) Request for Letter

Staff Report
May 21, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
Email Request from San Gabriel Valley Mosquito
and Vector Control District with Attachments

From: Jerry Mireles
To: Alvarez, Inez
Cc: Joseph Leon; Jason Farned; Cecilia Contreras; Anais Medina Diaz; Ngo, Vinh T.

Subject: SGVMVCD - City of Monterey Park Letter of Support Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 3:06:26 PM
Attachments: SGVMVCD Eaton Fire Response_Summary.pdf
2025 SGVMVCD Eaton Fire Funding Support Letter Template.docx [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Manager Alvarez,
I hope you’re doing well.

The San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD) is reaching out to request City of Monterey Park's support as we pursue state funding and FEMA reimbursement to address public health risks following the 2025 Eaton Fire.

The Eaton Fire has left over 2,800 swimming pools damaged and non-functional, many of which are now holding stagnant water. These pools have become active breeding grounds for mosquitoes and with temperatures rising, these sites pose an escalating threat to public health across communities throughout the San Gabriel Valley.

To assist in this effort, we’ve attached a sample letter of support addressed to the San Gabriel Valley Legislative Caucus. You’re welcome to use this template as is or revise it to express support for regional mosquito control efforts. Additionally, attached is a summary of SGVMVCD’s efforts related to the Eaton Fire Response for reference.

If the City of Monterey Park supports this initiative, please send a signed letter back to us at your earliest convenience, ideally by Friday, May 30, 2025.

We’re happy to help if you have any questions or need assistance preparing the letter.

Best Regards,
Jerry Mireles, CMC
Clerk of the Board/Administrative Assistant
[email protected]
Office: (626) 814-9466 ext. 1006
Cell: (626) 422-6020
San Gabriel Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District
1145 N. Azusa Canyon Road, West Covina, CA 91790
www.SGVmosquito.org
Facebook ⎜Twitter ⎜Instagram ⎜LinkedIn
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District at 626- 814-9466.

SGVmosquito.org | @SGVmosquito
Eaton Fire Response: Mosquito Control
Overview
The San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District is an independent special district established under the California Health and Safety Code §§ 2000–2093, with statutory authority and responsibility to protect public health from mosquito nuisance and mosquito-borne disease.

The District serves 26 member cities and the County of Los Angeles, each of which appoints one representative to a governing Board of Trustees. This regional governance structure ensures local accountability and oversight across a jurisdiction of more than 1.5 million residents.

The District is solely funded through a direct benefit assessment on local parcels, a model designed for routine operations, not scalable disaster response. As such, emergency costs arising from disasters like the Eaton Fire exceed the fiscal capacity built into the District’s funding framework, underscoring the request for federal and state assistance.

Emergency Conditions Created by the Eaton Fire
Post-fire assessments confirmed 2,811 unmaintained swimming pools in the impacted area, of which 1,408 are confirmed non-functional due to structural destruction, debris, or inaccessibility.

Prior to the fire, SGVMVCD monitored approximately 343 unmaintained swimming pools in the region. The sudden increase to over 2,800 pools represents an eightfold surge in unmanaged water sources, all within close proximity to residential neighborhoods. These conditions exceed the District’s normal operational scope and have triggered a response that is both new and fundamentally different from the District’s standard mosquito control operations. As such, mosquito abatement is not only urgent and disaster-induced, but also unlike any pre-disaster operational activity.

Ongoing, Active Public Health Threat
Field surveillance confirms that more than 80% of fire-damaged basins inspected are actively producing mosquito larvae—clear evidence of an immediate and escalating public health threat. This percentage will continue to increase as seasonal temperatures rise. These are not just potential risks—they are active breeding sites. Each untreated basin will produce thousands of mosquitoes weekly. The sheer number of new mosquito breeding sites created by the Eaton Fire is unprecedented in the region and mosquitoes are currently growing at a rate that has significantly elevated the risk of disease transmission in nearby communities.

SGVmosquito.org | @SGVmosquito
Ongoing, Active Public Health Threat (continued)
Los Angeles County recorded 70 human cases and 3 deaths from West Nile virus in 2023. The first locally acquired dengue case in California occurred in 2023 in Pasadena; in 2024, LA County saw a fivefold increase in local dengue cases. These events underscore the urgency of response in areas where vector populations are exploding. It is well- documented by CDC, CDPH, and WHO that increased mosquito density correlates directly with increased disease transmission risk, particularly in areas with known vector presence like Los Angeles County.

Debris Cleanup Gaps
Federal debris operations, including those conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, remove ash and some debris from pools. However, the underlying pool structures remain intact and untreated—leaving a damaged basin with residual water and no functioning filtration or chlorination. These persistent water sources remain entirely unaddressed by current cleanup programs and constitute an unresolved, disaster-caused public health hazard requiring emergency protective measures.

No state or federal agency involved in the cleanup effort has the authority, training, or mandate to address vector control needs. As a result, the responsibility for addressing this ongoing public health hazard has defaulted to SGVMVCD. The District has been forced to initiate urgent, sustained operations without supplemental resources, absorbing extraordinary costs to address a disaster-specific hazard.

Conclusion
The vector control operations described above are not part of SGVMVCD’s routine work. They are reactive, immediate, and necessitated by the direct effects of the Eaton Fire. The District is actively mitigating a growing, measurable public health hazard through sustained emergency protective measures. As such, the District is pursuing funding sources through FEMA and state budget allocations.

The District respectfully requests a letter of support on behalf your organization in support for the District to receive ongoing funding to continue this essential work throughout the recovery process.

For more information please contact: Anais Medina Diaz, Director of Communications at [email protected].

2025 - Local City/Agency - SGVMVCD Eaton Fire Funding Support Letter To: San Gabriel Valley Legislative Caucus
Re: State Funding for Mosquito Control in Eaton Fire Impacted Communities As
the Monterey Park City Council, we are writing to express our strong support for the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (SGVMVCD) and its continued efforts to address the public health threats emerging from the 2025 Eaton Fire.

The fire has left over 2,800 swimming pools in a fire -damaged and non -functional state. These water-holding structures are now active mosquito breeding sites, more than 80% of which are producing larvae. As temperatures rise, these sites pose an escalating threat —not only to the immediate fire zone, but to surrounding communities throughout the San Gabriel Valley, where locally acquired cases of dengue have already occurred in recent years.

SGVMVCD has responded swiftly, leveraging its public health authority to mitigate mosquito breeding in these hazardous conditions. However, the District’s work has also revealed a gap in disaster recovery infrastructure: while other hazards are being addressed through formal debris removal programs, stagnant water in damaged pools remains unaddressed. SGVMVCD is the only agency with the mandate and expertise to manage this risk, yet it is excluded from the emergency funding structures typically available to local governments.

As a city with a vested interest in protecting public health and supporting regional recovery, we recognize SGVMVCD’s role as both critical and urgent. Their work is essential to reducing disease transmission risk, supporting safe rebuilding, and safeguarding public health across the San Gabriel Valley.

On behalf of the City of Monterey Park, I encourage your support or allocation of state funding to ensure that SGVMVCD can continue these essential mosquito abatement and disease prevention operations. Regional coordination and sustained investment in this work are necessary to prevent a secondary public health emergency as recovery continues.

Sincerely,

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.D.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Philip Lanzafame, Interim Director of Community Development Subject: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the release of covenant and agreement for an off-site parking area located at 2100 Saturn Street, formerly 2030 Saturn Street, and directing the City Manager to execute related documents

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a resolution authorizing the release of a covenant and agreement for 12 off- site parking spaces located at 2100 Saturn Street (formerly 2030 Saturn Street) and directing the City Manager to execute related documents; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the request and draft Resolution according to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). This administrative activity is for general policy making and will not result in any physical changes to the environment. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

Executive Summary:

Title to the real property commonly known as 2100 Saturn Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number 5265-026-055) recently changed and the new title holder requested that the City release a covenant and agreement related to off-site parking. The covenant and agreement was a requirement related to the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit for the use of a commercial office. The condition of approval expired in 1999, and the new title holder requested the City’s assistance in removing it.

Background:

On April 17, 1979 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 32-79 which approved a conditional use permit allowing the utilization of a 28,000-square-foot building for office uses at 2 Cupania Circle for the Arrowhead Water Company (the “CUP”). As part of the CUP approval, the applicant provided 12 off-site parking spaces, located across the street at 2030 Saturn Street, with the spaces “remain[ing] available for the term of the lease, 20 years.”

A covenant and agreement for the maintenance of off-street parking space was recorded on June 14, 1979 (Attachment A). The covenant and agreement runs with the land, is binding, and in effect unless released. Additionally, in the event of further development on the Saturn property, before the lease’s 20 year term, the City would not unreasonably withhold its agreement to substitute another parcel of land near 2 Cupania Circle for parking purposes.

The term of the lease between the two properties ended in June of 1999. During the sales process for 2100 Saturn, it was discovered that the parking covenant and agreement exists and the request for the release of the covenant and agreement is made for the following reasons:

1. The 20-year lease that supported the shared parking arrangement ended in 1999, with the covenant and agreement not functionally operative for over 25 years;

2. The 12 parking spaces on Saturn Street have not been used in connection with the Cupania Circle property as the Saturn Street property is secured by a rolling gate that remains closed due to the vacancy at the site; and

3. The covenant and agreement will hinder any proposed re-development of the Saturn Street site.

The City reviewed the request and determined that the original conditions of the CUP have been satisfied, as the associated lease term concluded in 1999. Additionally, there is no indication that the properties located at 2 Cupania Circle require additional off-site parking.

Properties within the Saturn Park area appear to have adequate on-site parking to support their respective uses. All new or proposed uses in this area are subject to review and approval by the City for, among other things, compliance with the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”), including, without limitation, sufficiency of off-street parking. Based on these findings, it is recommended that the covenant and agreement be released. Should City Council approve the request, a release of the covenant and agreement will be prepared for filing with the County Clerk’s office.

Strategic Plan Goal:

This proposed release of the parking covenant furthers the City's goal to strengthen the local economy by not hindering redevelopment potential which in turn enhances City's ability to address the needs of its businesses and residents and promote sustainable economic growth and development.

Fiscal Impact:

No fiscal impact is associated with release of the parking covenant and agreement other than the neglible costs to prepare the release document and recording it.

Attachments:

1. Covenant and Agreement Instrument No. 79-66021

2. Resolution - Authorizing release of parking covenant and agreement at 2100 Saturn Street and directing City Manager to execute related documents

ATTACHMENT 1
Covenant and Agreement Instrument No. 79-66021

ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELEASE OF A PARKING

COVENANT AND AGREEMENT RECORDED AT PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2100 SATURN STREET (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 5265-
026-055) – FORMERLY KNOWN AS 2030 SATURN STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monterey Park as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:

A. On April 17, 1979, the Monterey Park Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 32-79 approving office uses at 2 Cupania Circle, with 12 parking spaces provided off-site at 2030 Saturn Street;
B. The Planning Commission’s Staff Report from April 17, 1979 further indicates that the 12 parking spaces will remain available for 20 years; C. On June 14, 1979, a parking covenant and agreement was recorded as Instrument No. 79-646021 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County on the property as 2030 Saturn Street by and with the City to provide off-street parking at 2 Cupania Circle;
D. The parking covenant and agreement expired in June of 1999; E. The parking spaces at Saturn Street have not been utlitzed in connection with 2 Cupania Circle as the site has been secured and not readily accessible.

F. The continued recordation of the 1979 covenant and agreement serves no present land use purpose and may hinder potential redevelopment; G. The Interim City Planner reviewed the request and determined that the covenant and agreement is no longer necessary or enforceable under current zoning standards and development conditions;
H. The release of the convenant and agreement is consistent with sound planning practices and will not result in any adverse impact on public health, safety, or welfare; and
I. The release of the convenant and agreement is consistent with strategic goals of the City Council to help strengthen the local economy by not hindering redevelopment potential to enhance the City’s ablity to address the needs of its businesses and residents and promote sustainable economic growth and evelopment.

SECTION 2:Action. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to take all action necessary to release the existing covenant and agreement identified as Los Angeles County Recorder Instrument No. 79-646021, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

SECTION 3:Planning Agency. Pursuant to MPMC § 2.56.020(a), the City Council is acting as the Planning Agency for purposes of the Project.

SECTION 4:Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 5:Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts were made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 6:Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 7:Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 8:Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 9:Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 10:Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 11:Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

SECTION 12: The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to affix its signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, and the City Clerk, or its duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2025.
____________________________
Vinh Ngo, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
By:________________________________
Justin A. Tamayo, Assistant City Attorney

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.E.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: LV Frazier, Senior Librarian
Subject: Amendment to Agreement No. 2241-AA with Comprise Technologies Inc. for Library Public Computer Management, Printing and Content Filtering

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to Agreement No. 2241-AA with Comprise Technologies, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for library public computer management, printing and content filtering for a term of three years for $25,442; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

The recommended action will extend the contract with Comprise Technologies, Inc. to continue to provide secure login, print and time management, and content filtering for the Library’s public computers.

Background:

The Library uses software from Comprise Technologies, Inc. on all public computer terminals to enable computer time management and printing services for the public. Additionally, Comprise provides content filtering software, which blocks inappropriate and harmful content, ensures safe web browsing and protects devices and networks from malware and other security threats. Maintaining this filtering software is also a requirement for the Library to remain eligible for E-rate funding which provides heavily discounted access to broadband internet for public internet and Wi-Fi.

The Library has been under contract with Comprise Technologies, Inc. since 2017. This amendment requires City Council’s authorization as total payments made to Comprise will exceed $60,000 with the execution of the proposed three-year agreement amendment.

Strategic Plan Goal:

The project expands access to community resources and services by enhancing community programs and public spaces.

Fiscal Impact:

The proposed Amendment to Agreement No. 2241-AA with Comprise Technologies, Inc. is for a total of $25,442. The amendment commences July 2025 and ends July 2028. Costs will be accounted for as part of the annual budget process.

Attachments:

None

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.F.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shawn Igoe, Public Works Director
Subject: First Amendment to Agreement No. 2259-AC with Smart Energy Systems, LLC for the SMART workforce management program

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Agreement 2259-AC with Smart Energy Systems, LLC to increase the annual subscription cost to $45,090 and to add a one-time cost of $67,000 for upgrades; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

The Water Division is requesting approval of the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement 2259-AC with Smart Energy Systems, LLC for the SMART workforce management program. The amendment will increase the annual subscription cost to $45,090 and add a one- time upgrade cost of $67,000.

Background:

On September 6, 2017, City Council approved the Agreement with Smart Energy Systems, LLC (“SES”) for a pilot workforce management program for the Water Division. The program allows staff in the field to access live data from meter readings and other resources via tablets and smart phones. The software is integrated with the City’s billing program and the City’s online service request - GoMPK - in order to streamline tracking the status of work orders.

The Water Division (“Division”) relies on this workforce management program for its day-to-day operations. SES’s proprietary software is customized with worksheets and data collection fields that are specific to the Division’s staffing, work tasks, equipment, etc. There have been some changes to the Division in the last six years most notably with the implementation of the Centralized Groundwater Treatment System. These changes require modifications to existing data fields and work tasks.

The cost for the modification/upgrade is $67,000. In addition to this one-time cost, the annual subscription cost will increase from $38,000 to $45,090 for data mobile device plans.

The one-time upgrade cost will be paid with current FY 2024-25 budget funds. The new annual subscription cost of $45,090 will be due in October 2025.

Strategic Plan Goal:

The proposed First Amendment with SES allows the Division to meet the goal of maintaining, building and modernizing infrastructure and facilities to support the current and future needs of the City and community.

Fiscal Impact:

The Water Division’s FY 2024-25 annual budget includes sufficient funds for the one-time upgrade cost. The new annual subscription cost of $45,090 will be included in the FY 2025-26 budget.

Attachments:

None

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 9.G.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shawn Igoe, Public Works Director
Subject: Approval of Fifth Amendment to Agreement 2003-AB with United Pumping Service, Inc. for hazardous waste management services

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Fifth Amendment to Agreement 2003-AB with United Pumping Service, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for continued hazardous waste management services for an additional amount of $155,000 through June 30, 2028; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the extension under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively. This activity contemplates administrative and policy decisions that would result in the disposal of hazardous waste consistent with State mandates. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

Executive Summary:

United Pumping Service, Inc. provides the City with routine and emergency hazardous waste management services at various City-owned facilities. The Public Works Director (“Director”) recommends an amendment to the current contract with United Pumping Service, Inc. for an additional $155,000 through June 30, 2028, to continue to support the City’s hazardous waste removal needs.

Background:

The Public Works Department (“Department”) generates hazardous waste material through the regular and recurring maintenance of the City’s parks, streets, and fleet. Hazardous waste

items include paint corrosives, poisons, flammables, toxics, aerosols, and used oil filters, all of which are temporarily stored at designated locations within the City Yard. In addition, clarifiers and waste oil tanks located at the City Yard and Fire Stations require regularly scheduled pumping and cleaning services to remove toxic build-up of wastewater, sludge, and waste oil to maintain equipment efficiency, prevent environmental issues, and avoid costly repairs.

For over the past eight years, United Pumping Service, Inc served the City with scheduled and on-call hazardous waste collection services, including clarifier cleanouts for wastewater and sludge, and the removal of waste oil from the City’s waste oil storage tanks. United Pumping Service is a fully licensed and qualified environmental service provider specializing in the removal of hazardous substances through safe collection, transportation, and disposal of waste at licensed facilities that adhere to strict environmental regulations. Proper disposal of hazardous substances is required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations for waste management. Disposal manifests provided by United Pumping as part of their waste management services allow for documentation and tracking of hazardous waste to a licensed facility for treatment, recycling, or disposal, ensuring the City’s practices for safe and legal waste management. In addition to their current services, staff intends on augmenting United Pumping’s services to include the removal of household hazardous waste items through the City’s clean-up events hosted throughout the year.

United Pumping Services, Inc. was vetted by the Director and has committed to offering hazardous waste management services at their current rates through June 30, 2028, resulting in pricing comparable to other environmental service providers. The Director recommends an amendment to the current contract with United Pumping Services, Inc., for an additional amount of $155,000, for a total contract amount of $238,333.32, for routine and emergency hazardous waste management services to continue to support the City’s hazardous waste removal needs.

Strategic Plan Goal:

This project supports the City’s goal to maintain, build, and modernize infrastructure and facilities to support the current and future needs of our City and community. Safe waste management is essential to protect public health and the environment.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost to amend the current agreement with United Pumping Service, Inc. is $155,000 through June 30, 2028. Funds for hazardous waste management services will be budgeted as part of the annual budget process through Fund 101, 501, and the Household Hazardous Waste Grant Program.

Attachments:

1. United Pumping Service, Inc. service rates

Staff Report
May 21, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
United Pumping Service, Inc. service rates

ffi
United Pumping Service, lnc.

City of Monterey Park
Mary Lou Reyes
(626) 307-1427
m reves@ monterevpa rk.ca. gov
Description:

City of Monterey Park Service RatesT/t/2O25 through 5/30/2028

AN ENVIRONMENTAL REMNDIATION FIRM
l4(Xt0 E. Valley Blvd. . Clty of Induttry' CA 9l74G2E0l o Omce (626) 961-9326. Far (626) 961-3799 United Pumping Service, lnc
Brandon Feig
Cell- (625) 833-7661'
[email protected]
Codes Crew EQ Hourly Rate
c3025 Chemist Cost Plus 25%
c3040 lndustrialHygienist Cost Plus 25%
c2025 Pick Up Truck S44.oo
c3045 Project Manager ST s113.oo
Prevailing Wage ST s74.00
c304507 Project Manager OT s140.00
Prevailing Wage OT Ses.oo
c3045DT Proiect Manager DT S168.oo
Prevailing Wage DT 5122.O0
c6310 PPE Per Person s57.oo
c2035 ER Utility Truck s76.00
c3050 Supervisor ST Leadman Ss3.oo
Prevailing Wage ST s74.oo
c305007 Supervisor OT Leadman s120.00
Prevailing Wage OT Ss8.oo
C3O50DT Supervisor DT Leadman s148.oo
Prevailing Wage DT S122.oo
c6310 PPE Per Person s67.oo
c2030 Stakebed W/ Liftgate s66.oo
c4015 Hydrotech Pressu re Washer S81.oo
c2000 Biowaste Trailer Per Day S264.oo
c3055 Technician ST Laborer S7s.oo
Prevailing Wage ST S74.oo
c305507 Technician OT Laborer S1o2.oo
Prevailing Wage OT Se8.oo
c3055DT Technician DT Laborer S13o.oo
Prevailing Wage DT sL22.oo
c6310 PPE Per Person S67.oo

c1105 50 BBL Vacuum Truck ST s1s7.o0
Prevaili Wage ST Se8.oo
c110507 50 BBL Vacuum Truck OT s1s0.oo
Prevaili Wage OT s131.oo
c110507 50 BBL Vacuum Truck DT S226.oo
Prevail Wage DT s15s.o0
c5310 PPE Per Person s57.00
c7125 120 BBL Vacuum Truck ST sL63.0o
Prevaili Wage ST s98.00
c112507 120 BBL Vacuum Truck OT S2oo.oo
Prevaili Wa OT S131.oo
c112507 L20 BBL Vacuum Truck DT s236.00
Prevail DT $16s.oo
c5310 PPE Per Person s67.oo
c1130 142 BBL Vacuum Truck ST Triple Compartment s207.00 Prevailing Wage ST $s8.oo
c113007 142 BBL Vacuum Truck OT Triple Compartment s244.00 Prevailing Wage OT sL31.oo
c113007 L42BBLVacuum Truck DT Triple Compartment s280.0o Prevailing Wage DT $16s.00
c6310 PPE Per Person SG7.oo
cL425 Demu Tanker Per Day s33o.oo
c3035 Equipment OPerator ST s9s.oo
Prevailing Wage ST Ses.oo
c303507 Equipment OPe rator OT s125.oo
Prevailin OT s1_31.00
c3035DT Equ or DT $1s4.oo
Prevailing Wage DT S16s.oo
c6310 PPE Per Person s67.00
c7000 Backhoe Cost Plus 25%
C2LTO Bobcat W Trailer Skidsteer .00
c7000 Loader- 3 Yard Bucket Cost Plus 25%
c2020 Emerge se Trailer $1,082.00
c1400 Tractor for Em Res Trailer ST Mobe & Demobe S149.oo Prevaili W ST S78.oo
c140007 Tractor for Eme Response Trailer OT Mobe & Demobe $1sG.oo Prevaili W OT s1_00.00
c1_40007 ractor for E nse Trailer DT Mobe & Demobe $222.O0 Prevail DT s123.oo
c6310 PPE Per Person SG7.oo

c1390 Roll-Off W/ Trailer ST W/ Operator s16s.oo
Prevaili ST s78.oo
c139007 Roll-Off W/ Trailer OT W Operator s202.00
Prevailing Wage OT Sloo.oo
c139007 Roll-Off W/ Trailer DT W operator s238.00
Prevailin DT s123.00
c5310 PPE Per Person s67.oo
c5015 Roll-Off Bin- U To 40 Yard Per Day s22.oo
c5025 Roll-Off Bin Liner Per Bin s42.oo
c5010 20 Yard Dewatering Bin Per Day Ss2.oo
c5020 Dewatering Bin Liner Per Bin s204.oo
c1225 Mini-Me (Low Profile Vac Truck) ST s1se.o0
Prevailing Wage ST 598.00
cr2250r Mini-Me (Low Profile Vac Truck) OT s196.oo
Prevailing Wage OT s131.00
cr2250T Mini-Me (Low Profile Vac Truck) DT s232.00
Prevaili Wa DT SlGs.oo
c5310 PPE Per Person s67.oo
c6480 Plastic Sheeting (6 mil) Clear 20'W x 100'L S183.oo c6485 Plastic Sheeting (L0 mil) Clear 20'W x 100'L s3o1.oo c6405 H Du Plastic Each s3.oo
c6155 Pail- 5 Gallon D.O.T With Snap/Screw Lid $35.00
c62to Steel Drum Open ToP- 55 Gal D.O.T Reconditioned S117.oo c6185 Poly Drum Open Top- 55 Gal D.O.T Reconditioned sL09.oo c6150 Overpack Steel Drum- 85 Gal Reconditioned s17o.oo c6140 Drum- 95 Gal Reconditioned $176.00
c6100 Cubic Yard Box With Pallet s1_28.00
c6101 Cardboard Box 4'to 8' Long For Light Tubes s21.00 c6000 Absorbent (Superfine) Per Bag s21_.oo
c6036 Caustic Soda Per Lb. s15.oo
c5005 Absorbent Sock Per Ft. s1o.o0
c5010 Absorbent Pads Per Bale sL27.oo
c502s Bleach Per Gallon $1G.oo
c5055 Simple Green/ Kleen Green Per Gallon S21.oo
c6070 Neozyme Per Gallon s71.oo
7100 Disposal Fees Cost Plus 25%
7000 Outside Services Cost Plus 25%
Listed are many of our more common personnel, equipment, and supplies used in the field for hazardous waste disposal and emergency response services. Depending on the situation and needs we can potentially use any/ all of these services. United also has additional equipment that can be used and can be estimated on a case by case basis. Listed pricing

is based on prevailingwage rates portalto portal.

Customer will be billed on actual time and materials needed to complete the job.

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 11.A.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Elizabeth Yang, Council Member
Subject: Authorizing Mayor Pro Tem Yang to attend the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) Israel Seminar for Asian American and Pacific Islander Leaders

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Acknowledging that participation in the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) Israel Seminar for Asian American and Pacific Islander Leaders is related to an important governmental function, and authorizing Mayor Pro Tem Yang to attend;

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

Mayor Pro Tem Yang received an invitation from the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), in conjunction with American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to participate in an educational seminar in Israel from July 19 to July 27, 2025. To avoid comply with applicable ethics rules, participating in this program is contingent upon acknowledgment by the City Council that the program is related to an important governmental function.

Background:

The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) extended an invitation for me to participate in the Israel Seminar for Asian American and Pacific Islander Leaders scheduled for July 19– 27, 2025. The program is organized by AIEF in coordination with AIPAC and includes meetings with various individuals and organizations in Israel, such as government officials, military personnel, non-governmental organizations, academics, and members of the media. A copy of the invitation is attached.

According to the invitation, the itinerary includes discussions on regional security, geopolitical issues, and cultural and societal dynamics within Israel.

Because the travel is funded by a third party, the sponsoring organization has requested that

participating government officials obtain confirmation that such travel is permitted under applicable ethics rules.

In general, payments, advances, or reimbursements, for travel, including actual transportation and related lodging and subsistence that are reasonably related to a legislative or governmental purpose, made by a foreign government are not prohibited or limited.1 However, such gifts of travel must (1) be reasonably related to a legislative or government purpose; and (2) must be reported on the elected official’s Statement of Economic Interests (“Form 700”).2 Moreover, gifts of the trip expenses may subject the elected official to disqualification from participating in a governmental action affecting the donor.

1. Gov’t Code § 89506(a)(2).

2. Battersby Advice Letter No. A-98-176 (1998); Polanco Advice Letter No. A-92-433 (1992).

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to the City of Monterey Park, as the costs of travel, lodging, and related expenses are being covered by the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF).

Attachments:

1. Invitation Letter from AIEF

Staff Report
May 21 , 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
Invitation Letter from Arne Christenson,
Executive Director of the American Israel
Education Foundation (AIEF)

May 6, 2025

Elizabeth Yang
Mayor Pro Tem, Monterey Park
California
Dear Elizabeth,

On behalf of the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), we invite you to participate in the AIEF Israel Seminar for Asian American and Pacific Islander Leaders.

The trip will depart on Saturday, July 19, 2025; and return to the United States on Sunday morning, July 27, 2025.

This seminar will delve into the critical issues facing Israel in the wake of the October 7 massacre, including: the evolving situation in Gaza; security threats confronting Israel on its northern borders; and the threat posed by Iran and Iranian proxies in the region.

Participants will hear a wide array of viewpoints, including discussions with: Israeli officials; military leaders; heads of non-governmental organizations; and prominent academics and journalists. Throughout the week you will experience firsthand the diversity of Israeli culture, politics, and society.

If you are an elected or appointed government official, a government employee, or otherwise subject to local, state or federal ethics rules, we want to ensure that your participation complies with applicable ethics rules. Since different jurisdictions have varying policies applicable to privately-sponsored travel, please consider this invitation conditional upon your obtaining written confirmation from your ethics authority and/or advisor, on official letterhead, that you may participate in this educational seminar in Israel.

We hope that you will be able to join us on what promises to be a rich, insightful, and educational trip. To confirm your participation, please complete the Participant Confirmation Form at your earliest convenience.

If you have any questions, please contact Pedro Cavallero at [email protected] or (323)333-5825 or Patricio Abramzon at [email protected] or (424)253-1901.

Sincerely,

Arne Christenson
Executive Director

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 11.B.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Philip Lanzafame, Interim Director of Community Development Subject: Consider dissolution of the Design Review Board (DRB) and creating the Economic and Business Development Commission (EBDC) by consolidating the Business Improvement Advisory Committee (BIDAC) and Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Introducing and waiving first reading of an Ordinance _________ dissolving the Design Review Board (“DRB”);

2. Adopting a resolution consolidating the Business Improvement Advisory Committee (“BIDAC”) and the Economic Development Advisory Commission (“EDAC”) into the Economic and Business Development Commission (“EBDC”);

3. Appointing the members of the EBDC; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the draft Ordinance and Resolution according to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). This activity is for general policies and procedure-making intended to promote economic development and streamlining of planning processes.

Accordingly, this activity is exempt from further review.

Executive Summary:

The dissolution and consolidation of committees and commissions aims to streamline operations, enhance collaboration, and provide a more comprehensive approach to planning and economic development within the City. Since 2020, the Planning Commission assumed most responsibilities of the DRB; that Board has not met in five years. The newly created EBDC will maintain the core responsibilities of both existing BIDAC and EDAC commissions.

Background:

To help in City governance, City Council established several commissions, boards, and committees (collectively, a "commission") in accordance with Monterey Park Municipal Code

("MPMC") Chapter 2.82. The Commissions are advisory to the City Council and are provided with limited decision making authority, which is conferred by MPMC 2.82 and City Council resolution.

Design Review Board (“DRB”)

The DRB is a body that was originally established as the Architectural Review Board by Ordinance No. 1615 (1984). Through its evolution as a body, the panel met to advise the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding high quality design standards in building and development projects in order to conserve and maintain the aesthetic value of the community.

In July 2020, Ordinance No. 2181 established that DRB meetings would be required "on an annual basis, or as requested by the City Planner, the Planning Commission, or the City Council." The last DRB meeting took place on February 18, 2020. Between February and July 2020, all DRB meetings were canceled due to the pandemic. With the enactment of Ordinance No. 2181, the DRB became an ad hoc committee, meeting only when necessary.

While DRB meetings were scheduled in 2022 and 2024, they were canceled for lack of a quorum.

Ordinance No. 2181, shifted many of the DRB's responsibilities to the City Planner and, when necessary, the Planning Commission and/or City Council.

Dissolution of the DRB supports the City's Business Recovery Program, which seeks to streamline the development process by reducing the number of public meetings or hearings required for development projects. Additionally, in recent years, many new State laws also encourage and require streamlining of projects, especially those related to housing to ensure more efficient development process.

Business Improvement District Advisory Committee (“BIDAC”) and Economic Development Advisory Committee (“EDAC”)

Two City advisory commissions focus on overlapping areas of economic development and business improvement district operations:

1. The BIDAC is primarily responsible for the oversight and recommendations related to the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID).

2. The EDAC focuses on the broader economic development strategic plan and the City's overall economic health.

Each commission is comprised of five members and holds separate meetings (quarterly for BIDAC and monthly for EDAC). Both commissions operate under the City's guidance, with the Economic Development Manager as their staff liaison.

Maintaining two separate economic development advisory commissions results in redundancy and a lack of integrated strategic planning. To streamline advisory functions, improve communication, and ensure consistency, it is proposed to consolidate these two commissions into one unified advisory commission.

1. Proposed Commission Name:
o The new commission will be named the Economic and Business Development Commission (“EBDC”) to indicate the commission's advisory focus on economic development and business improvement.

2. Frequency of Meetings:
o The Commission will hold quarterly meetings with special meetings as needed, ensuring more consistent oversight and coordination.

3. Number of Commission Members:
o The number of commissioners will be set at five. This provides a broad range of expertise and representation while maintaining a manageable quorum, balancing Downtown business interests and Citywide economic development perspectives, with at least three commissioners owning property or operating a business in the Downtown Business Improvement District (“BID”). o Initial Appointment: It is recommended that the new commission be populated with active participants from the membership of the two existing commissions.

While EDAC and BIDAC are structured to have five seats each, current circumstances have resulted in fewer actively participating members. EDAC presently has one vacant seat and two active members. There are two other EDAC commissioners (EDAC Seat 3 and Seat 5) whose other obligations have caused them to miss meetings and become disengaged. BIDAC currently has one vacant seat and four active members; two members have “termed-out” and are serving on extended terms until a replacement is identified.

To ensure continuity and leverage the experience of the actively engaged members, it is recommended that the City Council appoint the existing two active members of EDAC and three of the four existing active members of BIDAC to become commissioners of the new EBDC. In addition to thanking the inactive commissioners for their service and phasing out those seats as part of the consolidation, the Commissioner occupying BIDAC Seat #3 has agreed to end his extended term and withdraw from service. This would result in five commissioners for the newly formed EBDC. It is necessary to reassign appointed seats and in some cases, the appointing Council member to reconcile the new commission as identified in the adopting resolution.

4. Economic and Business Development Commission Core Roles and Responsibilities:
o Economic Development Strategic Plan: Monitor and recommend the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan updates.
o Downtown Business District Management: Make recommendations to the City staff regarding the BID's operations, marketing, and revenue management. o BID Revenue Management: Make recommendations to the City staff regarding how revenue is derived from the charges, assessments, and contributions imposed by MPMC Chapter 5.82 and Streets and Highways Code § 36500, et seg.
o Business Support and Advocacy: Serve as liaison between the City and the business community, providing recommendations for support, resources, and

advocacy for local businesses.

5. Commission Membership Criteria:
o Downtown District Representation: At least three commissioners must own property or operate/manage a business within the BID.
o Citywide Representation: Commissioners must be Monterey Park residents with business experience or have a finance, economic, or development background.

6. City Staff Liaison Role:
o The Economic Development Manager, who currently serves as the liaison for BIDAC and EDAC, will serve as the staff liaison for the new commission.

7. The proposed EBDC will provide the following benefits:
o Streamlined Operations: Consolidating BIDAC and EDAC will reduce redundancy and enhance efficiency by having a single advisory commission, combining resources and staff time for a single commission rather than two. o Comprehensive Economic Vision: Unifying EDAC and BIDAC into the new EBDC will provide a more holistic and integrated approach to economic development, encompassing Downtown revitalization and Citywide initiatives, allowing for consistent, timely recommendations for both Downtown-specific and Citywide economic issues.
o Enhanced Collaboration: The consolidated commission will facilitate integrated discussions among Downtown stakeholders, residents, and business professionals with Citywide interests.
o Increased Efficiency and Effectiveness: The new commission will have fewer meetings overall and a more focused agenda during quarterly or special meetings.

Strategic Plan Goal:

This proposed commission consolidation supports the City's goal to strengthen the local economy and enhance housing opportunities by dissolving the DRB and consolidating BIDAC and EDAC into the EBDC. The consolidation will reduce redundancy, increase effectiveness and efficiency, enhance the City's ability to address the needs of its businesses and residents and promote sustainable economic growth and development.

Fiscal Impact:

No fiscal impact is associated with consolidating the BIDAC and EDAC commissions and dissolving the DRB (other than administrative costs associated with codifying the Ordinance).

Instead, the City may realize modest savings by reducing the frequency of separate meetings, consolidating noticing requirements, and centralizing staff support.

Attachments:

1. Ordinance – DRB Dissolution

2. Resolution – EBDC Creation and EDAC/BIDAC Consolidation

ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance – DRB Dissolution

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL

CODE DISSOLVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1:Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:

A. On February 27, 1984 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1615 and created the Architectural Review Board, to act as an advisory body, to ensure a high quality of architectural and design standards in buildings, landscaping, signed and general appearance of development projects so as to conserve use of land and maintain a proper relationship between the taxable value of real property and the cost of providing municipal services.

B. On April 13, 1987 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1696 revising the Architectural Review Board and renaming it the “Design Review Boards” (“DRB”) to provide a professional and coordinated process of development review and administration.

C. On July 15, 2020 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2181 revising the duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission and DRB in order to streamline the City’s land use planning and permitting process, by adjusting responsibilities to be absorbed by the city staff, City Planner, or the Planning Commission. Referral of projects to the DRB can be made by the City Planner, Planning Commission, or the City Council.

D. Since the enactment of Ordinance No. 2181, city staff, the City Planner, and Planning Commission have provided design decisions and recommendations to applicants and developers. Further, new state laws have encouraged or mandated objective design standards to ensure a more efficient development process.

Consequently, a DRB meeting has not been requested to review projects related to design.

E. Special Joint Commission meetings scheduled in 2022 and 2024 and the DRB did not have a quorum, further demonstrating the diminished need for its functions.

F. After careful consideration and evaluation, the DRB’s functions and responsibilities are adequately dispersed to the City Planner, Planning Commission, and City Council, and the dissolution of the DRB is in the best interest of the City.

SECTION 2:Amendment. Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) sections 2.56.030, and 2.56.040 are repealed in their entirety.

Ordinance No.

SECTION 3:Environmental Review. This Ordinance was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.. the “CEQA Guidelines”). Based upon that review, this Ordinance is exempt from further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 4:Electronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 5:Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 6:Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its Application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

SECTION 7:Recordation. The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 8:Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after second reading and adoption.
(Mayor signature and attestation must be on the same page.) PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2025.
____________________________
Vinh Ngo, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Ordinance No.

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
By:________________________________
Justin A. Tamayo, Assistant City Attorney

ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution – EBDC Creation and EDAC/BIDAC
Consolidation

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE THE ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (“EBDC”) AND DISSOLVING THE

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(“BIDAC”) AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
COMMISSION (“EDAC”)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monterey Park as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:

A. Pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 2.82 , the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11589 establishing various commissions, boards, and committees to aid in the governance of the City; B. The Business Improvement District Advisory Committee (“BIDAC”) and the Economic Development Advisory Commission (“EDAC”) are advisory commissions focusing on overlapping areas of economic development and business improvement district operations;
C. The BIDAC is primarily responsible for the oversight and recommendations related to the Downtown Business Improvement District (“BID”), and the EDAC focuses on the broader economic development strategic plan and the City’s overall economic health;
D. Maintaining two separate economic development commissions creates redundancy and a lack of integrated strategic planning, hindering the City’s ability to coordinate efforts effectively and respond proactively to economic opportunities;
E. The City Council desires to streamline advisory functions, improve communication, and ensure consistency in advising the City Council and staff on economic development and business improvement matters by consolidating the BIDAC and EDAC into a single commission which will be known as Economic and Business Development Commision (“EBDC”). EBDC will improve coordination efforts, respond proactively to Downtown and City-wide economic opportunities, and deliver cohesive recommendations to the City Council and staff, advancing the City’s economic development goals in a more unified and efficient manner;
F. Unless otherwise provided by this Resolution, all Boards and Commissions established by this Resolution will conform with MPMC Chapter 2.82 as to membership, terms, and procedures.

SECTION 2:Action. The City Council establishes an Economic and Business Development Commission (‘EBDC’)” Commission as follows:

A.Membership. The EBDC consists of five commissioners and each member must be either a resident of the city or have business experience with a background in finance, economics or development. At least three commissioners must own property or operate/manager a business within the BID.

B.Responsibilities. The Economic Development Advisory Commission may undertake the following activities:

1. Monitor implementation of the most current economic development strategic plan adopted by the city council;

2. Recommend updates or amendments to the economic development strategic plan as deemed necessary;

3. Provide the city council with annual reports on progress towards meeting economic and community development goals as identified in the economic development strategic plan; and

4. Act in an advisory capacity to the city council on the needs of local businesses, and the availability of economic development opportunities and resources.

5. Make recommendations to the City Council regarding operations and marketing for the downtown business area;

6. Make recommendations to the City Council regarding the methods and ways in which the revenue is derived from the charges, assessments and contributions imposed or authorized by MPMC Chapter 5.82 and Streets and Highways Code §§ 36500, et seq.

SECTION 3: Repeal. Resolution No. 11589 is amended by repealing Sections 3 (Business Improvement District Advisory Commission) and 6 (Economic Development Advisory Commission). All other sections of Resolution No. 11589 remain effective.

SECTION 4:Appointment. The following persons are appointed to the EBDC:

A.Seat 1: Julio Garcia (Vinh Ngo);
B.Seat 2: Amy Newman (Jose Sanchez);
C.Seat 3: Josephine Louie (Thomas Wong);
D.Seat 4: Zhen Wu (Henry Lo); and

E.Seat 5: Albert Young (Elizabeth Yang).

SECTION 5:Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 6:Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 7:Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 7:Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 8:Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 9:Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2025.
____________________________
Vinh Ngo, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
By:________________________________
Justin A. Tamayo, Assistant City Attorney

City Council Staff Report

Date: May 21, 2025
Agenda Item Number: 11.C.

To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Renewal of Contract with Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and a conduct a public hearing to consider introduction and first reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 6 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code regarding public health services and incorporation of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for public health services;

2. Introducing and waiving the first reading of an ordinance amending Title 6 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code;

3. Setting the second reading and Public Hearing for June 18, 2025; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Executive Summary:

The City of Monterey Park contracts with the County of Los Angeles Public Health Department for public health services. In order for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to continue to perform public health services, the City needs to amend Title 6 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code and adopt Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code regarding health and safety. Due to regulatory requirements for the notifications of code adoptions and publication date schedules, the second reading and Public Hearing date will not occur until the June 18, 2025 City Council meeting.

Background:

The City of Monterey Park has contracted with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health ("LACDPH") since 1963 for public health services. To ensure continuity of services, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a contract with the LACDPH, which will expire in 2029, with the option to automatically renew.

By entering into an agreement within LACDPH, the County is also requesting that the City adopt, by reference, Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code, which includes health and safety. Adopting Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code will ensure the City is in compliance with the County on public health services.

The draft ordinance (Attachment 2), if adopted, would incorporate Los Angeles County Code Title 11 as indicated in Attachment 4. Additionally, the ordinance would amend existing MPMC Title 6 as set forth in Attachment 3.

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

It is unknown at this time if there would be any fiscal impact.

Attachments:

1. Agreement

2. Draft Ordinance

3. MPMC Chapter 6

4. LA County Code Title 11

Staff Report
May 21, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
Agreement

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
Contract No. PH-005642

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACT

THIS CONTRACT “Contract” is made and entered into on _______________

by and between COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
(hereafter "County")

and CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
(hereafter "City")

THIS PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACT ("Contract") is made by and between the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Monterey Park hereinafter referred to as "City."

RECITALS:

The City desires to continue to contract with the County for the performance of public health services by the County’s Department of Public Health (“Public Health”), for the County’s Health Officer to act as the City’s Health Officer, and for the County's Department of Public Health to serve as the City's Environmental Health Department.

The County agrees to continue performing such services on the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract.

This Contract is authorized by California Health and Safety Code Sections 101400 and 101405.

To effectuate public health services for the City, the County and its duly appointed Health Officer shall exercise the powers and duties that are conferred upon local health officers by law.

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
The County Health Officer shall fulfill the obligations and exercise the authority conferred by California Health and Safety Code Sections 101470 and 101475 within the territorial jurisdiction of the City in the performance of this Contract.

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. TERM: This Contract shall become effective upon date of execution, and replace all prior contracts for public health services between the City and County.

This contract shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2029. Subject to Section 7 below, this Contract shall thereafter be automatically renewed for consecutive five (5) year terms, for an indefinite period, without further action by either City or County, unless City or County terminates the Contract in the manner set forth in Section 7.

2. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES: The County and the County’s Health Officer shall observe and enforce within the territorial jurisdiction of the City all of the following:
a. Orders, quarantine, and other regulations, concerning public health, prescribed by the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”). b. Statutes relating to public health.
c. Provisions of Los Angeles County Code, Title 11, and any amendments thereto, as adopted by City by ordinance or resolution, to the same extent as they are enforced in the unincorporated area of the County.

3. DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTIONS:
a. The performance of all public health services, the standard of performance and other matters incidental to the performance of public health services and observation and enforcement of public health statutes, regulations, ordinances and CDPH orders and guidance shall be determined solely at the discretion of the County Health Officer and/or Director of County

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
Public Health. The control of County personnel under this Contract shall remain exclusively with the County.
b. The County agrees to continue to perform for the City such public health services as are authorized or mandated by state laws or regulations related to public health, to be performed by the local health officer or local enforcement agency.
i. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 101045, the County shall investigate health and sanitary conditions in detention facilities operated by the City, if any. County may bill and receive payment from City for inspection and reporting services in the manner provided by Paragraph 4, subsections (g) and (h) of this Contract.
ii. For future enactments of state law or regulation, County agrees to perform public health services that impose a specific duty or obligation on the local health officer to observe or enforce. Should future state law statutory or regulatory enactment related to public health not impose a duty or obligation on the local health officer, City may request in writing that the County perform that public health service. Should County elect to perform that discretionary public health service for City, pursuant to such City request, then County may bill and receive payment from City for inspection and reporting services in the manner provided by Section 4, subsections (g) and (h) of this Contract.
c. The County agrees to continue to perform for the City such public health services as authorized or mandated by provisions of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code, and any amendments or additions thereto, that the City has adopted via ordinance or resolution.
i. Should the County Board of Supervisors enact future provisions to or amend existing provisions of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code, County will inform the City of the newly enacted provision or amendment via email to the City’s Manager, and describe the

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
enacted new provision or amendment and the impact to the services performed under this Contract, if any.
ii. For future ordinances that may be enacted by the Board of Supervisors into Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code, in order for the County to observe and enforce that enacted ordinance within the City, the City must approve the incorporation of the identical version of that new Title 11 provision into its municipal code via ordinance or by resolution of the City Council. iii. Any future amendments to provisions of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code that exist in the City’s Municipal Code at the date of the execution of this Contract, shall be incorporated by the City into its municipal code.
d. The County shall issue public health permits and licenses to permittees located within the City and collect the fees as provided for in Los Angeles County Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.04. Such fees shall be retained by County Public Health for the benefit of County as full compensation for the services performed by the Public Health Director and County Health Officer on behalf of the City.
i. County may, from time to time, amend or alter the public health permit or license fees charged to those individuals or entities required to obtain a public health permit or license pursuant to either state statute or Los Angeles County Code, Title 8, Chapter

8.04. ii. City may not set, collect, or retain public health permit or license fees for any public health service performed by County under this Contract.
e. For the purpose of performing said functions, County shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide the public health services described in this Contract and as necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare as determined by Public Health in its sole discretion. All persons employed in

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
the performance of public health services and functions under this Contract shall be County personnel.

4. GENERAL TERMS:
a. To facilitate the performance of public health services, City and County will cooperate and assist each other to fulfill the purpose and intent of this Contract.
b. Exhibit A of this Contract, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall provide the language of the City’s Municipal Code, as amended, that reflects the City’s specific adoption of Division 1 of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code as of the effective date of this Contract.

Exhibit A may be revised to reflect any changes to the City’s Municipal Code regarding Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code. c. All persons employed in the performance of such public health duties, functions and services for City shall be County employees or personnel and no City employee shall be supplanted by County, and no person employed by County under this Contract shall have any City pension, civil service, or any status or right.
d. The City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wages or other compensation to any County personnel performing services hereunder for the City, or be liable for compensation to or required to indemnify any County employee for injury or sickness arising out of his or her employment.
e. The parties have executed an Assumption of Liability Contract approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 27, 1977, and/or a Joint Indemnity Contract approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 8, 1991. Whichever of these documents the City has signed later in time is currently in effect and hereby made a part of and incorporated into this Contract by reference. In the event that the Board of Supervisors later approves a revised Joint Indemnity Contract, and the City executes the

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
revised contract, the subsequent contract as of its effective date shall supersede the contract previously in effect between the parties hereto. f. City is not required to separately reimburse County for the performance or enforcement of any City ordinance or resolution which adopts identical provisions of Los Angeles County Code, Title 11, and its amendments. g. Should City request in writing additional public health services of the County, that are not required by statute, regulation or CDPH Order, or as provided in Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code, the County may charge the City, at rates approved by the Board of Supervisors, an hourly rate that will reimburse the County for the costs for the provision of those specific public health services.
h. County, through its Director of Public Health, must render to City within twenty (20) calendar days after the close of each calendar month an itemized invoice which covers all extra services performed for City if such services were requested by the City in writing, during said month, and City must pay County within thirty (30) days after date of such invoice. i. If a violation of public health statutes, regulations or ordinances results in a public health hazard within the City, County will notify the City Manager in writing. If the City elects to pursue legal prosecution or abatement, City shall provide to County contact information for counsel that will represent the City or the People in any legal proceeding to abate or mitigate the public health hazard. City shall bear the full cost of such proceedings.

County may bill City on an hourly basis for time spent by County employees participating in such legal proceedings.

5. NOTICES: Notices hereunder must be in writing and may either be delivered personally or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, attention to the parties at the addresses listed below. Public Health Director, or the Director’s designee, is authorized to execute all notices or demands which are required or permitted by County under this Contract.

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
Addresses and parties to be notified may be changed by providing at least ten (10) working days prior written notice to the other party.

A. Notices to County must be addressed as follows:
(1) Department of Public Health
Environmental Health – Administrative Headquarters
5050 Commerce Drive
Baldwin Park, California 91706
Attention: Director, Environmental Health
E-mail: [email protected]

(2) Department of Public Health
Contracts and Grants Division
5555 Ferguson Drive, 2nd Floor, Suite 210
Commerce, CA 90022
Attention: Division Director
Email: [email protected]

(3) Department of Public Health
Office of the Director
Attention: Director, Public Health
313 North Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Email: [email protected]

B. Notices to City must be addressed as follows:

(1) City of Monterey Park
Attention: City Manager
320 West Newmark Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 307-1458

6. GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE: This Contract will be governed by, and will be construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. City agrees and consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of California or the United States Courthouse, Central District, Western Division, for all purposes regarding this Contract and further agrees and consents

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
that venue of any action brought under this Contract shall be exclusively in the County of Los Angeles.

7. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: The performance of services under this Contract may be terminated, with or without cause, in whole or in part, from time to time when such action is deemed by County or City to be in their own best interest. Termination of services hereunder shall be effectuated by the delivery of an advance written Notice of Termination of the entire Contract by one party to the other at least one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days prior to July 1 of the following calendar year. The termination of services may only be effective on July 1 of the calendar year, so as to assure no lapse in public health and local health officer services to the residents of City.

8. ALTERATION OF TERMS/AMENDMENTS: The body of this Contract and any Exhibits attached hereto, and documents incorporated by reference, fully expresses all understandings of the parties concerning all matters covered and shall constitute the total Contract. No addition to, or alteration of, the terms of this Contract, whether by written or verbal understanding of the parties, their officers, employees or agents, shall be valid and effective unless made in the form of a written amendment to this Contract which is formally approved and executed by the parties in the same manner as this Contract.

9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS: This Contract is by and between the County and City and is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture, or association, as between the County and City. The employees and agents of one party shall not be, or be construed to be, the employees or agents of the other party for any purpose whatsoever.

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642

10. NO INTENT TO CREATE A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, the parties do not in any way intend that any person shall acquire any rights as a third-party beneficiary under this Contract.

11. VALIDITY: If any provision of this Contract or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Contract and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

12. WAIVER: No waiver by the County of any breach of any provision of this Contract shall constitute a waiver of any other breach or of such provision.

Failure of the County to enforce at any time, or from time to time, any provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver thereof. The rights and remedies set forth in this paragraph shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Contract. /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

City of Monterey Park – PH-005642
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has caused this Contract to be subscribed by its Director of Public Health, and Contractor has caused this Contract to be subscribed in its behalf by its duly authorized officer, the month, day, and year first written above.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

By: ____________________________ By: _____________________________ Inez Alvarez Barbara Ferrer, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.Ed.

City Manager Director

Date: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM

BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY BY THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

KARL H. BERGER, City Attorney DAWYN R. HARRISON, County Counsel

By: ____________________________ APPROVED AS TO CONTRACT City Attorney ADMINISTRATION:

Department of Public Health

Date: ___________________________
By: _____________________________
Contracts and Grants Division
ATTEST:

MAYCHELLE YEE, City Clerk
Date: ___________________________

By: ____________________________
City Clerk

Date: ___________________________
(AFFIX CORPORATE SEAL HERE)

#07642:db

MONTEREY PARK – PH-005642

Exhibit A:

CITIES - HEALTH OFFICER - ADOPTION OF COUNTY CODE

MONTEREY PARK
ADOPTION OF OUR COUNTY CODE TITLE 8 & TITLE 11

6.04.010 Adoption.

Subject to the particular additions, deletions and amendments set forth in this chapter, the rules, regulations, provisions and conditions set forth in that certain code entitled “Public Health Code (Ordinance No. 7583)” including amendments thereto by Ordinances 7616, 7674, 8095, 8200, 8284, 8425, 8588, 8614, 9375, 9565, 10075, 10238, 10624 and 10728, promulgated, adopted and published by the county of Los Angeles, including the appendix “Rules and Regulations” attached thereto, three full printed copies of which, printed as a code in book form, were by the city council ordered filed and which are on file in the office of the city clerk, and which as so on file are hereby referred to and by this reference expressly incorporated herein and made a part hereof as fully and for all intents and purposes as though set forth herein at length, are hereby established and adopted as the rules, regulations, provisions and conditions to be observed and followed in matters of public health, sanitation and public institutions in the city. Subject to said additions, deletions and amendments set forth in this chapter, said code with said “Rules and Regulations” appendix, containing said rules, regulations, standards, provisions and conditions, is hereby established and adopted and the same shall be designated, known and referred to as the “Public Health Code” of and for the city. (Ord. 1384 § 1, 1975; Ord. 1277 § 1, 1970; Ord. 1218 § 1, 1968; prior code § 5100)

CITY MUNICIPAL CODE EXCLUSION OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

6.04.020 DeleƟons.

The following secƟons of the Public Health Code are hereby repealed: SecƟon 601, SecƟon 603, and SecƟon 608. (Ord. 1277 § 1, 1970; Ord. 1218 § 1, 1968; prior code § 5100)

Staff Report
May 21, 2025

ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING MONTEREY PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.04 IN ITS ENTIRETY TO
INCORPORATE TITLE 11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE

REGARDING HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS WITHIN THE
CITY’S JURISDICTION

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. This Ordinance adopts the Los Angeles County Health and Safety Code by reference;

B. The City reviewed this Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. , “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”); CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and Monterey Park Guidelines collectively referred to as “CEQA Regulations”);

C. On May 21, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Ordinance including, without limitation, information provided to the City Council by the Assistant City Manager and public testimony;

D. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the City’s police powers as authorized by California Constitution, Article XI, section 7; and

E. The findings in this Ordinance are made based on the entire administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at its May 21, 2025, public hearing including, without limitation, the staff report.

SECTION 2: Environmental Assessment. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of this Ordinance under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). This Ordinance is for general policies and procedure -making. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

SECTION 3: Incorporation of Los Angeles County Code. Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 6.04 is amended and restated as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” which is incorporated by reference.

Ordinance No.

SECTION 4: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 5: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 6: Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 7: Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

SECTION 8: Preservation. This Ordinance does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or prelude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before, this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 9: Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the city’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 10: Recordation. The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 11: Electronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code § 16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all

Ordinance No.

respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 12: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after second reading and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2025.

____________________________
Vinh T. Ngo, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

By:________________________________
Justin A. Tamayo, Assistant City Attorney

Exhibit A — Amended and Restated MPMC Chapter 6.04
Exhibit B — Los Angeles County Code Title 11 (Health and Safety)

Ordinance No.

EXHIBIT A
AMENDED AND RESTATED MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.04

“CHAPTER 6.04 INCORPORATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

§ 6.04.010 Incorporation of Los Angeles County Code Title 11.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.9, the city council incorporates into this code Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code entitled “Health and Safety, including, without limitation Division 1, subject to the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in this Chapter. The provisions of this code take precedence over any conflicting provisions in Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code.

§ 6.04.020 Amendments to the Los Angeles County Code.

Los Angeles County Code Title 11, as adopted by Ordinance No. 7583, is amended as follows:

(1) Section 601, Section 603, and Section 608 are repealed. (2) Section 555 is amended to read: “every person maintaining a wading pool which is open to the public must provide constant supervision at all times when such wading pool is open to the public, by an adult or person 16 years or older who is credentialed as a qualified Life Saver.”

§ 6.04.030 Additions to the Los Angeles County Code.

Section 113 is added to the Los Angeles Public Health Code to read as follows: “any person dissatisfied with any decision or order of the Health Officer, under the provisions of this Code, may appeal said decision or order, within five days after the effective date of such decision or order, to the City Council. The decision of the City Council is final.”

§ 6.04.040 General Penalty.

Any person violating any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor unless otherwise provided in this Title.”

Los Angeles County, California, Code of Ordinances
Title 11 HEALTH AND SAFETY

Los Angeles County, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:38 [EST] (Supp. No. 141)

Title 11

HEALTH AND SAFETY
Divisions:

Division 1 HEALTH CODE
Chapter 11.01 PREVENTING RETALIATION FOR REPORTING PUBLIC HEALTH

VIOLATIONS

11.01.010 Title.

The Ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be known as the "Preventing Retaliation for Reporting Public Health Violations Ordinance."
(Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

11.01.020 Definitions.

Whenever used in this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall be defined as set forth in this Section.

A. "Worker" means any employee who performs work for an Employer within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles or within any city that incorporates the entirety of this ordinance into its municipal code.

B. "Employer" means any person, as defined in section 18 of the California Labor Code, including a corporate officer or executive, who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing agency or similar entity, employs any Workers or exercises control over the wages, hours, duties, or working conditions of any Workers. This Chapter and the definition of "Employer" do not apply to federal, State, or local government entities.

C. "Health Officer Order" means any order or protocol issued by the Los Angeles County Health Officer.

D. "Public Health Council" means a group of Workers, not including supervisors or managers, whose purpose is to educate and inform other Workers for the same Employer regarding any Health Officer Order, any protections for Workers under Title 11 of this Code, any local emergency related to public health proclaimed by the Board of Supervisors, or any public health emergency declared by the Los Angeles County Health Officer.
(Ord. 2023-0035 § 2, 2023; Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

11.01.030 Retaliation Against Workers Prohibited.

A. No Employer may discriminate in any manner or take adverse action, including but not limited to termination, constructive termination, demotion, pay reduction, or reduction in hours, against any Worker in retaliation for:

Exhibit B

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:11 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

1. Reporting to the County of Los Angeles, its Department of Public Health, any other County departments or designees, non-County agencies or entities, the Worker's Employer, other Workers, or Public Health Councils about the Employer's or another Worker's perceived noncompliance with a Health Officer Order, this Chapter, or any other Chapter of Title 11 of this Code;

2. Discussing with the County of Los Angeles, its Department of Public Health, any other County departments or designees, non-County agencies or entities, the Worker's Employer, other Workers, or Public Health Council the Employer's, or another Worker's, perceived noncompliance with a Health Officer Order, this Chapter, or any other Chapter of Title 11 of this Code;

3. Belonging to or forming a Public Health Council;

4. Informing any Worker of his or her rights under this Chapter or any other Chapter of Title 11 of this Code, or assisting such Worker in exercising such rights;

5. Exercising any right provided under this Chapter; or

6. Discussing with another Worker a local emergency related to public health proclaimed by the Board of Supervisors or a public health emergency declared by the Los Angeles County Health Officer.

B. The protections of this Section shall apply to all communications and actions of a Worker set forth above in subsections A.1 through and including A.6 that are made in good faith.

C. Taking adverse action against a Worker within 90 days of the Worker's exercise of rights protected under this Section shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having done so in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. (Ord. 2023-0035 § 3, 2023; Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

11.01.035 Worker Notification Requirement.

A. The Department of Consumer and Business Affairs ("DCBA") shall prepare and provide a notice informing workers of their rights under this Chapter for posting in order for employers to comply with this Section. The DCBA shall make available electronic and hardcopy versions of such notice.

B. Every employer shall post in a conspicuous place at any workplace or jobsite within the geographic boundaries of the County of Los Angeles ("the County") where any Worker works, excluding cities with their own Health Officer, the notice provided by the DCBA informing Workers of their rights under this Chapter.

Employers who do not have a physical jobsite within the geographic boundaries of the County must provide a copy of the notice to each worker who performs work within the geographic boundaries of th e County, excluding cities with their own Health Officer.

C. If, during the course of an investigation or compliance check, the DCBA determines that there is a violation of this provision, the DCBA may issue and serve a Correction Order on the employer immediately requiring them to post the notice. The Correction Order shall identify the violation to be corrected and allow a reasonable amount of time to correct the violation.

D. An administrative fine of up to $500 payable to the County may be assessed for a violation of this provision.

The fine may be assessed and communicated to the employer according to the rules developed by the DCBA under section 11.01.060 of this Chapter. Each day of a continuing violation constitutes a new and separate violation.
(Ord. 2022-0064 § 1, 2022.)

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:11 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

11.01.040 Investigation of Complaints.

A. Any complaints alleging a violation of this Chapter must be lodged with the Department of Public Health or any of its agents or designees.

B. The Department of Consumer and Business Affairs shall act as an agent for the Department of Public Health to investigate any complaint under this Chapter.

C. The Department of Consumer and Business Affairs may issue a finding that an Employer has violated this Chapter no later than one year after receiving the corresponding complaint. (Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

11.01.050 Administrative Fine for Violation.

Any Employer who violates this Chapter may be subject to an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 per violation per day pursuant to Chapter 1.25 of this Code. (Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

11.01.060 Adoption of Rules.

The Department of Consumer and Business Affairs may develop rules for the administration and implementation of this Chapter. A copy of such rules shall be filed with the Executive Officer of the Board and shall be in effect immediately thereafter.
(Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

11.01.070 Right of Action to Enforce Violations.

A. Any Worker aggrieved by an act made unlawful by this Chapter, or County Counsel on behalf of such Worker, may, within three years of an Employer's last act made unlawful by this Chapter, bring an action in the Superior Court of the State of California against that Employer for violations of this Chapter, and the aggrieved Worker may be awarded:

1. Where applicable, hiring or reinstatement to the position(s) sought or held before the alleged unlawful act, or front pay in lieu thereof.

2. All actual damages (including, but not limited to, lost pay and benefits and noneconomic damages) suffered by the Worker, or statutory damages in the sum of $10,000 per violation, whichever is greater.

3. Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294.

B. The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party, including to a Worker, to County Counsel, or to an Employer who prevails in a lawsuit by a Worker and demonstrates that the Worker's lawsuit was frivolous.
(Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:11 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

11.01.080 Notice Before Initiating Suit.

A. Before a civil action is filed by a Worker or County Counsel under Section 11.01.070, the following requirements must be met:

1. The Worker or County Counsel must provide written notice to the Employer of the provisions of this Chapter alleged to have been violated and the facts to support the alleged violations; and

2. The Employer fails to cure the alleged violations of this Chapter within fifteen (15) business days of receiving such written notice.
(Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)

11.01.090 Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this urgency ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion(s) of this urgency ordinance. The Board hereby declares that it would have passed this urgency ordinance and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional or invalid. (Ord. 2020-0065U § 1, 2020.)
Chapter 11.02 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Part 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1 REGULATIONS

11.02.010 Continuation of provisions.

The provisions of the ordinance codified in Division 1 of this Title 11, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing ordinance provisions relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactment.
(Ord. 2006-0040 § 68, 2006; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 109, 1959.)

11.02.020 Director of public health—Statutory authority.

The duties of the director of public health are those set forth in the Health and Safety Code of the state of California, and particularly, but not limited to, those set forth in Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 101 of said Code. (Ord. 2006-0040 § 69, 2006; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 103, 1959.)

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:11 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

11.02.030 Director of public health—Powers and duties generally.

The director of public health shall have the authority and duty to make periodic and routine surveys and inspections of all buildings, lots, camps, areas, tracts of land, tents, mobilehome parks, mobilehomes, vehicles, and other premises and places used or intended for use for living quarters, and shall enforce:

A. Division 1 of this Title 11;
B. All other ordinances of this county pertaining to the public health and sanitary matters; C. Ordinances pertaining to the public health and sanitary matters of those cities which have entered into contracts with the county for such enforcement;
D. Within the unincorporated territory of the county, and within those cities the governing bodies of which have consented thereto pursuant to Section 101375 of the Health and Safety Code:

1. Orders, quarantine regulations and rules prescribed by the California Department of Health Services, and other rules and regulations issued under the provisions of the Health and Safety Code,

2. Statutes relating to the public health.
(Ord. 2006-0040 § 70, 2006; Ord. 8588 § 2 (part), 1964; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 112, 1959.)

11.02.040 Powers of deputies.

Whenever a power is granted to or a duty imposed upon the director of public health in this Division 1, the power may be exercised or the duty performed by a duly authorized representative of the director unless this Division 1 expressly provides otherwise.
(Ord. 2006-0040 § 71, 2006; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 102, 1959.)

11.02.050 Arrests for violations—Penal Code provisions adopted.

The director, and his delegated subordinates pursuant to the provisions of Section 836.5 of the Penal Code, may arrest a person without a warrant whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in his presence which is a violation of any statute or ordinance referred to by Section

11.02.030. Upon making such an arrest, the director or his subordinate may release the person arrested pursuant to the provisions of Section 853.6 of the Penal Code, the provisions of which are hereby adopted by reference as part of this section.
(Ord. 10238 § 1, 1971; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 113, 1959.)

11.02.060 Interfering with director's duties prohibited.

No person shall refuse, resist or attempt to resist the entrance of the director of public health into any railway car, stage, vehicle, building, room, lot or other place or portion thereof in the county of Los Angeles in the performance of his duty, or shall refuse to obey any lawful order of the director of public health made in the performance of his duties within the power conferred upon him by state law or by Division 1 of this title. (Ord. 2006-0040 § 72, 2006; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 104, 1959.)

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:11 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

11.02.070 Severability.

If any provision of this Division 1 or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Division 1, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
(Ord. 7674 § 1, 1960; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 107, 1959.)

11.02.080 Violation—Penalty.

Violation of Division 1 of Title 11 is punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this Division 1 is committed, continued or permitted makes such violation of a separate offense.
(Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 110, 1959.)

11.02.085 Applicability.

Unless otherwise expressly set forth in this Code, the provisions under Title 11 shall apply only to the unincorporated areas of the County and any incorporated city which adopts this Title 11, in whole or in part, into its municipal code by adoption or resolution.
(Ord. 2024-0048 § 1, 2024.)
Article 2 DEFINITIONS

11.02.090 Interpretation of language.

In this Division 1, the present tense includes the past and future tenses, and future tense includes the present; the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter; the singular number includes the plural and the plural includes the singular.
(Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 108, 1959.)

11.02.100 County health officer.
"County health officer" means the director of public health of the county of Los Angeles, or his duly authorized representative.
(Ord. 2006-0040 § 73, 2006; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 100, 1959.)

11.02.110 Health officer and director.

For the purposes of Title 11, "health officer" and "director" both mean the director of public health of the county of Los Angeles, or his duly authorized representative, as provided for in Section 2.77.050 of this code. (Ord. 2006-0040 § 74, 2006; Ord. 10728 § 1 (part), 1973; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 101, 1959.)

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:11 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

11.02.120 Person.
"Person" means and includes any individual or his heirs, agents or assigns, any company, firm, corporation, association, business trust, joint adventure, or group or combination acting as a unit, any political subdivision, governmental department or agency, municipal or public corporation or district, governing body of a school district, or any employee, officer, or any other kind of representative of any thereof, acting either under personal appointment or pursuant to law.
(Ord. 92-0078 § 4, 1992; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 105, 1959.)

11.02.130 Section.

Unless otherwise indicated by the context, "section" means a section of the Health Code set out in Division 1 of this title.
(Ord. 8095 § 1, 1961; Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 111, 1959.)

11.02.140 Shall and may.

The word "shall" is mandatory; the word "may" permissive. (Ord. 7583 Part 1 § 106, 1959.)
Part 2 PROVISIONS FOR CHAPTERS 11.06 THROUGH 11.38
Article 1 REGULATIONS

11.02.150 Purpose of provisions—Statutory definitions incorporated when.

Part 2 of Chapter 11.02 and Chapters 11.06 through 11.38 of this title are intended to supplement the provisions of the laws and regulations of the state of California by prescribing higher standards of sanitation, health and safety.

Whenever any technical words or phrases are not defined herein, but are defined in such laws and regulations of the state, such definitions are incorporated in this part and shall be deemed to apply as though set forth herein in full.
(Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 301, 1959.)

11.02.160 Rules and regulations—Promulgation and enforcement authority.

The director may make and enforce such rules and regulations as may be necessary or proper to enforce Part 2 of this Chapter and Chapters 11.06 through 11.38 of this code. (Ord. 8588 § 2 (part), 1964; Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 321, 1959.)

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:12 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

11.02.170 Classification of food service operations.

It shall be the responsibility and authority of the director to classify food service operations for the purpose of ascertaining and establishing compliance with the provisions of this Division 1, including the licensing and permit provisions.
(Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 316, 1959.)

11.02.180 Food, water and milk—Authority to purify or destroy.

The director shall have the authority to destroy, or render noninfectious, any food, drink or other substance threatening the public health. During emergencies, he may take steps to purify the water by appropriate disinfection. When necessary for the protection of public health, he shall have the authority to pasteurize milk, or order milk pasteurized, when such milk is suspected of carrying the agents of any communicable disease. (Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 319, 1959.)

11.02.190 Nuisance abatement—County to perform work when—Costs.

Whenever a nuisance or condition endangering the public health shall be ascertained to exist on any premises, or in any house, or any other place, the director shall notify in writing the person having control of or acting as agent for such premises, house or other place, to abate or remove such nuisance or condition within a reasonable time, to be stated on such notice. Upon the neglect or refusal of such person to comply with such notice, the director may abate such nuisance or condition, and the person h aving control of such house, premises or place, in addition to the penalties provided by this Division 1, shall be liable to the county of Los Angeles for the cost of such abatement, to be recovered in a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 81-0037 § 1, 1981; Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 317, 1959.)

11.02.192 Nuisance abatement—Assistance of other agencies—Costs.

A. When the director, acting under any authority vested in him, orders the abatement of a nuisance or condition which endangers the public health, safety and welfare, and the person or persons responsible for the creation or maintenance of such nuisance fail to comply with said order, the director may request any county department or city agency or department having the necessary manpower and equipment to perform the work required to abate such nuisance.

B. When an officer of any Los Angeles County Vector Control District, acting under any authority vested in him or her, orders the abatement of any nuisance or condition which endangers the public health, safety and welfare, and the person or persons responsible for the creation of such nuisance fail to comply with said order, the director may request any county department or city agency or department having the necessary manpower and equipment to perform the work required to abate such nuisance.

C. The cost of performance of such work shall be recovered from the person or persons responsible for the creation or maintenance of the nuisance.
(Ord. 2004-0054 § 1, 2004; Ord. 81-0037 § 2, 1981.)
Article 2 DEFINITIONS

Created: 2025-04-18 14:22:12 [EST]
(Supp. No. 141)

11.02.200 Approved.
"Approved" means approved by the director of public health. (Ord. 2006-0040 § 75, 2006; Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 315, 1959.)

11.02.210 Bakery and bakery products.
"Bakery" means any room, building or place used or operated for the purpose of making, preparing or baking bread, cakes, pies, pastry, doughnuts, rolls, biscuits, crackers, noodles, macaroni, tamales or spaghetti, or other products of flour and meal, hereinafter called "bakery products," to be sold for food, except that the term "bakery" shall not be construed to include any establishment engaged in the preparation of bakery products in any restaurant or itinerant restaurant wherein any such bakery product in prepared to be used, and used exclusively with meals served in or from such restaurant or itinerant restaurant. (Ord. 7616 § 1 (part), 1959; Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 311, 1959.)

11.02.220 Bakery product vehicle.
"Bakery product vehicle" means a vehicle used for carrying or transporting bakery products for the purpose of distribution, gift or sale at a point other than where manufactured, except vehicles that are delivering bakery products to retail or wholesale establishments for resale. (Ord. 8588 § 2 (part), 1964; Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 311.1, 1959.)

11.02.230 Box lunch.
"Box lunch" means an assortment of foods or foodstuffs sufficient in quantity and variety to constitute a meal, packed or placed in a box or container and to be eaten at a place other than the premises upon which the food is prepared.
(Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 314, 1959.)

11.02.240 Caterer.
"Caterer" means any person who transports food for profit, and serves or offers for service by others on order, such food, as a meal or a portion of a meal, at a place other than his place of business, but shall not include markets, bakeries or similar food establishments preparing, serving or delivering wrapped foods. (Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 312, 1959.)

11.02.250 Food.
"Food" means all articles and substances used for food and drink, confectionery or condiment whether simple or compound, and all ingredients and components used in the preparation thereof. (Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 1 § 303, 1959.)