From: Charlie Raine
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:43 PM
To: Karina Banales <[email protected]>
Subject: For distribution to the City Council regarding 4 Spur Good afternoon.
I am aware of the impending approval of the proposed home at 4 Spur Lane. I am also painfully aware of how poor drainage planning can have catastrophic consequences for neighboring properties. In the interest of responsible development, I hope that all anticipated runoff generated from this new project will be encapsulated and safely directed to the City border.
If this was done elsewhere, Rolling Hills would not have been featured on the national news.
Development must not adversely affect any other homeowner. We have already experienced enough drainage issues to last a lifetime.
Regards,
Charlie Raine
Item: 12.A.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Accept the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project #2025-03 as complete, file notice of completion, and release retention after a 30-day lien period to Fidelity Builders, Inc.
Background:
At the June 12, 2023 City Council Meeting, city staff reported on a coordination meeting with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) held in May 2023. At this meeting, it was communicated that the City's Tennis Courts ADA Improvement Project (TC-ADA) would include grading and a retaining wall to support the RHCA's Cabana improvement/amenities project. This addition to the City's improvement plans was determined based on concerns about the construction sequence and to facilitate workflow between contractors commissioned by the city and those commissioned by the RHCA. City staff, RHCA, and Bolton Engineering held two subsequent coordination meetings on June 6, 2023, and June 14, 2023, to discuss outstanding items and provide updates to all parties.
On June 26, 2023, the City Council directed staff to advertise the TC-ADA for bids and approved the allocation for landscape, irrigation, and lighting plans. The City Council would be provided the opportunity to review the results of the construction bids and ultimately decide whether to award a contract at a later date.
On July 10, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution No. 1344, authorizing a budget amendment to transfer $307,000 from reserves to the Capital Projects Fund for this project.
On July 12, 2023, City staff began the first of many monthly meetings with the RHCA regarding project coordination and the process for further submissions to Los Angeles County, Building and Safety (LACBS).
On July 24, 2023, the City Council was asked to approve RHCA’s conceptual design so it could submit plans to the LACBS to begin the permitting process. The Council voted to approve it as presented, noting that it would discuss the proposed fire pit when the item comes back in the future.
In August 2023, staff worked on addressing LACBS requirements for Low-Impact Development (LID) standards. The RHCA finalized their plans for submission to LACBS and began preparing to get estimates on their Cabana project.
In October 2023, LACBS acknowledged receipt of resubmittals but did not indicate a timeframe for response. The retaining wall plans were approved.
In November 2023, the RHCA shared plans for the expansion of Tennis Court #1, a proposal for the scope of work, and cost estimates. Staff and the RHCA continued with planning/staging discussions to lead responsibility for the various project components.
In December 2023, as part of the ongoing discussions, the RHCA provided staff with plans, two 2022 bids, and a staff memo describing the tennis club’s request and scope of work for the rebuilding and expansion of Court #1. The RHCA agreed to send an overview of its construction program, including timelines and key milestones.
In January 2024, staff received approved grading plans from LACBS. RHCA enlisted the services of the Bergman Group to help with construction management, and LACBS began its second round of review on RHCA’s cabana.
On March 25, 2024, City staff provided a status update to the City Council as outlined in this report.
On April 22, 2024, the City Council unanimously approved assigning the RHCA to lead responsibility for the combined TC- ADA and Cabana projects. The city then took the lead in constructing the subsequent Tennis Court #1 Expansion Project.
At the June 24, 2024, City Council meeting, staff reported that, due to financial constraints from significant infrastructure repairs requiring immediate attention, the RHCA had reconsidered its approach and requested reverting to the initial concept, with the City leading the ADA component of the Tennis Court improvements. To assist with the fiscal impact, the RHCA board had agreed, per the lease agreement, to contribute 50% of the associated cost for the TC-ADA. The RHCA board allocated $400,000 and would review and consider additional funding if required. Based on this information, the City Council authorized the reallocation of funds from the capital account designated for the Tennis Court 1 expansion project back to the TC-ADA.
On August 26, 2024, the City Council approved a contract with the Bergeman Group for Construction Management Services.
On November 6, 2024, staff released a public notice of bid for the Tennis Court Improvement Project, Job No. 2024-01, with a closing date of December 3, 2024. While interested parties attended the mandatory job walk, upon closing, no interested bidders submitted.
On January 14, 2025, staff re-released a public notice of bid for the Tennis Court Improvement Project, Job No. 2025-01 Request for Bid. On February 18, 2025, the City received three (3) sealed bids at the 2 pm Bid Closing, with amounts ranging from $700,360 to $2,648,138.83.
On April 14, 2025, staff presented the three bids to the City Council for consideration and potential award to the lowest responsible bidder. In the public interest, the City Council rejected all bids and requested that staff reissue the bid, in the hope that more contractors would participate and lower the bid amount. Staff revised the bid and accompanying breakdown form to simplify the process for interested bidders.
On April 30, 2025, staff re-released a public notice of bid for the Tennis Court Improvement Project, Job No. 2025-03 Request for Bid. On May 27, 2025, the City received one (1) sealed bid. Staff validated the bid received and determined that Fidelity Builders, Inc. was the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder.
On June 23, 2025, this item was brought before the City Council and tabled for the next meeting.
On July 28, 2025, the City Council awarded the construction contract to Fidelity Builders, Inc. for $713,861.25 (including 2.5% Performance & Payment Bond Costs) and allocated an additional $69,645 as a 10% contingency for a total of $783,506.25.
Discussion:
Pre-construction began in early September 2025. Over a six-month period, there were slight delays caused by concerns with the property line, weather, and issues with the contractor, their interpretation of grading plans, or the need for change orders.
Despite delays, the project continued to move forward, and most of the work was completed in midApril, allowing the courts to reopen for resident play. Punch list items were completed in early May, and the contractor received final permit sign-offs from the City, RHCA, and LA County Public Works on May 19, 2026.
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the project as complete, file a notice of completion, and release the retention to Fidelity Builders, Inc. after a 30-day lien period.
Fiscal Impact:
The total not-to-exceed fee for Fidelity Builder, Inc. was $783,506.25, including a 10% contingency.
After a budget modification transfer of General Fund Reserves in August 2026, the City Council had a balance of approximately $437,980 appropriated in the Capital Improvement Fund for this project.
There were three change orders during the construction phase:
1. $3,746 was specific to additional costs incurred due to damaged portions of the construction site's surveying materials and formwork.
2. $38,795.01 (two change orders) was specific to required work not included within the original bid documents as a result of missing information in the supplied RHCA Cabana plans and newly installed septic system. These costs have been covered by the RHCA.
To date, the City has expended $718,325.65 and currently holds a retainage amount of $37,806.61.
As noted in the report's background section, to address the fiscal impact and in accordance with the existing lease agreement obligations with the RHCA, the RHCA's board had agreed to a cost-share of 50% of the associated project and construction management expenses. The RHCA has currently allocated $400,000 towards the ADA component and would review /consider additional funding if required.
Recommendation:
Approve as presented.
Attachments:
None
Item: 13.A.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration and Discussion of Additional Handrails at the Rolling Hills Tennis Court Steps
Background:
At the May 11, 2026 City Council meeting, Councilmember Mirsch raised concerns regarding the newly constructed steps within the paver section of the Tennis Courts ADA Improvement Project, specifically whether handrails should be installed alongside the stairs.
Councilmember Mirsch requested that the other Councilmembers visit the site to observe the concern firsthand, and the Council subsequently directed staff to agendize the item for further discussion.
Discussion:
As staff noted during the May 11, 2026 meeting, the Tennis Court ADA plans did not indicate any railings on the stairs at the top east end of the project. Railings are not required because there is a landing in between the two-step sections, which both only have a vertical rise totaling approximately 12” each. Staff also requested input from Civil Engineer Dan Bolton, who prepared the grading plans but not the landscape designs, which included these steps in the paver section. Mr. Bolton responded that, generally, three or fewer risers do not require a handrail.
Naturally, this does not preclude the City Council from adding handrails post-project, if so directed / desired.
Building Code Language:
In California, stairways with four or more risers (steps) require at least one handrail, according to the California Residential Code and Cal/OSHA. Generally, stairways that rise more than 30 inches also require railings for safety.
Key Railing Requirements:
• Riser Count: Handrails are mandatory for stairs with four or more risers. • Residential (3 or less risers): Typically do not strictly require handrails, though they are recommended.
• Commercial/Public: Both sides usually require railings. • Height: Handrails must be installed between 34 and 38 inches above the stair tread nosing • Width: Stairways wider than 88 inches require intermediate handrails. • Continuous: Handrails should be continuous for the full flight of stairs.
Fiscal Impact:
Based on a non-prevailing wage quote from one vendor, as recommended by the Rolling Hills Community Association, staff estimates a minimum cost of $3,950 to fabricate and install four custom galvanized handrails for the existing steps. This estimate is preliminary and does not reflect prevailing wage requirements. City Council may consider additional handrails, and staff will return with a revised prevailing wage cost estimate and any necessary budget adjustment for Council consideration.
Recommendation:
Receive and file. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
None
Item: 13.B.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration and discussion regarding a proposed response to Los Angeles County Homelessness Governance motion
Background:
At the May 11, 2026, City Council meeting, Mayor Dieringer mentioned concerns raised by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) during their May 11, 2026, Steering Committee (Attachment A) meeting regarding a forthcoming motion (Attachment B) from Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath proposing significant structural and operational changes to the regional homelessness response system, with a focus on centralizing authority within the County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing (HSH).
The motion was discussed at the Homeless Services and Housing Cluster on May 14, 2026 and is currently being revisited for potential revisions before being published for consideration at a future Board of Supervisors meeting. The City Council requested that this item be formally agendized for the May 26, 2026, meeting.
Discussion:
The bullet points below detail some noted changes/edits from the original motion shared at the May 14, 2026, Homelessness & Housing Cluster. The report included a presentation (Attachment C) but not the motion or potential revision:
• The motion introduced at the Homelessness and Housing Cluster meeting on May 14, 2026, was substantially revised from the original draft and is expected to undergo additional modifications following continued stakeholder feedback and partner discussions, including meetings with Councils of Governments and local jurisdictions. • Based on discussion during the meeting, the motion was framed largely as a response to recent concerns and correspondence from the City of Los Angeles regarding the future of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) structure and broader homelessness governance responsibilities. County staff and Board offices emphasized that the current intent is not to immediately implement sweeping governance changes, but rather to begin evaluating and preparing for how potential future governance or structural changes could occur if pursued at a later date.
• Discussion during the meeting emphasized that exiting or significantly modifying the JPA structure would be legally and operationally complex, and that the County believes conversations and planning around potential governance options should begin now in order to prepare for future scenarios if regional partners ultimately decide changes are necessary. • Revisions discussed during the meeting included extending report-back timelines, re-framing portions of the motion to be more exploratory in nature, and increasing opportunities for stakeholder and regional partner engagement throughout the process. Presentation materials also noted that report-backs are anticipated in late summer/fall, followed by additional discussions and consideration of potential implementation options. • The revised motion also appears to place greater emphasis on stakeholder engagement and consultation with cities, COGs, service providers, and regional partners prior to any future governance or operational restructuring recommendations, including sharing draft recommendations with jurisdictions through the Executive Committee on Regional Homeless Alignment (ECRHA), Councils of Governments, and other regional bodies. • Discussion during the meeting reflected continued concerns from multiple stakeholders regarding the proposal allowing jurisdictions to voluntarily route Measure A Local Solutions Fund (LSF) dollars through County administration. While the language was revised to clarify whether the mechanism would be optional and opt-in, concerns remain regarding the potential impacts to local flexibility, regional collaboration models, and the original intent of LSF funding to support locally tailored solutions.
Further discussion and/or action has, for now, been pushed out to June and is expected to have significant changes after receiving community feedback.
The SBCCOG Letter of Opposition, which was included in their May 11, 2026, Steering Committee Agenda Packet, is included as Attachment D.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
Receive and file. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_260526_CC_SBCCOG_Memo_260511_SD3_HSH_Restructuring
2. Attachment B - CL_AGN_260526_CC_LACo_BOS_GovernanceMotion_260519_F
3. Attachment C - CL_AGN_260526_HHC_MotionRevisionsPPT_260514
4. Attachment D - CL_AGN_260526_CC_SBCCOG_HSH_OpositionLetter_260511
1 South Bay Cities Council of Governments
May 11, 2026
TO: SBCCOG Steering Committee
FROM: Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG Executive Director
Addy Ajijolaiya, SBCCOG Department Manager for Homeless Services SUBJECT: Proposed Response to SD 3’s LA County Homelessness Governance Restructuring Motion
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2026, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Operations Cluster agenda included a motion titled “A More Accountable Homelessness Governance Structure for Los Angeles County.” The motion proposes significant structural and operational changes to the regional homelessness response system, with a focus on centralizing authority within the County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing (HSH).
The motion directs the County to evaluate potential modifications to, or withdrawal from, the current LAHSA Joint Powers Authority (JPA) structure and to assess transitioning several core system functions to HSH, including the Coordinated Entry System (CES), Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), and regional governance responsibilities. It also proposes evaluating and potentially eliminating, consolidating, or redefining several existing regional governance and advisory bodies, including the Executive Committee on Regional Homelessness Alignment (ECRHA), Leadership Table for Regional Homeless Alignment, CES Policy Council, Continuum of Care Board, and LAHSA Commission.
Additionally, the motion directs the County to explore a framework allowing jurisdictions to route Measure A Local Solutions Fund (LSF) dollars through HSH administration, potentially including administrative fees charged by the County.
The motion has since been removed from the Operations Cluster agenda and is anticipated to be heard at the Homeless Services and Housing Cluster on May 14, 2026, before being published for consideration at the May 19, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting.
Policy and Regional Coordination Considerations
While staff supports efforts to improve accountability and coordination within the homelessness response system, the proposed motion raises significant concerns regarding local control, transparency, and the future role of cities and regional partners.
As written, it appears to centralize decision-making authority related to housing placements, prioritization, matching, and funding administration at the County level without clearly defining how cities and Councils of Governments would continue to participate in those processes. This may substantially limit the ability of local jurisdictions to prioritize residents with community ties, coordinate placements based on local needs, or maintain visibility into how housing and subsidy decisions are made within their communities.
The proposal to potentially route Measure A Local Solutions Fund dollars through County administration also raises concerns regarding additional administrative costs, reduced local flexibility, and diminished authority
2 over locally generated funding. At this time, the motion does not clearly outline the proposed administrative structure, fee amounts, or the extent to which jurisdictions would retain discretion over implementation of local funding strategies.
Staff are additionally concerned that the motion contemplates eliminating or restructuring existing regional governance tables and advisory bodies without first establishing a clearly defined replacement structure that preserves meaningful city and regional participation. Organizations and forums such as ECRHA and the Leadership Table currently provide important opportunities for regional coordination, collaboration, and local input that would be diminished under a more centralized model.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Steering Committee authorize a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing our opposition to the Governance Restructuring motion that is expected to be on their May 19 board agenda stating that any governance changes should be reviewed by all parties/stakeholders to ensure that they are preserving meaningful city and regional involvement in homelessness governance, maintaining transparency in placement and prioritization processes, and protecting local authority over Measure A funding implementation.
HOA.105905714.2 MOTION
MITCHELL _________________________
HORVATH _________________________
HAHN _________________________
BARGER _________________________
SOLIS _________________________
AGN. NO. _____
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR LINDSEY P. HORVATH May 19, 2026
A More Accountable Homelessness Governance Structure for Los Angeles County
In spite of seemingly countless governance reports, the creation of more oversight and advisory bodies, and many recommendations and proposals, the homeless service response system continues to lack clarity around jurisdictional roles and responsibilities.
Such chaos fosters finger pointing, limits partnership, advances misinformation, wastes precious resources, fuels frustration and distrust, and ultimately impacts service delivery.
In this season of federal, state, and local impacted revenue streams, the confusion must stop. It is time to call the question on governance, and to take decisive action that makes clear who is responsible for which actions and outcomes.
The County made the decision to stop contracting with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) to administer the County’s homelessness funding as the result of repeated LAHSA failures in accountability, governance, and financial best practices. The Board took decisive action, resulting in the January 1, 2026 launch of the Department of Homeless Services and Housing (HSH).
HOA.105905714.2
The region’s governance challenges and political strife threaten the new Department’s success, however, as misinformation abounds; multiple stakeholders are considering competing proposals for ownership of the system’s components; and trust is lacking between governing Boards and Councils whose interdependency is not only unavoidable, but critical to regional success. Without clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, each jurisdiction risks wasting resources on duplicative efforts.
On April 10, 2026, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Los Angeles Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, and Los Angeles Councilmember Tim McOsker submitted a letter1to the Los Angeles City Council seeking to renegotiate the LAHSA Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement to “provide the City of Los Angeles with a clear majority of governance authority over the LAHSA Commission,” to “merge the CoC Board with the LAHSA Commission,” and to propose a redesign for the Coordinated Entry System. This letter and its goals warrant response and reflection from the County of Los Angeles, which is still a party to the negotiated LAHSA JPA settlement agreement with the City of Los Angeles, including if an alternative pathway to partnership would most benefit the region and the County and City’s collective commitments to ending homelessness.
Out of crisis comes opportunity. The Board of Supervisors must clearly articulate the County’s leadership, role, responsibility in the homelessness emergency as the social safety net, and commitment to working directly with the City of Los Angeles and other local jurisdictions. The County administers hospital, mental health, public health, substance use, justice, and social service systems. Cities and unincorporated 1 Karen Bass, Ysabel Jurado, Tim McOsker. (April 10, 2026). Letter to the Los Angeles City Council regarding A Pathway Forward on Homelessness Governance.
HOA.105905714.2
communities, through their land use authority, must consider, expedite, site, permit, and build interim and permanent housing. Together, this builds a service-enriched system of care.
There will be no substantive progress without both real ownership of the County’s role and real accountability to the independent cities and jurisdictions within our borders.
Partners need to be assured that the County understands its role and can be held accountable to delivering on the services and care that we have committed to provide.
The Board took a first step in demonstrating decisive leadership by creating HSH. Now the Board has the opportunity to build a more transparent governance structure, accountable to our regional partners and the people the County is mandated to serve.
With the City of Los Angeles looking at changing the structure of LAHSA, now is the time for the County to assess all options.
I, THEREFORE, MOVE that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Direct County Counsel to report back in 60 days on the steps required:
a. For the County to change the terms of the JPA, including a potential exit from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and a timeline to complete these steps.
i. Provide clear guidance and solutions to address and resolve any existing contracts, agreements, or other functions between LAHSA and the state and federal government.
b. For the County and City of Los Angeles to formalize a new model of direct communication and partnership on the homelessness response, without the inclusion of an external third party or JPA, possibly creating a Memorandum
HOA.105905714.2
of Understanding or other tool to delineate roles and establish an accountability framework.
c. For the Los Angeles County Department of Homeless Services and Housing (HSH) to be designated as the lead on the Los Angeles Continuum of Care, including leading the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), and a timeline to complete these steps.
i. Include any federal requirements for becoming the Continuum of Care lead and the associated ongoing responsibilities of serving as Continuum of Care lead.
ii. Any considerations on coordination with the City of Los Angeles, other independent cities, and other Continuums of Care in the Los Angeles County region.
d. Include an additional plan that outlines the process for HSH to secure full system administrative access and oversight of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and the Resources Management System (RMS), before October 1, 2026, consistent with the County’s majority financial investment in HMIS and RMS operational costs.
2. Direct HSH to report back in 90 days on a proposed HSH unit to administer the Coordinated Entry System (CES) and a plan to engage with the City of Los Angeles and other local jurisdictions on coordinated entry system policies. a. Provide a plan for prioritization and matching protocols for interim housing and permanent supportive housing (PSH) units and subsidies in LA County,
HOA.105905714.2
including input from partners, stakeholders, and local jurisdictions to inform the design.
b. Include a proposed role of the CES Policy Council, advising on who should oversee and administer the body, what authority it has and should have, and whether the Council needs to exist.
c. Include budgetary and staffing impacts for HSH to oversee CES and for HSH to serve as the Continuum of Care lead.
3. Direct HSH to report back in 90 days with a proposed regional homelessness governance model, including recommendations to eliminate, redefine, and/or adjust existing, duplicative homelessness oversight and advisory bodies into a more centralized, efficient network, clearly defining each body’s roles and responsibilities, membership, and coordination with each other. a. This assessment should include recommendations for all homelessness governance tables, including but not limited to Executive Committee on Regional Homelessness Alignment (ECRHA); Leadership Table for Regional Homeless Alignment; Continuum of Care Board; CES Policy Council; LAHSA Commission; and how they interact with the work of governmental entities and elected offices, including the Board of Supervisors; LA City Council and committees; other City Councils and Councils of Government; other Continuums of Care; the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA); Public Housing Authorities, and others as appropriate.
HOA.105905714.2
b. This assessment should include identification of which entities have authority to make changes to the bodies.
4. Direct HSH, in coordination with County Counsel and Auditor-Controller, to report back in 90 days on a model for eligible jurisdictions who choose to contract their Measure A Local Solutions Fund through HSH, demonstrating a new model for partnership with the funding from Measure A
a. Include an analysis of the feasibility of funding for County staff and administrative functions, based on flexible, recommended administrative rates to be charged to the local jurisdiction contracting with the County. # # #
LPH:ap
HOA.105905714.2
AGN. NO. _____
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR LINDSEY P. HORVATH May 19, 2026
VOTES REQUIRED:
☒ 3-VOTES ☐ 4-VOTES ☐ 5-VOTES
CATEGORIES: (Please check ☒ those that apply)
☐ 1. Child Welfare
☐ 2. Community and Youth Empowerment
☐ 3. County and Municipal Services
☐ 4. Economic Justice
☐ 5. Economic and Workforce Development
☐ 6. Education
☐ 7. Environment and Environmental Justice
☐ 8. Fiscal
☐ 9. Governance
☐ 10. Health
☒ 11. Homelessness and Housing
☐ 12. Immigration
☐ 13. Public Safety and Diversion
☐ 14. Social Justice and Human Rights
☐ 15. Technology and Data
☐ 16. Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy
☐ 17. Legislation
☐ 18. Parks and Open Space
☐ 19. Planning/Land Use
☐ 20. Transportation
☐ 21. Veterans
☐ 22. Delegated Authority
HOA.105905714.2
EXEMPT FROM CLUSTERS: (Please check ☒ if the motion is exempt from the cluster process) ☒ See Rules of the Board, Section 22.1(f)
REASON FOR EXEMPTION:
☐ 1. Emergency, as provided by the Brown Act
☐ 2. Urgency, as provided by the Brown Act
☐ 3. Declaration and ratifications of emergency and all recover and related actions ☐ 4. Fee waivers
☐ 5. Reward motions
☐ 6. Proclamations without substantive policy directives ☐ 7. Adjournments in a deceased person’s memory
☐ 8. Presentation of scrolls
☐ 9. Actions that are in response to, or otherwise related to, any action taken by the federal government, including all of its branches and any department, agency, or instrumentality under their authority.
CLUSTERS: (Please check ☒ which cluster meeting the motion will be introduced) ☒ 1. Operations
☐ 2. Community Services
☐ 3. Family and Social Services
☐ 4. Health and Mental Health Services
☐ 5. Public Safety
CLUSTER MEETING DATE: 5/6/2026
BOARD MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026
A More Accountable
Homelessness Governance
Structure for LA County
Homelessness and Housing Cluster Presentation
May 2026
“A Pathway Forward on Homeless Governance”
Letter from Mayor Bass, CM Jurado, CM McOsker; April 10, 2026 “Instruct the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), with the assistance of the City Attorney, to renegotiate the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement to provide the City of Los Angeles with a clear majority governance authority over the LAHSA Commission, including greater representation, oversight, and decision -making control.” “Instruct the CAO and CLA to propose structural governance changes to merge the CoC Board with the LAHSA Commission, ensuring the City achieves a clear majority representation to reflect the City’s funding and operational responsibilities. The proposal should include the redesign of Coordinated Entry System (CES) policies to:
• Prioritize equitable access for unhoused City of Los Angeles residents to City -funded beds and services
• Improve transparency and accountability in placement decisions • Ensure alignment with City investment priorities and performance goals.
Motion Directives
• The motion’s directives are report backs
• There are no changes to the homeless service
system being directed by this motion
• Edits have been included based on feedback already
received from stakeholders
Directive 1a: The process to change the JPA
1.Direct County Counsel to report back in 90 days on the steps required:
a. For the County or City of Los Angeles to change the terms of the JPA, including a potential exit from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and a timeline to complete these steps. i. Provide clear guidance and solutions to address and resolve any existing contracts, agreements, or other functions between LAHSA and the state and federal government.
Directive 1b: New LA County - LA City Partnership
b. For the County and City of Los Angeles to formalize a new model of direct communication and partnership on the homelessness response, without the inclusion of an external third party or JPA, possibly creating a Memorandum of Understanding or other tool to delineate roles, establish an accountability framework, create a space to problem solve implementation challenges collaboratively, and explore the feasibility of shared HMIS access, allowing both the County and the City of LA to directly administer and track contracts in one, shared data system of record.
Directive 1c: How does a new entity lead the LA CoC?
c. For a new entity to be designated as the collaborative applicant on the Los Angeles Continuum of Care and a timeline to complete these steps. i. Distinguish the core responsibilities of the Continuum of Care, explain the process that the CoC membership will utilize to delegate these responsibilities, and report on the role of the existing CoC Governance Charter and the processes required to make changes to it.
ii.Any considerations on coordination with the City of Los Angeles, local jurisdictions, municipalities, and other Continuums of Care in the Los Angeles County region.
Directive 1d: Expand HSH access to data systems
d. Include an additional plan outlining the operational, governance, security, and technical requirements necessary for the Los Angeles County Department of Homeless Services and Housing (HSH) to obtain full read/write access, configuration authority, reporting access, audit visibility, and program oversight capabilities within the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and the non-HMIS portal for survivors of gender based violence, and full read/write access to the Resources Management System (RMS) for programs funded, administered, or governed by HSH.
Directive 2: Redesign the CES with local jurisdictions
2. Direct HSH to report back in 120 days on a proposed HSH unit to administer the Coordinated Entry System (CES) and a plan to engage and co-design a system with the City of Los Angeles and other local jurisdictions. a. Provide a plan for prioritization and matching protocols for interim housing and permanent supportive housing (PSH) units and subsidies in LA County, including input from the City of Los Angeles, local jurisdictions, partners, stakeholders, to inform the design.
Directive 2: Redesign the CES (cont.)
b. Include an analysis and proposed roles of the CES Policy Council, advising on who should oversee and administer the body, what authority it has and should have, and whether the Council needs to exist.
c. Include budgetary and staffing impacts for HSH to oversee CES.
Directive 3: Centralized & efficient regional governance
3. Direct HSH to report back in 120 days with a proposed regional homelessness governance model, that is more centralized and efficient, clearly defining each body’s roles and responsibilities, membership, and coordination with each other.
Directive 3 (cont.)
a.This assessment should include recommendations for all homelessness governance tables, including but not limited to Executive Committee on Regional Homelessness Alignment (ECRHA); Leadership Table for Regional Homeless Alignment; Continuum of Care Board; CES Policy Council; LAHSA Commission; and how they interact with the work of governmental entities and elected offices, including the Board of Supervisors; LA City Council and committees; other City Councils and Councils of Government; other Continuums of Care; the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA); Public Housing Authorities, County Departments, and others as appropriate.
Directive 3 (cont.)
b. This assessment should include identification of which entities have authority to make changes to the bodies.
c. This assessment should include engagement with service providers, people with lived experience, Labor, cities, LA CoC Board, other regional CoCs, CES Policy Council, homeless coalitions, SPA regional leads, County departments, philanthropy, and the business community. Include feedback from Changewell’s community engagement process.
Directive 3 (cont.)
d. Consider how decision-making bodies coordinating, governing, or overseeing SPA based regional coordination and other systems of care (street medicine, mental health, substance use services, child welfare, criminal justice, education) serving people experiencing homelessness can be integrated into the framework of homelessness system governance.
Directive 4: Opt in contracting for jurisdictions
4. Only for local jurisdictions and municipalities who choose to contract their local solutions funds through the County of Los Angeles, direct HSH, in coordination with County Counsel and Auditor-Controller, to report back in 90 days on a model for eligible jurisdictions, on an opt in basis, to contract their Measure A Local Solutions Fund through HSH, demonstrating an expanded model for partnership with the funding from Measure A.
Directive 4: Opt in contracting for jurisdictions (cont.) a. Include an analysis of the feasibility of funding for County staff and administrative functions, based on flexible, recommended administrative rates to be charged to the local jurisdiction contracting with the County.
What is next?
❖Report backs expected late summer/fall
❖Conversations informed by report backs
❖Consideration of implementation options
Thank you!
L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T S I N A C T I ON
Carson El Segundo Gardena Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Inglewood Lawndale Lomita Manhattan Beach Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Torrance Los Angeles District #15 Los Angeles County 357 Van Ness Way, #110
Torrance, CA 90501
(310) 371-7222
[email protected]
www.southbaycities.org
May 11, 2026
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Opposition to Motion – “A More Accountable Homelessness Governance Structure for Los Angeles County”
Dear Honorable Members of the Board:
On behalf of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), we strongly oppose the motion titled “A More Accountable Homelessness Governance Structure for Los Angeles County,” scheduled for consideration by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2026.
For years, cities, Councils of Governments, and community-based organizations have built regional partnerships, coordinated outreach systems, funded interim housing and navigation programs, and filled critical gaps in the homelessness response system. These efforts were intentionally designed to create regional alignment while still allowing solutions to reflect local needs and conditions. This motion moves in the opposite direction by centralizing authority while reducing the role of the very partners responsible for successfully implementing and administering many of these programs locally.
While the SBCCOG supports improving accountability and coordination within the homelessness response system, this proposal advances major governance and operational changes without clearly identifying the specific problems it is intended to solve or how these changes will improve outcomes for the communities already doing this work on the ground.
The proposal also raises serious concerns regarding transparency, local flexibility, and regional effectiveness. The SBCCOG is concerned that this motion shifts decision-making authority away from the local and regional partners responsible for implementation and diminishes local feedback loops. Regional alignment cannot be achieved through a top-down structure that centralizes housing placements, prioritization, matching decisions, and funding administration at the County level without a clearly defined role for cities. Doing so risks weakening partnerships, reducing accountability, and creating additional inefficiencies within an already strained system.
This concern is particularly significant in regions such as the South Bay, where smaller cities rely on shared regional infrastructure and partnerships to leverage resources and coordinate services effectively. Encouraging jurisdictions to route Measure A Local Solutions Fund dollars through County administration, potentially with additional administrative fees, undermines the
2 original purpose of those funds which is to allow cities to tailor solutions to local conditions and community needs. These changes risk discouraging collaboration, fragmenting regional response efforts, and reducing overall effectiveness.
Of equal concern is the proposal to evaluate eliminating or restructuring regional coordination bodies such as the Executive Committee on Regional Homelessness Alignment (ECRHA), Leadership Table for Regional Homeless Alignment, and related governance structures. These bodies were created specifically to bring cities, regional entities, service providers, and the County together to coordinate responsibilities and align efforts collaboratively. If improvements to the current system are needed, those discussions should occur within the regional structures established for that purpose, not outside of them.
The County must ensure there is a complete understanding of the current system before advancing major restructuring efforts. Cities throughout Los Angeles County are already investing substantial local resources into outreach, navigation, interim housing coordination, and other frontline services. The Responsive Regional Plan Inventory was intended to provide visibility into these investments and responsibilities, yet that work remains incomplete. It would be premature and irresponsible to advance structural changes of this magnitude without first understanding what currently exists, what is working, and where the actual gaps remain.
The SBCCOG remains committed to partnering with the County and regional stakeholders to improve homelessness response efforts across Los Angeles County. However, we emphatically urge the Board to pause consideration of this motion and engage cities, regional entities, and system partners in a collaborative process to clearly define the goals of any proposed reorganization before advancing changes of this scale.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bernadette Suarez, SBCCOG Chair
Councilmember, City of Lawndale
Item: 14.A.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of authorizing the Mayor to sign a Veto Request of Governor Newsom regarding AB 1768 (Bryan) Transactions and Use Taxes: Los Angeles County Background:
At the February 9, 2026, City Council meeting, staff presented Item 13A (Attachment D) regarding Los Angeles County Supervisor Mitchell's proposed half-cent General Sales Tax Ballot Measure to be placed in the June 2, 2026, election. After discussion, the City Council unanimously authorized Mayor Dieringer to speak on behalf of the City Council to the Board of Supervisors in opposition.
Supervisor Mitchell’s motion had four main components:
1. Adopt a resolution calling for a special election on June 2, 2026.
2. Approve details of the new general sales tax ordinance, entitled the “Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County."
3. Direct the CEO’s office to seek passage of state legislation to exempt this measure from the current sales tax caps.
4. Adopt a spending plan expressing the Board’s intent to allocate the funds collected to offset the cuts implemented by the passage of H.R. 1.
As drafted, the “Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County” is a general sales tax measure and, if approved by a majority of county voters, would:
1. Impose a ½ percent (0.5 %) general sales tax until October 1, 2031.
2. Establish a nine-member citizens’ oversight committee to provide transparency and ensure fiscal accountability as to any revenues raised by the measure.
3. Require a report be filed with the Board of Supervisors each year until funding is exhausted.
In her motion and resolution, Supervisor Mitchell pointed to the implementation of H.R. 1 and the funding cuts to Medicaid (Medi-Cal) as the reason this measure is necessary. As the primary revenue source for the County Department of Health Services (DHS), the loss of federal funding for Medi-Cal has resulted in a loss of more than $1 billion to DHS’s annual budget.
Discussion:
On February 9. 2026, California Assembly Bill 1768 Transactions and Use Taxes: Los Angeles County (Attachment C), authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, was introduced as an act to add and repeal Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 7286.03) and Chapter 3.18 (commencing with Section 7287.22) of Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation.taxation, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. The bill authorizes Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties to exceed the state's 2% cap on local transactions and use taxes. It allows Los Angeles to levy a 0.5% and Contra Costa a 0.625% tax to offset federal funding cuts, provided voters approve the measures.
In April, AB 1768 was amended twice: first to include Contra Costa County, and then to add an urgency clause so the measure could take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.
Because of the urgency clause, the bill now requires a 2/3rds vote to pass. The Contra Costa sales tax measure (Measure B) is nearly identical to the Los Angeles County measure (Measure ER).
This month, the League of California Cities (CalCities) Los Angeles Division staff discussed AB 1768 with city officials and other stakeholders, including during a virtual meeting of Los Angeles County city managers held on May 11 and organized by Calabasas City Manager Kindon Meik.
At this meeting, city managers from across the county were encouraged to promptly oppose AB 1768 and were asked to contact their Assembly members’ district offices before the Assembly Floor vote.
Participants also suggested preparing a joint letter or press release listing cities in opposition. After the meeting, Division staff sent copies of the Division’s opposition letter to Assembly district offices and shared the Los Angeles County Division logo for inclusion in a coalition letter prepared by Calabasas.
A nearly identical sales tax measure was previously approved by Santa Clara County voters in November, increasing the base sales tax rate there to 9.75%. Although it is too late for the June ballot, San Diego County officials have also submitted signatures for a similar sales tax measure that they hope will qualify for the November ballot. Because San Diego County’s base sales tax rate is only 7.75%, the county has room to approve the tax without needing a legislative exemption.
AB 1768 was passed by the CA Assembly on May 14, 2026, and passed by the CA Senate on May 20, 2026. It is now headed to Governor Newsom for signature or veto. Cal Cities LA Division has sent a letter requesting a veto (Attachment A).
Staff has provided a draft letter for the Council's consideration of authorizing the Mayor to sign. (Attachment B).
Fiscal Impact:
To be determined.
Recommendation:
Receive and file. Authorize the Mayor to sign a veto request letter.
Attachments:
1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_260526_CC_AB1768_CalCities_VetoRequest_F
2. Attachment B - CC_COR_260526_AB1768_VetoRequest_Letter_D
3. Attachment C - CL_AGN_260526_CC_AB1768_Text
4. Attachment D - CL_AGN_260209_CC_Item13A_LACo_SalesTax
2025-2026
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
Britt Huff, Ph.D.
Rolling Hills Estates
Vice President
Ana Maria Quintana
Bell
Secretary/Treasurer
William Uphoff
Lomita
State League Director
James R. Bozajian
Calabasas
Immediate Past President
Dr. Michael Cao, M.D.
Arcadia
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
May 20, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1768 (Bryan) Transactions and Use Taxes: Los Angeles County Veto Request
Dear Governor Newsom,
The League of California Cities Los Angeles County Division regretfully opposes AB 1768 (Bryan), which would authorize the County of Los Angeles to levy a new
0.5% sales tax that will be exempt from the 2% limit, and we respectfully request you veto this measure.
Congress’ passage of H.R. 1 has created a national health care crisis that Los Angeles County cannot solve on its own. The LA County Division and many local cities are open to working with the County and the State to consider options to restore health care funding cut by H.R. 1, but not with a regressive tax that would disproportionately burden those in our communities who are already struggling to keep up with the rising cost of basic necessities like food, gas, utilities, and housing.
This tax proposal comes less than two years after County voters agreed to Measure A (2024), another 0.5% sales tax increase exempted from the state sales tax cap, but this new proposal for the June ballot is different. Facing few political options, the County Board of Supervisors has approved a general tax with none of the financial safeguards included in Measure A. We believe this is a fatal flaw and our Division cannot support a $1 billion blank check to a County facing severe fiscal pressures including declining revenues, record legal payouts, and high debts.
With sales taxes in LA County already as high as 11.25% in some areas and as low as 7.25% in nearby counties, we also fear that prices are reaching a tipping point and are in real danger of pushing businesses and shoppers out of LA County. If Sacramento legislators are serious about prioritizing affordability for Californians, then you should reject this proposal to exempt yet another 0.5% sales tax hike from the 2% sales tax cap.
We agree that the cuts to health care in H. R. 1 passed by the Congress and signed by President Trump are nothing short of catastrophic. However, the County is proposing a flawed solution that would further raise the cost of everyday goods on County residents without safeguards in place to ensure that the funds go to the cause the Board of Supervisors are championing. Instead of encouraging a patchwork of measures for a few Californians, we urge legislators to find a statewide solution to this crisis.
For these reasons, the Los Angeles County Division requests your veto on AB 1768. If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Kiernan at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Britt Huff, Ph.D.
President, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities
Cc: League of California Cities, [email protected]
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
May 26, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1768 (Bryan) Transactions & Use Taxes: Los Angeles County Veto Request Dear Governor Newsom,
The City of Rolling Hills regretfully opposes AB 1768 (Bryan), which would authorize the County of Los Angeles to levy a new 0.5% sales tax that will be exempt from the 2% limit, and we respectfully request you veto this measure.
Congress’ passage of H.R. 1 has created a national health care crisis that Los Angeles County cannot solve on its own. The City of Rolling Hills and many local cities are open to working with the County and the State to consider options to restore health care funding cut by H.R. 1, but not with a regressive tax that would disproportionately burden those in our communities who are already struggling to keep up with the rising cost of basic necessities like food, gas, utilities, and housing.
This tax proposal comes less than two years after County voters agreed to Measure A (2024), another
0.5% sales tax increase exempted from the state sales tax cap, but this new proposal for the June ballot is different. Facing few political options, the County Board of Supervisors has approved a general tax with none of the financial safeguards included in Measure A. We believe this is a fatal flaw and our City cannot support a $1 billion blank check to a County facing severe fiscal pressures including declining revenues, record legal payouts, and high debts.
With sales taxes in LA County already as high as 11.25% in some areas and as low as 7.25% in nearby counties, we also fear that prices are reaching a tipping point and are in real danger of pushing businesses and shoppers out of LA County. If Sacramento legislators are serious about prioritizing affordability for Californians, then you should reject this proposal to exempt yet another 0.5% sales tax hike from the 2% sales tax cap.
We agree that the cuts to health care in H. R. 1 passed by the Congress and signed by President Trump are nothing short of catastrophic. However, the County is proposing a flawed solution that would further raise the cost of everyday goods on County residents without safeguards in place to ensure that the funds go to the cause the Board of Supervisors are championing. Instead of encouraging a patchwork of measures for a few Californians, we urge legislators to find a statewide solution to this crisis.
For these reasons, the City of Rolling Hills requests your veto on AB 1768.
Sincerely,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
City of Rolling Hills
cc. League of California Cities, [email protected]
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 21, 2026
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1768
Introduced by Assembly Member Bryan
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member McKinnor)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Wicks and Zbur)
(Coauthors: Senators Arreguín and Durazo)
February 9, 2026
An act to add and repeal Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 7286.03) and Chapter 3.18 (commencing with Section 7287.22) of Part
1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation. taxation, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1768, as amended, Bryan. Transactions and use taxes: Counties of Contra Costa and Los Angeles.
Existing law authorizes various local governmental entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in any county not exceed 2%.
This bill would authorize, until December 31, 2031, the County of Los Angeles, by an ordinance adopted by the county, to levy a tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate not to exceed
97
0.5% for general and special purposes, subject to voter approval, as specified. The bill would also authorize, until December 31, 2031, the County of Contra Costa, by an ordinance adopted by the county, to levy a tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate not to exceed 0.625% for general or specific purposes, subject to voter approval, as specified. The bill would authorize those taxes to exceed the 2% limit described above.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Contra Costa and Los Angeles.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Vote: majority 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 7286.03) line 2 is added to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation line 3 Code, to read:
line 4
line 5 Chapter 2.5. County of Los Angeles Transactions and line 6 Use Tax
line 7
line 8 7286.03. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the County of line 9 Los Angeles may impose a transactions and use tax for general or line 10 specific purposes to support countywide programs at a rate of no line 11 more than 0.5 percent that would, in combination with all taxes line 12 imposed in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law line 13 (Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251)), exceed the limit line 14 established in Section 7251.1, if all of the following requirements line 15 are met:
line 16 (1) The county adopts an ordinance proposing the transactions line 17 and use tax by any applicable voting approval requirement. line 18 (2) The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is line 19 submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting line 20 on the ordinance by the applicable voting approval requirement line 21 in accordance with Article XIII C of the California Constitution. 97 AB 1768 — 2 —
line 1 (3) The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions line 2 and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251)), line 3 other than Section 7251.1.
line 4 (b) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1, a transactions and use tax line 5 rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be considered line 6 for purposes of the combined rate limitation established by Section line 7 7251.1.
line 8 (c) If, as of December 31, 2031, an ordinance proposing a line 9 transactions and use tax has not been approved in the County of line 10 Los Angeles as authorized by subdivision (a), this chapter shall line 11 be repealed.
line 12 SEC. 2. Chapter 3.18 (commencing with Section 7287.22) is line 13 added to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, line 14 to read:
line 15
line 16 Chapter 3.18. County of Contra Costa Transactions line 17 and Use Tax
line 18
line 19 7287.22. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the County of line 20 Contra Costa, by ordinance, may impose a transactions and use line 21 tax for general or specific purposes at a rate of no more than 0.625 line 22 percent that would, in combination with all taxes imposed pursuant line 23 to Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), exceed the limit line 24 established in Section 7251.1, if all of the following requirements line 25 are met:
line 26 (1) The board of supervisors of the County of Contra Costa line 27 adopts an ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax by any line 28 applicable voting approval requirement.
line 29 (2) The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is line 30 submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting line 31 on the ordinance in accordance with the California Constitution. line 32 (3) The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions line 33 and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251)), line 34 other than Section 7251.1.
line 35 (b) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1, a transactions and use tax line 36 rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be considered line 37 for purposes of the combined rate limit established by Section line 38 7251.1.
line 39 (c) If, as of December 31, 2031, an ordinance proposing a line 40 transactions and use tax has not been approved in the County of 97 — 3 — AB 1768
line 1 Contra Costa as authorized by subdivision (a), this chapter shall line 2 be repealed.
line 3 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 4 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 5 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California line 6 Constitution because of the unique fiscal pressures being line 7 experienced in the Counties of Contra Costa and Los Angeles in line 8 providing essential programs that have been caused, at least in line 9 part, by federal funding cuts.
line 10 SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the line 11 immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within line 12 the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall line 13 go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
line 14 The County of Los Angeles has placed a 0.5 percent tax on the line 15 ballot for June 2, 2026, ballot, and the County of Contra Costa line 16 has placed a 0.625 percent tax on the ballot for June 2, 2026, and line 17 to accommodate that, it is necessary that this act go into immediate line 18 effect.
O
97 AB 1768 — 4 —
Item: 13.A.
Meeting Date: 2/9/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of taking a position on Supervisor Mitchell's proposed temporary fiveyear 1/2 cent sales tax measure to replace the state and federal funds lost due to the passage of H.R. 1
Background:
Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell is seeking a two-thirds vote of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (BOS) to place a temporary ½ cent sales tax measure on the June 2, 2026, primary ballot that would remain in effect until October 2031. The item is scheduled for consideration by the BOS on February 10, 2026.
The motion calls for a general sales tax (requiring just a majority vote to be enacted by the voters) and includes intent language to use the estimated $1 billion in annual revenues generated from this tax for health and social services to replace the state and federal funds lost due to the passage of H.R. 1, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” However, this intent language is non-binding.
These funds would actually go into the County’s general fund and the County would be allowed to use them for any purpose.
There is a method by which sales tax revenue could be legally earmarked for this specified use, but such a ballot measure would require a two-thirds vote of the electorate. This sales tax would not be likely to succeed if this higher margin is required at the ballot but is expected to succeed if a simple majority vote is required.
The sales tax would preempt cities who have the ability and incentive to do so, from passing their own sales tax measures. Consequently, the County is concurrently working on legislation in Sacramento that would exempt this proposed sales tax from the current state cap on local sales taxes, but that bill is not yet in print.
The Cal Cities Los Angeles County Division Board met on January 28, 2026, and is closely monitoring this issue, as well as the California Contract Cities Association (Attachment C). Both are encouraging city officials to reach out to the respective County Supervisors with their feedback on this proposal.
A summary of Supervisor Mitchell’s motion is provided below, and the full motion and resolution are included as Attachment A. In addition, to provide a broader fiscal and legislative context, an Overview of Major Impacts of H.R. 1 prepared by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is included as Attachment B. The LAO presentation summarizes significant statewide impacts to health care, food assistance, higher education, tax policy, and clean energy programs, and identifies areas where costs may shift to states and local governments.
Supervisor Mitchell’s motion has four main components:
1. Adopt a resolution calling for a special election on June 2, 2026.
2. Approve details of the new general sales tax ordinance, entitled the “Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County.”
3. Direct the County Chief Executive Office (CEO) to seek passage of state legislation to exempt this measure from the current sales tax caps.
4. Adopt a spending plan expressing the Board’s intent to allocate the funds collected to offset the cuts implemented by the passage of H.R. 1
As drafted, the “Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County” is a general sales tax measure and, if approved by a majority of county voters, would:
1. Impose a ½ percent (0.5 %) general sales tax until October 1, 2031, generating approximately $1 billion annually.
2. Establish a nine-member citizens’ oversight committee to provide transparency and ensure fiscal accountability as to any revenues raised by the measure.
3. Require a report be filed with the Board of Supervisors each year until funding is exhausted.
In her motion and resolution, Supervisor Mitchell points to the implementation of H.R. 1 and the federal funding cuts to Medicaid (Medi-Cal) as the reason this measure is necessary. As the primary revenue source of the County Department of Health Services (DHS), the loss of federal funding for Medi-Cal has resulted in a loss of more than $1 billion to DHS’s annual budget.
The base sales and use tax rate in Los Angeles County is currently 9.75%. Since the City of Rolling Hills does not have its own city sales tax, this is the current rate applicable for our city. If this measure passes, the applicable sales tax rate would be 10.25%.
Discussion:
Supervisor Mitchell’s proposal places the City Council in a policy position that is not merely informational, but requires consideration of whether the City of Rolling Hills should formally support, oppose, or remain neutral on a countywide general sales tax measure.
Although the measure is framed as a response to federal and state funding losses related to H.R. 1, the proposed ordinance would establish a general tax. As such, any revenues generated would be deposited into the County’s general fund, and the spending priorities outlined in the motion would be non-binding. Future Boards of Supervisors would retain full discretion over how these funds are ultimately allocated.
As mentioned, the proposed ½ cent sales tax would increase the base sales tax rate in Los Angeles County to 10.25%, which would apply to Rolling Hills residents and visitors. While Rolling Hills would not directly receive a dedicated share of the proceeds, City residents would contribute to the tax.
Some residents may benefit indirectly through regional health and social service programs.
The measure includes some accountability features, such as a nine-member citizens’ oversight committee and annual independent audits. However, this committee would serve in an advisory capacity only and would not have any authority over the future spending decisions by the Board of Supervisors that utilize the funds generated by this additional sales tax.
In addition, the County is pursuing state legislation to exempt this measure from the statutory cap on local sales taxes. That legislation has not yet been introduced, creating uncertainty about the measure and whether it can legally take effect as drafted.
This evening, Council direction is requested on whether to:
• Support the measure and communicate that position to the County; • Oppose the measure based on concerns regarding taxation levels, local impacts, governance structure and other factors;
• Take no position at this time and monitor the outcome of the Board of Supervisors’ action and any related state legislation; or
• Provide alternative direction.
Based on this evening’s discussion, staff will pass along the Council’s decision to Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
Receive and file. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_260209_CC_LACo_ProposedTempSalesTax_AgendaItem
2. Attachment B - CL_AGN_260209_CC_LegAnalystOffice_MajorImpacts_HR1
3. Attachment C - CL_AGN 260209_CCCA Action Alert
4. CL_AGN_260209_CC_PVE_OppositionLetter
5. CL_AGN_260209_CC_RPV_OppositionLetter
PAGE 1 OF 2
Kathryn Barger
Fifth District
Janice Hahn
Fourth District
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
Hilda L. Solis
First District
Holly J. Mitchell
Second District
Lindsey P. Horvath
Third District
n
DATE: January 28, 2026
TIME: 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
MEETING CHAIR: Jazmine Garcia-Delgadillo, 1ST Supervisorial District CEO MEETING FACILITATOR: Kieu-Anh King
THIS MEETING IS HELD UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF BOARD POLICY 3.055 To participate in the meeting in-person, the meeting location is:
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Room 140
To participate in the meeting virtually, please call teleconference number:
1 (323) 776-6996 and enter the following: 330 628 704# or Click here to join the meeting
For Spanish Interpretation, the Public should send emails within 48 hours in advance of the meeting to [email protected] Members of the Public may address the Health and Mental Health Services Meeting on any agenda item. Two (2) minutes are allowed for each item.
THIS TELECONFERENCE WILL BE MUTED FOR ALL CALLERS. PLEASE DIAL *6 TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE WHEN IT IS YOUR TIME TO SPEAK.
I. Call to order
II. Board Motion
a. SD2: Securing Funding to Preserve Critical County Services Cut by H.R.1 III. Information Item (Any Information Item is subject to discussion and/or presentation at the request of two or more Board offices):
a. DMH: Approval to Amend Existing Legal Entity and 24-Hour Residential Treatment Contracts to Increase Their Maximum Contract Amounts for Board of
Supervisors
Hilda L. Solis
First District
Holly J. Mitchell
Second District
Lindsey P. Horvath
Third District
Janice Hahn
Fourth District
Kathryn Barger
Fifth District
Board of Supervisors
Health and Mental Health Cluster
Agenda Review Meeting
PAGE 2 OF 2
Fiscal Year 2025-26 for The Continuous Provision and Expansion of Specialty Mental Health Services
IV. Items Continued from a Previous Meeting of the Board of Supervisors or from the Previous Agenda Review Meeting
V. Items not on the posted agenda for matters requiring immediate action because of an emergency situation, or where the need to take immediate action came to the attention of the Department subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
VI. Public Comment
VII. Adjournment
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO EMAIL A COMMENT ON AN ITEM ON THE HEALTH AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES CLUSTER AGENDA, PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AND INCLUDE THE AGENDA NUMBER YOU ARE COMMENTING ON:
- MORE -
MOTION
MITCHELL ___________________________
HORVATH ___________________________
HAHN ___________________________
BARGER ___________________________
SOLIS ___________________________
AGN. NO.
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL February 10, 2026 Securing Funding to Preserve Critical County Services Cut by H.R.1 The federal budget bill, H.R.1, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, proposed and signed into law by President Donald Trump, includes massive funding cuts.
In Los Angeles County (County), these cuts most severely impact the County’s health care system. H.R.1 cuts billions in federal Medicaid funding to California and imposes new eligibility requirements and copays, resulting in reduced care for patients. The County has 3.3 million residents who rely on Medi-Cal. That is 1 in 3 County residents, including nearly one million children. Hundreds of thousands of them could face loss of coverage and reduced access to care. The implications of these cuts are on track to result in overcrowding of emergency rooms when residents are unable to access health care until they are experiencing a life-threatening crisis.
After accounting for H.R.1, recent Executive Orders from the Trump Administration on grant oversight, and new federal Terms & Conditions restrictions, the County’s most impacted departments face projected losses totaling $2.4 billion over the next three years.
Due to funding losses, County officials have already initiated hiring freezes and are contemplating service consolidations, potential layoffs of 5,000 staff, and facility closures in the coming years. Federal funding cuts will affect public health services such as chronic disease prevention, disease tracking and water safety, as well as the health care provided at the County’s public hospitals and numerous clinics. The President’s bill, H.R.1, and other reductions in health and public health funding by the Trump Administration
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
February 10, 2026
disproportionately affect low-income families and several of the proposed cuts specifically target health care and public health providers.
The Department of Health Services (DHS) plays a pivotal role in protecting the health and wellness of County residents. In 2024, DHS medical teams provided immediate and comprehensive care to 600,000 specialty care patients, handled 260,905 emergency room visits, 192,502 urgent care visits, and performed 36,295 surgeries. The system also served 193,241 people at food distribution clinics, secured permanent supportive housing for 22,239 individuals, and distributed 413,074 Narcan doses. These DHS medical teams work across four County hospitals — Los Angeles General Medical Center, Olive View Medical Center, Rancho Los Amigos and Harbor-UCLA Medical Center — as well as 23 clinic sites and various mobile and community-based sites. The cuts in H.R.1 will result in unprecedented and catastrophic impacts on residents and on health care and social service providers.
The reductions at both the federal and state levels significantly affect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), which is a primary revenue source for DHS. In just four months following H.R.1's signing, the County lost an average of 1,000 people per day from Medi-Cal enrollment — over 120,000 people between July and November 2025. During the same four-month period, more than 27,000 children under age 18 lost their Medi-Cal coverage, equating to nearly 200 children per day. In that same four-month period following H.R. 1's passage, the County also lost over 70,000 CalFresh enrollees receiving food assistance, including approximately 27,000 who were children under age 18. This funding and coverage loss poses a serious threat to the long-term sustainability of critical safety-net services relied upon by County residents, as the County health care system faces more than $1 billion in cuts. DHS alone, for example, must absorb a projected federal revenue loss exceeding $700 million per year. Additionally, the Department of Public Health (DPH) projects a loss of $200-300 million in federal and state funds. DPH is also forecasting a minimum $42 million deficit this fiscal year, requiring various clinic closures, service reductions, personnel reassignments and possible terminations. This deficit will likely worsen given cuts to federal revenue.
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
February 10, 2026
The County health departments have been diligently examining every option to reduce expenditures and create efficiencies to avoid any health care service cuts to County residents. For example, DPH and DHS are limiting overtime to only essential clinical activities and those needed to respond to public health emergencies. Both departments are also restricting the distribution of County-issued cell phones, reducing lease and facility costs, lowering employee expenses by eliminating contract staff positions, implementing a soft hiring freeze, consolidating clinic services, and limiting travel and training expenses.
In addition to eliminating expenses, DHS is innovating ways to increase revenue.
Although the great majority of their patients are Medi-Cal recipients, DHS is creating a new patient accounting/revenue cycle system to maximize opportunities to bill private health insurance companies. DHS has also set aside an emergency reserve, called the DHS Enterprise Fund, to use in times of crisis. That emergency reserve funding and these efficiency efforts, however, are not enough to prevent large service cuts, layoffs and hospital closures starting next year. Seventy percent (70%) of DHS's budget comes from federal funding, and only 6% comes from local revenue. When the federal government withdraws that support, there is no ongoing backup funding. There is nothing left to cut without closing hospitals and clinics.
H.R.1 cuts extend beyond the County-operated health care facilities and also impact other non-profit hospital and clinic providers that substantially contribute to the safety net for uninsured and low-income residents. Nonprofit community health centers, for example, are a critical component of the County’s health care safety net, providing medical, dental, and behavioral health care to over 2 million County residents at more than 450 full time sites Countywide. Each year, these health centers serve 1 in 5 County residents, 1 in 3 County residents enrolled in Medi-Cal, and nearly 80,000 people experiencing homelessness. These private health centers disproportionately serve MediCal enrollees, people experiencing homelessness, immigrants, and patients with complex medical and behavioral health needs—populations most likely to be harmed by federal and State policy changes. The County and the nonprofit community health centers have closely partnered for over 30 years to create a system of care for the uninsured and underPage 214 of 284 MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
February 10, 2026
resourced residents of our community. These public-private partnerships have improved access to care for hundreds of thousands of residents.
The Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County projects that H.R.1 will have a disastrous impact on the health centers, forcing up to 1.5 million County residents off coverage, reducing covered benefits, and increasing the administrative burden required to keep people covered. Without local funding, health centers will also need to consider widespread service reductions and clinic closures as uncompensated care rises.
Underfunding community-based primary care will shift patients into emergency departments and DHS facilities, increasing County uncompensated care and system strain. Stable clinic funding keeps care in lower-cost, preventative care settings.
In order to meet the urgent health care needs of the County’s residents and combat the looming potential closure of hospitals, clinics and the emergency room overcrowding crisis caused by H.R. 1, this Board must place a temporary 0.5% sales tax on the ballot at the next available election to be held June 2, 2026. This measure includes taxpayer oversight, audits and accountability measures that ensure the public will know how the funding is spent by the County. Preliminary polling shows 58% of County residents would support a temporary ½ cent sales tax increase to preserve health care services.
What is at stake should not be lost on anyone. Without this measure, the County will be forced to limit critical public health services and close hospitals and clinics in communities that depend on them, leaving neighborhoods without essential, life-saving care. Maternity wards will shut down. Children who have lost their Medi-Cal coverage will have nowhere to go when they are sick except overcrowded emergency rooms, driving up costs for everyone and leaving families with medical bills they cannot pay. Essential public safety protections that ensure mitigation of communicable diseases, clean water, and health services for the most vulnerable will be severely curtailed or eliminated, resulting in grave danger for all County residents.
This Board will continue to pursue any other options to prevent the collapse of the County’s health care and social services safety net. Unfortunately, after exhausting every existing alternative, this temporary emergency measure is the only option that can be implemented quickly enough to prevent hospital closures and the loss of health care
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
February 10, 2026
access for at least hundreds of thousands of residents. This proposed measure would keep the County’s health care system positioned to meet the demand it currently faces and prevent the potential closure of our public hospitals.
H.R.1 has created the largest federal health care cuts in U.S. history. These cuts are going to have both an immediate and generational impact. The unfortunate truth is that the blatant disinvestment in health care by our federal government requires strengthening local investments in the County. The County is authorized to impose a general retail transactions and use (sales) tax within both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County to generate revenue dedicated to preserving and restoring health care services and other critical local services.
I THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
1. Adopt the attached resolution ordering, calling and giving notice of a special election to implement a countywide general retail transactions and use (sales) tax measure to be placed on the June 2, 2026 Statewide Direct Primary Election to be held in the County of Los Angeles on June 2, 2026.
2. Approve the general sales tax ordinance (attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution), which, subject to majority approval by the voters, would:
a. Impose a ½ percent (0.5 %) general sales tax until October 1, 2031; b. Establish a nine-member citizens’ oversight committee to provide transparency and ensure fiscal accountability as to any revenues raised by the measure by:
i. Reviewing the receipt and expenditures of the revenue from the sales tax, including the County’s annual independent audit; ii. Making recommendations to the Board on how to allocate the general fund revenue generated by the sales tax;
iii. Producing an annual oral or written report which shall be considered by the Board of Supervisors (Board) at a public meeting; and
iv. The committee’s responsibilities shall not include decisionmaking on spending priorities, financing plans or tax rate
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
February 10, 2026
projections or assumptions and the committee shall have no authority to direct, nor shall it direct, County staff or officials.
The Board shall give special consideration to organizational representatives most impacted by H.R.1 in making appointments to the citizens' oversight committee. Committee members must either reside or work in Los Angeles County. Citizens’ oversight committee members shall serve a three-year term and are eligible to be reappointed by the Board, at its discretion.
c. Require the Auditor-Controller to cause a report to be prepared by an independent auditor and filed with the Board no later than December 31st of each year until all funds are expended, stating: (i) the amount of general sales tax proceeds collected and expended in such year; and (ii) the status of any projects or description of any services or programs funded from proceeds of the general sales tax.
3. Direct the Chief Executive Office’s Legislative Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations Branch to support any legislative or administrative relief necessary to immediately implement the measure upon passage, including any needed exemptions from sales tax caps.
4. Adopt a spending plan expressing the Board's intent to allocate new general fund revenues generated by the general sales tax, if approved by the voters, in the following manner, subject to the County's annual budgeting process:
a. Up to forty-seven percent (47%) of revenue generated shall be used by the Department of Health Services (DHS) to fund a program under which a limited network of non-profit providers shall furnish no-cost or reduced cost care to low-income residents of Los Angeles County who do not have health insurance. Services available through the program shall include, to the extent funding is available, outpatient medical, dental, mild-to-moderate behavioral health, diagnostic, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies;
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
February 10, 2026
b. Five percent (5%) shall be used for school-based health needs and programs as determined by the governing board of L.A. Care Health Plan;
c. Ten percent (10%) shall be allocated to the Department of Public Health to support core public health functions and the awarding of grants to support health equity;
d. Five percent (5%) shall be allocated to the Department of Public Social Services to support Medicaid outreach and enrollment activities as well as work and volunteer programs;
e. Two-and-a-half percent (2.5%) shall be allocated to support Correctional Health Services;
f. Twenty-two percent (22%) shall provide financial support to DHS to safeguard its public hospital and clinic services.
g. Five percent (5%) shall be allocated to support non-profit safety net hospitals in Los Angeles County, as determined by meeting one of the following criteria:
i. A critical access hospital in Los Angeles County; or ii. Non-profit hospitals that meet all of the following criteria:
1. At least 40% of the local population within a 5-mile radius around the hospital is living below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL);
2. The hospital’s location is listed under Los Angeles
County’s Concentrated Disadvantage Index;
3. The hospital’s service area is listed in the highest two tiers of Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 Vulnerability and
Recovery Index;
4. The hospital’s service area is listed in the highest need quartile of the California Healthy Places Index (HPI)
compiled by the Public Health Alliance;
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
February 10, 2026
5. The hospital’s service area is listed in the highest need quartile of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index;
6. The hospital provides at least 75,000 emergency room visits per year to Medi-Cal and uninsured, Medi-Cal
patients make up at least 70% of its total patients each year, and the hospital is not affiliated with a larger hospital or health care system;
7. The hospital’s service area is federally designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA).
h. Two-and-a-half percent (2.5%) for in-home supportive services (IHSS) for the elderly and those living with disabilities with a priority on enhancing wages and benefits for IHSS providers;
i. One percent (1%) to provide financial support to the City of Pasadena Public Health Department and the City of Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services to safeguard their public services, to be divided between the cities proportionately based on what each city spent on core public health services over the past five fiscal years; j. Unless otherwise specified, all non-County hospital funds shall be distributed in a needs-based manner that is primarily based on Medicaid Emergency Department volume.
(YV/EA/VG)
# # #
HOA.105763538.7
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION ON A
GENERAL COUNTYWIDE TRANSACTIONS AND USE (SALES) TAX MEASURE TO BE HELD IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ON JUNE 2, 2026, AND
CONSOLIDATING THE SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 2, 2026
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles (County) relies on federal funding to support the delivery of vital services to the public, including health care, food assistance, social services, public health programs, child welfare services, housing, public safety, and other services critical for the health and safety of the public.
WHEREAS, 3.3 million County residents (one in three) rely on Medi-Cal for healthcare coverage and almost 1.5 million County residents rely on the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (called CalFresh in California).
WHEREAS, on July 4, 2025, H.R. 1, also known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act", was signed into federal law. This law imposes, among other cuts to public services, extensive reductions in federal support for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and may cause hundreds of thousands of County residents who rely on Medi-Cal to lose coverage and face reduced access to care. It could result in overcrowding of emergency rooms when residents are unable to get any health care until they are experiencing a life-threatening crisis.
WHEREAS, the cumulative fiscal impact of federal laws and policies imposed since January 20, 2025, including H.R. 1, Executive Orders on grant oversight, and new federal terms and conditions restrictions, has led the County’s most impacted departments to project revenue losses totaling $2.4 billion over the next three years, which may result in hiring freezes, service reductions, potential layoffs of 5,000 staff, and facility closures in the coming years.
WHEREAS, federal funding cuts could affect public health services like chronic disease prevention, disease tracking, and water safety, as well as the health care provided at the County’s four public hospitals, numerous clinics, partner non-profit safety net hospitals and community health centers, and these cuts will disproportionately affect low-income families and target health care and public health providers.
WHEREAS, proposed reductions at both the federal and State levels are expected to significantly affect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), which is a primary revenue source for the Department of Health Services (DHS). In just four months following H.R. 1's signing, the County lost an average of 1,000 people per day from Medi-Cal enrollment — over 120,000 people between July and November 2025. During the same four-month period, more than 27,000 children under 18 lost their Medi-Cal coverage, equating to nearly 200 children per day.
WHEREAS, from July 2025 to November 2025, since H.R.1’s signing, over 70,000 County residents were dropped from CalFresh enrollment – including almost 27,000 children under 18.
HOA.105763538.7
WHEREAS, this funding and coverage loss will cause a serious threat to the long-term sustainability of critical safety net services relied upon by County residents. DHS, for example, needs to absorb a projected federal revenue loss exceeding $700 million per year.
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Health (DPH) is projecting a $200-300 million loss in federal and state funds. DPH is forecasting a minimum $42 million deficit in fiscal year 2025-26, requiring various clinic closures, service reductions, personnel reassignments and possible terminations. This deficit will likely worsen given cuts to federal revenue.
WHEREAS, Medicaid is the single largest source of revenue for Los Angeles County's health departments, including the twenty-three health centers and four acute care hospitals run by the County and many non-profit safety-net facilities that provide irreplaceable lifesaving services for residents of Los Angeles County.
WHEREAS, many key provisions of H.R. 1 took effect immediately, including the prohibition on new provider taxes, which effectively negates Proposition 35 that voters approved in November 2024 and that would have extended the State's managed care organization (MCO) tax and provided needed support to the Medi-Cal program while also providing dedicated funding to public hospitals which was assumed in the current State and County budgets for the current fiscal year.
WHEREAS, H.R. 1 immediately freezes supplemental Medicaid funding and prevents the Los Angeles County health departments from being able to draw down expected and needed supplemental Medicaid payments causing a significant negative impact on the County budget immediately and escalating over time.
WHEREAS, the County will be required to offset the losses to health care and human services funding with revenue from the County's General Fund which will directly impact the County's ability to provide other vital services to County residents, including but not limited to social services, supportive services for unhoused residents, and public safety.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Parts 1.6 and 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the County is authorized to impose a retail transactions and use (sales) tax in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County for general purposes, including health care and human services, at a rate of one-half percent (0.5%).
WHEREAS, section 2 of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, sections 53721- 53724 of the California Government Code, and Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code authorize the County of Los Angeles to levy, increase, or extend a general sales tax upon two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors and a majority vote of the electorate.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to levy a general sales tax at the rate of 0.5 percent, effective as of October 1, 2026, to continue for a period of five years.
HOA.105763538.7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIII C, section 2(b) of the Constitution and California Government Code section 53724(c), an election for the approval of a temporary general sales tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government;
WHEREAS, the County’s regularly scheduled elections are held on the same day as the statewide primary election in each even-numbered year, and the next regularly scheduled election for members of the Board of Supervisors and the next statewide primary election will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems it necessary, essential, and in the public interest to submit the sales tax measure to the qualified voters within the County at an election to be held on June 2, 2026, and to consolidate such election with the other elections to be held on that date.
WHEREAS, the tax revenues from this general sales tax levy would partly offset reductions in federal support imposed by H.R. 1 and help the County to continue to provide vital services including health care and human services to the public.
WHEREAS, voter approval of this ordinance will not affect the County's existing sales taxes, which will continue to be levied.
WHEREAS, to promote accountability and transparency, this ordinance provides for the creation of a citizens' oversight committee that will review the receipt and expenditures of the revenues from the general sales tax and provide annual reporting of the committee's review at a public meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles as follows:
Section 1. Call of the Election and Purpose. An election shall be held and the same is hereby called and ordered to be held in the County on the 2nd day of June, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the voters: (1) the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein (Ordinance) by this reference, which was approved by two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors. The Ordinance shall become effective if a majority of the qualified voters of the County of Los Angeles voting on the Ordinance measure set forth in Section 2, below, vote in favor of the measure.
Section 2. Ballot Measure. Pursuant to Elections Code section 10403, the measure shall appear on the ballot substantially as follows:
Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County General Sales Tax Measure Shall the measure to help our community address severe federal cuts enacted by the President and Congress; reduce the loss of essential services, including healthcare for county residents; reduce the risk of closing the Yes
HOA.105763538.7
county’s four public hospitals and numerous clinics, and significant healthcare provider layoffs and other service cuts by enacting a 1/2¢ (0.5%) general sales tax for 5 years, generating approximately $1 billion annually, with independent audits, be adopted?
No
Section 3. Proclamation. Pursuant to section 12001 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles hereby PROCLAIMS that an election shall be held in the County on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, to vote upon the measure.
Section 4. Election Procedure. All qualified voters residing within the County shall be permitted to vote in the election and in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the elections shall be held as nearly as practicable in conformity with the Elections Code of the State of California. The votes cast for and against the measure shall be separately counted, and if the measure receives a majority of the votes cast by the qualified electors voting on the measure, the general sales tax in the amount stated in the Ordinance shall be effective and ratified. Should another proposed measure with conflicting provisions appear on the same ballot, and each proposed measure receives a majority of votes, the proposed measure with the highest number of affirmative votes shall prevail, in conformity with section 9123 of the Elections Code.
Section 5. Sample Ballot. The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk is instructed to print the entire proposed Ordinance in the sample ballot.
Section 6. Consolidation. The election called by this Resolution shall be consolidated with the other elections conducted by the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to be held in the County of Los Angeles on June 2, 2026, and the measure shall be placed on the same ballot in the order set forth in this Resolution. The precincts, polling places, vote centers, precinct board members, election workers, and facilities shall be the same as provided for the June 2, 2026 statewide primary election.
Section 7. Authority. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to sections 10403 and 12001 of the Elections Code and section 25201 of the Government Code. The Executive Officer-Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is ordered to file a copy of this Resolution with the RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk at least eighty-eight (88) days prior to the day of the election. The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to prepare any documents and take any additional actions that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
Section 8. California Environment Quality Act. Based upon all of the facts before it on this matter, the Board of Supervisors finds that the submission of the measure to the voters is not subject to, or is exempt from, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Submission of the measure is not a project as defined by California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15378(b)(4) because it relates to the creation of government funding mechanisms, which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
HOA.105763538.7
The foregoing resolution was on the ___ day of _____ 2026, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and ex officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts, agencies, and authorities for which said Board so acts.
EDWARD YEN, Executive Officer-Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles
By: __________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
By: _________________________
Senior Deputy County Counsel
Eva Chu
1 HOA.105763530.4
ANALYSIS
This ordinance amends Title 4 – Revenue and Finance, of the Los Angeles County Code, by adding Chapter 4.70, the Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County General Retail Transactions and Use Tax, to impose a general countywide tax of 0.5 percent on all retail sales consummated at the retailer’s place of business, and on the storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property. Revenues generated from the retail transactions and use tax will be placed in the County general fund and may be used for any County services. The ordinance will become effective only after approval by a two-thirds vote of the County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the qualified voters voting in an election on the issue.
DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
By _________________________
MICHAEL S. BUENNAGEL
Senior Deputy County Counsel
Government Services Division
MSB:eg
Requested: 01/16/2026
Revised: 01/21/2026
2 HOA.105763530.4
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance amending Title 4, Revenue and Finance of the Los Angeles County Code, to add Chapter 4.70 ‒ Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County General Retail Transactions and Use Tax, relating to a general county-wide retail transactions and use tax.
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles (County) relies on federal funding to support the delivery of vital services to the public, including health care, food assistance, social services, public health programs, child welfare services, housing, public safety, and other services critical for the health and safety of the public.
WHEREAS, 3.3 million County residents (one in three) rely on Medi-Cal for healthcare coverage and almost 1.5 million County residents rely on the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (called CalFresh in California).
WHEREAS, on July 4, 2025, H.R. 1, also known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act", was signed into federal law. This law imposes, among other cuts to public services, extensive reductions in federal support for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and may cause hundreds of thousands of County residents who rely on Medi-Cal to lose coverage and face reduced access to care. It could result in overcrowding of emergency rooms when residents are unable to get any health care until they are experiencing a life-threatening crisis.
WHEREAS, the cumulative fiscal impact of federal laws and policies imposed since January 20, 2025, including H.R. 1, Executive Orders on grant oversight, and new federal terms and conditions restrictions, has led the County’s most impacted departments to project revenue losses totaling $2.4 billion over the next three years, which may result in hiring freezes, service reductions, potential layoffs of 5,000 staff, and facility closures in the coming years.
WHEREAS, federal funding cuts could affect public health services like chronic disease prevention, disease tracking and water safety, as well as the health care provided at the County’s four public hospitals numerous clinics, partner non-profit safety net hospitals and community
3 HOA.105763530.4
health centers, and these cuts will disproportionately affect low-income families and target health care and public health providers.
WHEREAS, proposed reductions at both the federal and State levels are expected to significantly affect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), which is a primary revenue source for the Department of Health Services (DHS). In just four months following H.R. 1's signing, the County lost an average of 1,000 people per day from Medi-Cal enrollment — over 120,000 people between July and November 2025. During the same four-month period, more than 27,000 children under 18 lost their Medi-Cal coverage, equating to nearly 200 children per day.
WHEREAS, from July 2025 to November 2025, since H.R.1’s signing, over 70,000 County residents dropped from CalFresh enrollment – including almost 27,000 children under 18.
WHEREAS, this funding and coverage loss will cause a serious threat to the long-term sustainability of critical safety net services relied upon by County residents. DHS, for example, needs to absorb a projected federal revenue loss exceeding $700 million per year.
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Health (DPH) is projecting a $200-300 million loss in federal and state funds. DPH is forecasting a minimum $42 million deficit in fiscal year 2025- 26, requiring various clinic closures, service reductions, personnel reassignments and possible terminations. This deficit will likely worsen given cuts to federal revenue.
WHEREAS, Medicaid is the single largest source of revenue for Los Angeles County's health departments, including the twenty-three health centers and four acute care hospitals run by the County, and many non-profit safety net facilities that provide irreplaceable lifesaving services for residents of Los Angeles County.
WHEREAS, many key provisions of H.R. 1 took effect immediately, including the prohibition on new provider taxes, which effectively negates Proposition 35 that voters approved in November 2024 and that would have extended the State's managed care organization (MCO) tax and provided needed support to the Medi-Cal program while also providing dedicated funding
4 HOA.105763530.4
to public hospitals which was assumed in the current State and County budgets for the current fiscal year.
WHEREAS, H.R. 1 immediately freezes supplemental Medicaid funding and prevents the Los Angeles County health departments from being able to draw down expected and needed supplemental Medicaid payments causing a significant negative impact on the County budget immediately and escalating over time.
WHEREAS, the County will be required to offset the losses to health care and human services funding with revenue from the County's General Fund which will directly impact the County's ability to provide other vital services to County residents, including but not limited to social services, supportive services for unhoused residents, and public safety.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Parts 1.6 and 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the County is authorized to impose a retail transactions and use (sales) tax in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County for general purposes, including health care and human services, at a rate of one-half percent (0.5%).
WHEREAS, section 2 of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, sections 53721-53724 of the California Government Code, and Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code authorize the County of Los Angeles to levy, increase, or extend a general sales tax upon two thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors and a majority vote of the electorate.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to levy a general sales tax at the rate of 0.5 percent, effective as of October 1, 2026, to continue for a period of five years.
WHEREAS, the tax revenues from this general sales tax levy would partly offset reductions in federal support imposed by H.R. 1 and help the County to continue to provide vital services including health care and human services to the public.
WHEREAS, voter approval of this ordinance will not affect the County's existing sales taxes, which will continue to be levied.
5 HOA.105763530.4
WHEREAS, to promote accountability and transparency, this ordinance provides for the creation of a citizens' oversight committee that will review the receipt and expenditures of the revenues from the general sales tax and provide annual reporting of the committee's review at a public meeting.
The people of the County of Los Angeles ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4.70 is hereby added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 4.70 ESSENTIAL SERVICES RESTORATION ACT FOR LOS
ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
SECTIONS:
4.70.010 Title.
4.70.020 General Tax.
4.70.030 Operative Date.
4.70.040 Purpose.
4.70.050 Contract with State.
4.70.060 Transactions Tax Rate.
4.70.070 Place of Sale.
4.70.080 Use Tax Rate.
4.70.090 Adoption of Provisions of State Law.
4.70.100 Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes.
4.70.110 Permit Not Required.
4.70.120 Exemptions and Exclusions.
4.70.130 Amendments.
4.70.140 Enjoining Collection Forbidden.
4.70.150 Citizens' Oversight Committee and Annual Audit.
4.70.160 Annual Report.
6 HOA.105763530.4
4.70.170 Severability.
4.70.180 Effective Date.
4.70.190 Execution.
4.70.200 Termination Date.
4.70.010 Title.
This Chapter shall be known as the "Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County General Retail Transactions and Use Tax" ordinance. The County of Los Angeles hereinafter shall be called "County." This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County.
4.70.020 General Tax.
The Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County General Retail Transactions and Use Tax hereby adopted is enacted solely for general governmental purposes for the County and not for specific purposes. All of the proceeds from the tax imposed by this ordinance shall be placed in the County's general fund and used for purposes consistent with general fund expenditures of the County.
4.70.030 Operative Date.
The "Operative Date" means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance, the date of such adoption being as set forth below.
4.70.040 Purpose.
This ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
A. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and section 7285 of Part 1.7 of Division 2, which authorizes the County to adopt this tax ordinance
7 HOA.105763530.4
and shall be operative if a majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose.
B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, including adoption by reference of the provisions of sections 7261 and 7262 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as now in effect or as later amended.
C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes.
D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the retail transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance.
4.70.050 Contract with State.
Prior to the Operative Date, the County shall contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this retail transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the County shall not have contracted with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to the Operative Date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the Operative Date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.
8 HOA.105763530.4
4.70.060 Transactions Tax Rate.
For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County at the rate of 0.5 percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the Operative Date of this ordinance.
4.70.070 Place of Sale.
For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the State sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
4.70.080 Use Tax Rate.
An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the Operative Date of this ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of 0.5 percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to State sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
4.70.090 Adoption of Provisions of State Law.
Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions
9 HOA.105763530.4
of Part 1 (commencing with section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein.
4.70.100 Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes.
In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this County shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when:
1. The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;
2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this County or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this ordinance.
3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to:
a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or; b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the State under the said provision of that code.
10 HOA.105763530.4
4. In sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
B. The word "County" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in this State" in section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and in the definition of that phrase in section 6203.
1. "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall also include any retailer that, in the preceding calendar year or the current calendar year, has total combined sales of tangible personal property in this State or for delivery in the State by the retailer and all persons related to the retailer that exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). For purposes of this Section, a person is related to another person if both persons are related to each other pursuant to section 267(b) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations thereunder.
4.70.110 Permit Not Required.
If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this ordinance.
4.70.120 Exemptions and Exclusions.
A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.
B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:
1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.
11 HOA.105763530.4
2. Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a point outside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the County shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and
b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-County and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.
3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the Operative Date of this ordinance.
4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the Operative Date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs 3 and 4 of this Section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property:
12 HOA.105763530.4
1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.
2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the Operative Date of this ordinance.
4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the Operative Date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs 3 and 4 of this Section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
6. Except as provided in subparagraph 7, a retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the County under the authority of the retailer.
13 HOA.105763530.4
7. "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the County.
D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a County imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.
4.70.130 Amendments.
A. All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance.
B. The Board of Supervisors may repeal this ordinance or amend it in a manner which does not result in an increase in the tax imposed herein, without further voter approval.
The Board of Supervisors may likewise by ordinance adopt and add additional provisions to Chapter 4.70, or amend any existing provisions of Chapter 4.70, as they may already relate to this ordinance in any manner which does not result in an increase in the tax imposed herein, without further voter approval. If the Board of Supervisors repeals this ordinance or any provision of Chapter 4.70, it may subsequently reenact it without voter
14 HOA.105763530.4
approval, as long as the re-enacted ordinance or section does not result in an increase in the tax imposed herein.
4.70.140 Enjoining Collection Forbidden.
No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the County, or against any officer of the State or the County, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.
4.70.150 Citizens’ Oversight Committee and Annual Audit.
A. The Board of Supervisors shall establish a citizens’ oversight committee advisory to the Board of Supervisors to provide transparency and ensure fiscal accountability of the retail transactions and use tax. The committee shall review the receipt and expenditure of the revenue from the transactions and use tax, including the County’s annual independent audit.
This advisory committee shall make recommendations to the Board on how to allocate the County’s revenue generated by the retail transactions and use general funds. The committee’s review shall be completed in conjunction with the County’s budget process. The committee shall produce an annual oral or written report on its review which shall be considered by the Board at a public meeting. Any final written report shall be a public record. To preserve the integrity and independence of the oversight process, the committee’s responsibilities shall not include decision-making on spending priorities, financing plans or tax rate projections or assumptions and the committee shall have no authority to direct, nor shall it direct, County staff or officials.
B. The Board of Supervisors shall appoint nine (9) members to the citizens’ oversight committee with special consideration given to organizational representatives most impacted by H.R. 1. Committee members must either reside in or work in Los Angeles County.
Citizens’ oversight committee members shall serve a three-year term and are eligible to be reappointed by the Board of Supervisors, at their discretion.
15 HOA.105763530.4
C. For so long as any proceeds of the retail transactions and use tax remain unexpended, the Auditor-Controller shall cause a report to be prepared by an independent auditor and filed with the Board of Supervisors no later than December 31st of each year, stating: (i) the amount of retail transactions and use tax proceeds collected and expended in such year; and (ii) the status of any projects or description of any services or programs funded from proceeds of the retail transactions and use tax.
4.70.160 Annual Report.
In order to ensure public fiscal accountability, the County shall provide a public report summarizing all expenditures of funds raised pursuant to the retail transactions and use tax on an annual basis and shall subject the funds to independent audit/oversight by the citizens' oversight committee created pursuant to this ordinance or in a manner otherwise directed by the Board of Supervisors.
4.70.170 Severability.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
4.70.180 Effective Date.
This ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of the County's retail transactions and use tax and shall take effect immediately upon approval by a majority of the electorate voting in an election on this ordinance.
4.70.190 Execution.
The Chair of the Board of Supervisors is authorized to attest to the adoption of this ordinance by the voters of the County.
4.70.200 Termination Date.
The authority to levy the tax imposed by this ordinance shall terminate on October 1, 2031.
16 HOA.105763530.4
SECTION 2. This Ordinance, and all the provisions thereof, shall become effective only upon affirmative passage by a majority of the eligible voters of this County pursuant to Article XIIIC, Section 2 of the California Constitution and applicable provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
SECTION 3. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a government funding mechanism for general County purposes and the County is not committing to a course of action with respect to the tax revenue and therefore the ordinance is not a "project" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378, subdivision (b)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines.
I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the people of the County of Los Angeles voting on the 2nd day of June 2026. ______________________________
Chair of the Board of Supervisors
[CH470ECCC]
Essential Services
Restoration Act
Protecting Safety Net Access in LA County
JANUARY 28, 2026
MOTION BY
SUPERVISOR HOLLY J. MITCHELL
Impact
H.R.1* County Impact
H.R.1 cuts billions in federal Medicaid funding to California and imposes new eligibility requirements and copays. 1 in 3 County residents depend on Medi-Cal for healthcare. The County has already implemented hiring freezes and DHS contemplating service consolidations, potential layoffs of 5,000 staff, and facility closures in the coming years.
Unprecedented cuts to safety net
$2.4 B
Projected Losses
Over next 3 years to
County departments
$700 M
DHS Projected Annual
Federal Revenue Losses
When HR1 Fully Implemented
$42 M
DPH Fiscal Year Deficit
H.R.1 has created the largest federal health care cuts in U.S. history. These cuts are going to have both an immediate and generational impact. The unfortunate truth is that the blatant disinvestment in health care by our federal government
requires strengthening local investments in the County. 135,000
Residents disenrolled from
MediCal since July 2025
80,000
Residents disenrolled from
CalFresh since July 2025
29,000
Children disenrolled from
MediCal since July 2025
31,000
Children disenrolled from
CalFresh since July 2025
* and other federal changes
Department of Health Services
Department of Public Health
Mandatory work requirements could eliminate
coverage for 700,000 County residents (20% of
recipients)
47,000 lawful immigrants may lose full Medi-Cal
benefits, reduced to emergency-only care
6-month recertification requirement increases
County workload
CalAIM 1115 waiver expiration, if not renewed,
could eliminate coverage for justice-involved
individuals and funding for uninsured individuals
Projected $95M-$300M in funding losses
$200-300M projected loss in federal and state
funding
$42M deficit this fiscal year requiring immediate cuts
Clinic closures and consolidations already being
planned across the County
Service reductions in chronic disease prevention,
disease tracking, and public education and outreach
Staff reassignments and potential terminations
Deficit will worsen as additional federal cuts take
effect
Both DHS and DPH are implementing cost-cutting
measures—overtime restrictions, hiring freezes,
facility consolidations—but these efforts cannot
offset losses of this magnitude.
Department Specific Impact
H.R.1* County Impact
Health Department Specific Impacts
4 hospitals | 23 clinics | 600,000+ patients annually
2026-2027 Projected Impacts
Protecting 10 million+ County residents
* and other federal changes
Community health centers serve over 2 million LA County residents across 192 organizations and 557 sites. These patients are disproportionately low-income, with 69-81% living under 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
Percentage of Medi-Cal Revenue
Source
Medi-Cal Revenue %
SD1 SD2 SD3 SD4 SD5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Community Clinic Association of LA County, 2023
Community Health Center Patients
Patients
SD1 SD2 SD3 SD4 SD5
0 200000
400000
600000
800000
Community Clinic Association of LA County, 2023
Community Health Center Sites
Sites
SD1 SD2 SD3 SD4 SD5
0 50
100
150
200
Community Clinic Association of LA County, 2023
Impact on Community Clinics
Community Demands
Protection for Most Vulnerable
Serve low-income families, seniors, people with
disabilities, and communities disproportionately
affected by federal cuts
Accountability Built In
Provide independent citizens' oversight committee and
audits to ensure transparency in how funds are spent
Temporary Emergency Measure
Enact a half-cent sales tax with clear expiration date of October 1, 2031.
Support Essential Services
Dedicate funding to support essential services,
especially the health care safety net.
In response to the dramatic cuts resulting from HR, this motion would place a general ½ cent retail sales tax on the June 2026 ballot for County essential services. This motion also moves that the Board exercise its authority to adopt a spending plan to save health care service access for hundreds of thousands of residents.
Board Action
58% of County residents would support a
temporary ½ cent sales tax increase to
preserve essential services.
Preliminary Polling
County
Response
Allocations
47%
Non-Profit
Provider Network
22%
DHS Hospitals
and Clinics
10%
Core Public
Health Functions
5%
School-Based
Health Programs
5%
Safety Net
Hospitals
5%
Outreach and
Enrollment
2.5%
Correctional
Health Services
2.5%
IHSS
1%
Pasadena/Long Beach
Public Health
Other Initiatives
Filed for November 2026 ballot
Imposes a special 5-cent parcel County tax
Projected $330M annual revenue
“To ensure access for premature infants, infants, children, and teenagers to critical medical and health services at acute care hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare
providers in the County.”
Allocations:
60% of revenue raised to be administered to five
private hospitals:
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
Memorial Care Miller Children's & Women's Hospital
UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital in Westwood
Northridge
Valley Presbyterian
40% would go into a Countywide Pediatric Access
Subaccount controlled by the County Board of
Supervisors
Access to Children’s Critical
Healthcare Ordinance
Filed for November 2026 ballot
Imposes a State-wide one-time 5% tax on Californians
with net worth over $1B
Projected to raise $100 billion one-time
“To protect access to high-quality, equitable health
care, and to support funding for kindergarten through
grade fourteen public education and food assistance
programs, by raising revenue from a one-time tax on
billionaire wealth.”
State Allocations:
90% of revenue to health care to protect or
enhance Medi-Cal and other health coverage
programs for low- and moderate-income individuals
10% to education and food assistance programs
2026 Billionaire Tax Act
Questions?
BOARD LETTER/MEMO
CLUSTER FACT SHEET
Board Letter Board Memo Other
CLUSTER AGENDA
REVIEW DATE
1/28/2026
BOARD MEETING
DATE
3/3/2026
SUPERVISORIAL
DISTRICT
AFFECTED
All 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
DEPARTMENT(S) Mental Health (DMH)
SUBJECT Approval to Amend Existing Legal Entity (LE) and 24-Hour Residential Treatment Contracts to Increase Their Maximum Contract Amounts (MCA) for Fiscal Year 2025-26 for the Continuous Provision and Expansion of Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS)
PROGRAM DMH Various Programs – LE and 24 HR Contractors
AUTHORIZES
DELEGATED
AUTHORITY TO
DEPT
Yes No
SOLE SOURCE
CONTRACT Yes No
If Yes, please explain why:
SB 1439
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION
FORM REVIEW
COMPLETED BY
EXEC OFFICE
Yes No – Not Applicable
If unsure whether a matter is subject to the Levine Act, email your packet to [email protected] to avoid delays in scheduling your Board Letter.
DEADLINES/
TIME
CONSTRAINTS
3/3/26
COST & FUNDING Total cost: $3 mil for LE contracts
and $283,630 for one 24-HR
Residential Treatment contract for
FY 2025-26.
Funding source:
Federal Financial Participation, federal, State, Mental Health Services Act, and 2011 Realignment local revenues.
TERMS (if applicable): FY 2025-26
Explanation: To increase the MCA for FY 2025-26 for the continuous expansion of SMHS.
PURPOSE OF
REQUEST
Amend existing LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts to increase MCA for the continued provision and expansion of SMHS due to the LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts reached their previously Board-approved 25 percent delegated authority for FY 2025-26.
BACKGROUND
(include
internal/external
issues that may
exist including any
related motions)
On May 7, 2024, the Board authorized the Director to extend the term of the LE contracts through June 30, 2026. The same Board Letter also delegated authority to DMH to amend the LE Contracts up to 25 percent of their approved MCA. As such, using the authority delegated, DMH amended LE Contracts attached to this Board Letter up to the allowed 25 percent and is now returning to the Board for authority to further amend the contracts to increase their MCAs for FY 2025-26. Additionally, On May 3, 2022, the Board authorized the Director to execute 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts through June 30, 2026.
The same Board letter also delegated authority to DMH to amend the 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts to increase their MCAs to 25 percent of their approved MCAs. A 24-Hour Residential Treatment contract has reached its 25 percent delegated authority for FY 2025-26 and is seeking the Board’s authority to amend this contract to increase its MCA for FY 2025-26.
EQUITY INDEX OR
LENS WAS
UTILIZED
Yes No If Yes, please explain how: Intervene Early and Emphasize Long Term Prevention.
The SMHS to be provided through this request, seek to address and reduce the negative impact of mental illness of children, youth, adults, and families. The request will allow for the continued provision and expansion of mental health services to racially diverse underserved populations throughout the County, including prevention and early intervention services, with a goal of increasing positive outcomes for those being served, for their families and communities.
SUPPORTS ONE OF
THE NINE BOARD
PRIORITIES
Yes No
If Yes, please state which one(s) and explain how: Priority 1 Child Protection; Priority 3 Care First, Jails Last; Priority 4 Homeless Initiative; and Priority 8 Anti-Racism, Diversity, and Inclusion. These Priorities allows DMH to provide specialty mental health and support to vulnerable populations, including children
and youth; families; residents experiencing mental health crisis; residents experiencing homelessness and/or at risk of becoming homeless; and residents involved in/at-risk of becoming involved with the justice system.
DEPARTMENTAL
CONTACTS
Name, Title, Phone # & Email:
DMH: Joo Yoon, Acting Deputy Director, (213) 943-8898, [email protected] Senior Deputy County Counsel: Rachel Kleinberg, (213) 974-7735, [email protected]
510 S. VERMONT AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CA 90020 | DMH.LACOUNTY.GOV | (800) 854-7771 Rimmi Hundal, M.A.
Chief Deputy Director
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
LISA H. WONG, Psy.D.
Director
Curley L. Bonds, M.D.
Chief Medical Officer
March 3, 2026
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Los Angeles
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Supervisors:
APPROVAL TO AMEND EXISTING LEGAL ENTITY AND 24-HOUR RESIDENTIAL
TREATMENT CONTRACTS TO INCREASE THEIR MAXIMUM CONTRACT
AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FOR THE CONTINUOUS PROVISION AND
EXPANSION OF SPECIALTY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
(SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS 1, 2, and 3)
(3 VOTES)
SUBJECT
Request approval to amend existing Department of Mental Health Legal Entity and 24- Hour Residential Treatment contracts to increase their Maximum Contract Amounts for Fiscal Year 2025-26 for the continuous provision and expansion of specialty mental health services.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD:
1. Approve and authorize the Director of Mental Health (Director), or designee, to prepare, sign, and execute amendments similar to Attachment I to existing Department of Mental Health (DMH) Legal Entity (LE) contracts as identified on Attachment III, to increase and reset the Maximum Contract Amounts (MCAs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26. The amendments will be effective upon Board approval; and the total increase is estimated to be $3 million, fully funded by Federal Financial Participation (FFP), State, Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), and 2011 Realignment and local revenues.
2. Approve and authorize the Director, or designee, to prepare, sign, and execute an amendment similar to Attachment II to the existing DMH 24-Hour Residential
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
March 3, 2026
Treatment contract as identified on Attachment III, to increase and reset the MCA for FY 2025-26. The amendment will be effective upon Board approval; and the total increase is $283,630, fully funded by federal, State, and MHSAMental Health Services Act (MHSA) revenues.
3. Delegate authority to the Director, or designee, to prepare, sign, and execute future amendments to the LE and/or 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts in Recommendations 1 and 2 to revise the boilerplate language; revise the annual MCAs; add, delete, modify, or replace the Service Exhibit(s) and/or Statement(s) of Work; and/or reflect federal, State, and County regulatory and/or policy changes provided that: 1) any increase to the Board-approved MCA in Recommendations 1 and 2 will not exceed 25 percent, and 2) sufficient funds are available. The amendments will be subject to prior review and approval as to form by County Counsel, with written notice to the Board and the Chief Executive Office (CEO).
4. Delegate authority to the Director, or designee, to make non-material modifications to the LE and/or 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts in Recommendations 1 and 2 through administrative amendments or change notices for the following and other similar reasons, as appropriate: change the contractors’ business name and/or headquarter address; change, revise, add, or delete the contractors’ provider site address(es), site number(s), site name(s), and/or services for an existing or new provider site; make technical corrections; revise County and Contractor Administration Exhibits; and/or shift funds between currently contracted funded programs, so long as such shift(s) will not cause an increase in the MCA.
5. Delegate authority to the Director, or designee, to terminate the contracts described in Recommendations 1 and 2 in accordance with the termination provisions of the contracts, including Termination for Convenience. The Director, or designee, will provide written notification to your Board and CEO of such termination action.
PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Board approval of Recommendation 1 will allow DMH to amend the existing LE contracts identified in Attachment III to increase the MCAs to provide Specialty Mental Health (SMH) Day Treatment Intensive (DTI) Program services and to support contractors’ capacity in expanding services to new and existing beneficiaries since the LE contracts have reached their previously Board-approved delegated authority for FY 2025-26.
Board approval of Recommendation 2 will allow DMH to amend the existing 24-Hour Residential Treatment contract identified on Attachment III to increase its MCA for the continuous delivery of sub-acute psychiatric residential services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries and/or uninsured clients since the 24-Hour Residential Treatment contract
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
March 3, 2026
has reached its previously Board-approved 25 percent delegated authority for FY 2025-
26. Board approval of Recommendations 3 and 4 will allow DMH to amend the contracts in Recommendations 1 and 2 in a timely manner, as necessary, for the continuous provision and expansion of Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS) and administrative corrections without interruption to clients in need of these services.
Board approval of Recommendation 5 will allow DMH to terminate the contracts in accordance with the contracts' termination provisions, including Termination for Convenience, in a timely manner, as necessary.
Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals
The recommended actions are consistent with the County's Strategic Plan North Star 1, Make Investments that Transform Lives, specifically Focus Area Goal A. Healthy Individuals and Families; and North Star 3. Realize Tomorrow’s Government Today, specifically Focus Area Goal E. Data Driven Decision Making.
FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING
The total increase for the LE contracts is estimated to be $3 million for FY 2025-26, fully funded by FFP, MHSA, and 2011 Realignment local revenues.
The total increase for the 24-Hour Residential Treatment contract for FY 2025-26 is $283,630, fully funded by federal, State, and MHSA revenues.
Funding for future fiscal years will be requested through DMH’s annual budget process.
There is no net County cost impact associated with the recommended actions.
FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
On May 7, 2024, your Board authorized the Director to extend the term of LE contracts, including contractors listed on Attachment III. The same Board letter also delegated authority to DMH to amend the LE contracts to increase their MCAs up to 25 percent of their approved MCAs. As such, using the authority delegated, DMH amended these LE contracts up to the allowed 25 percent and is now returning to your Board for authority to further amend the contracts to increase their MCAs for FY 2025-26. The increase of funds is for the provision of SMH DTI Program services including assessments, treatment planning, therapy and psychosocial rehabilitation.
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
March 3, 2026
On May 3, 2022, your Board authorized the Director to execute 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts, which included the contractor listed on Attachment III. The same Board letter also delegated authority to DMH to amend the 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts to increase their MCAs up to 25 percent of their approved MCAs. The contract listed on Attachment III has reached its 25 percent delegated authority for FY 2025-26 and DMH is seeking your Board’s authority to amend this contract to increase its MCA for that fiscal year. Additional funding is necessary to sustain the clinical and programmatic services and allow the contractor to maintain full capacity service levels.
On February TBD, 2026, DMH requested exemption to Board Policy No. 5.120 (Authority to Approve Increases to Board-Approved Contract Amounts) (Attachment IV) from your Board for Medi-Cal funding in DMH’s LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts, and, in accordance with the Policy, DMH considers this request approved, as no objections were received from the Board offices.
Under Board Policy No. 5.100 (Sole Source Contracts and Amendments), DMH is required to notify your Board six months in advance of amendments to existing contracts when DMH does not have delegated authority to increase the maximum amount of the current contracts. On May 7, 2024, your Board adopted a Board letter exempting DMH LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts from Board Policy No. 5.100 as these contracts provide federal entitlement services to Medi-Cal members.
This exemption will allow DMH to meet the federal requirement under the Parity Rule and allow DMH to amend the LE contracts in a timely manner for the continuous provision and expansion of mental health services without interruption to clients who need the services/programs.
The amendment formats (Attachments I and II) have been approved as to form by County Counsel. Attachment III lists the LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contractors, along with their headquarter addresses, Supervisorial District(s), Service Area(s), and current MCAs.
As mandated by your Board, the performance of all contractors is evaluated by DMH on an annual basis to ensure compliance with all contract terms and performance standards.
IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES OR PROJECTS
Board approval of the recommended actions will allow the LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contractors to provide ongoing SMHS services and allow DMH to make revisions/updates to the work provided by the contractors in a timely manner.
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
March 3, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa H. Wong, Psy.D.
Director
LHW:RH:KN:
SK:DO:atm
Attachments (4)
c: Executive Office, Board of Supervisors
Chief Executive Office
County Counsel
Attachment I
CONTRACT NO. MH122
AMENDMENT NO.
THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2026, by and between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (hereafter “County”), and (hereafter “Contractor”).
WHEREAS reference is made to that certain document entitled “Department of Mental Health (DMH) Legal Entity Contract”, dated July 1, 2021, and further identified as County Contract No. MH122 , and all prior amendments (hereafter collectively “Contract”); and
WHEREAS, on month xx, 2026, the County Board of Supervisors delegated authority to the Director of Mental Health, or designee, to execute amendments to the Contract to revise Maximum Contract Amount (MCA), and make other certain designated changes; and
WHEREAS, said Contract provides that changes may be made in the form of a written amendment which is formally approved and executed by the parties; and WHEREAS, County and Contractor intend to amend this Contract only as described hereunder; and
WHEREAS, County and Contractor intend to amend the Contract to increase DMH Mental Health Services Medi-Cal Funded Program funds and make other hereinafter designated changes; and
2 WHEREAS, as a result of the above change in Funded Program funds the MCA will increase; and
WHEREAS, Contractor warrants that it continues to possess the competence, expertise, and personnel necessary to provide services consistent with the requirements of the Contract, and consistent with the professional standard of care for these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the County and Contractor agree as follows:
1. This amendment is hereby incorporated into the original Contract, and all its terms and conditions, including capitalized terms defined therein, will be given full force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
2. This amendment is effective upon execution for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.
3. For FY 2025-26, DMH Mental Health Services Medi-Cal Funded Program funds are increased by $ , from $ to $ .
4. For FY 2025-26, the MCA is increased by $ , from $ to $ .
5. Exhibit A (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS), Paragraph C (REIMBURSEMENT IF CONTRACT IS AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED AND EXTENDED), subparagraph (4), is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:
“(4) Reimbursement for Second Extension Period: The MCA for the second extension of the Contract as described in Paragraph 4 (TERM OF Contract) of the Contract shall not exceed
DOLLARS ($ ) and shall consist of
Funded Programs as shown in Exhibit B – .”
6. Financial Summary (Exhibit B – ) for FY 2025-26 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Financial Summary (Exhibit B – ) for FY 2025-26, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. All references in the Contract to "Financial Summary (Exhibit B – ) for FY 2025-26", shall be deemed amended to state “Financial Summary (Exhibit B – ) for FY 2025-26.”
3 7. Contractor shall provide services in accordance with Contractor’s FY 2025-26 Service Delivery Plan for the Contract, and any addenda thereto approved in writing by the County’s Director of Mental Health or designee.
8. Except as provided in this amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Contract will remain in full force and effect.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has caused this amendment to be subscribed by County’s Director of Mental Health, or designee, and Contractor has caused this amendment to be subscribed on its behalf by its duly authorized officer, on the day, month, and year first above written.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By
LISA H. WONG, Psy.D., Director
County of Los Angeles
Department of Mental Health
CONTRACTOR
By
Name
Title
(AFFIX CORPORATE SEAL HERE)
TEMPLATE APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
By: RACHEL KLEINBERG
Senior Deputy County Counsel
BL_Over_DA_SRF#180_Amd format_LE_Contract_DTI_Svcs_FY 2025-26
CONTRACT NO. MH570011
AMENDMENT NO. 15
THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2026, by and between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (hereafter “County”), and Homes for Life Foundation (hereafter “Contractor”).
WHEREAS reference is made to that certain document entitled “Department of Mental Health (DMH) 24-Hour Residential Treatment Contract”, dated July 1, 2022, and further identified as County Contract No. MH570011, and all prior amendments (hereafter collectively “Contract”); and
WHEREAS, on Month XX, 2026, the County Board of Supervisors delegated authority to the Director of Mental Health, or designee, to execute amendments to the Contract to revise the Maximum Contract Amount (MCA), and make other certain designated changes; and
WHEREAS, said Contract provides that changes may be made in the form of a written amendment which is formally approved and executed by the parties; and WHEREAS, County and Contractor intend to amend the Contract to increase Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Alternative Crisis Services (ACS) Invoice Funded Program funds and make other hereinafter designated changes; and WHEREAS, as a result of the above change in Funded Program funds the MCA will increase; and
Attachment II
2 WHEREAS, Contractor warrants that it continues to possess the competence, expertise, and personnel necessary to provide services consistent with the requirements of the Contract, and consistent with the professional standard of care for these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the County and Contractor agree as follows:
1. This amendment is hereby incorporated into the original Contract, and all its terms and conditions, including capitalized terms defined therein, will be given full force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
2. This amendment is effective upon execution for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.
3. For FY 2025-26, MHSA ACS Invoice Funded Program funds are increased by $283,630, from $435,453 to $719,083.
4. For FY 2025-26, the MCA is increased by $283,630, from $970,600 to $1,254,230.
5. Exhibit A (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS), Paragraph D (REIMBURSEMENT IF CONTRACT IS AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED), subparagraph (3) is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:
“(3) Reimbursement For Third Automatic Renewal Period: The MCA for the Third Automatic Renewal Period of the Contract as described in Paragraph 4 (TERM OF CONTRACT) of the Contract shall not exceed ONE MILLION,
TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED THIRTY
DOLLARS ($1,254,230) and shall consist of Funded Programs as shown in Exhibit B – 15, Financial Summary.”
6. Financial Summary (Exhibit B – 13) for FY 2025-26 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Financial Summary (Exhibit B – 15) for FY 2025-26, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. All references in the Contract to Financial
3 Summary (Exhibit B – 13) for FY 2025-26, shall be deemed amended to state “Financial Summary (Exhibit B – 15) for FY 2025-26.”
7. Contractor shall provide services in accordance with Contractor’s FY 2025-26 Service Delivery Plan for the Contract, and any addenda thereto approved in writing by the County’s Director of Mental Health, or designee.
8. Except as provided in this amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Contract will remain in full force and effect.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has caused this amendment to be subscribed by County’s Director of Mental Health, or designee, and Contractor has caused this amendment to be subscribed on its behalf by its duly authorized officer, on the day, month, and year first above written.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By
LISA H. WONG, Psy.D., Director
County of Los Angeles
Department of Mental Health
Homes for Life Foundation
CONTRACTOR
By
Name Carol Liess
Title Executive Director
(AFFIX CORPORATE SEAL HERE)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
By: RACHEL KLEINBERG
Senior Deputy County Counsel
JN:AH:HFL_SRF#269_Inc MHSA ASC Invoice_BL_1.8.26
Attachment III
Legal Entity
Contractor Name/DBA (if applicable) Headquarters Address Service
Provider
Supervisorial
District(s)
Service
Provider
Service
Area(s)
FY 25-26
Current MCA
FY 25-26
Total Increase
FY 25-26
Revised MCA
1 ASC Treatment Group 2457 Endicott Street, Los Angeles, CA 90032
1 4 $1,054,236 $1,997,739 $3,051,975
2 Hillsides 940 Avenue 64, Pasadena, CA 91105 1 4 $33,943,746 $614,970 $34,558,716 3 The Help Group Child and Family
Center
13130 Burbank Blvd., Sherman Oaks,
CA 91401
3 2 $21,862,040 $372,787 $22,234,827
$56,860,022 $2,985,496
24-Hour Residential Treatment
Contractor Name Headquarters Address
Service
Provider
Supervisorial
District(s)
Service
Provider
Service
Area(s)
FY 25-26
Current MCA
FY 25-26
Total Increase
FY 25-26
Revised MCA
Homes for Life Foundation 8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 460, Los Angeles, CA 90045
2 5 $970,600 $283,630 $1,254,230
$970,600 $283,630
Legal Entity Contracts - Fiscal Year 2025-26
24-Hour Residential Treatment Contract - Fiscal Year 2025-26
Attachment IV
510 S. VERMONT AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CA 90020 | DMH.LACOUNTY.GOV | (800) 854-7771 Rimmi Hundal, M.A.
Chief Deputy Director
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
LISA H. WONG, Psy.D.
Director
Curley L. Bonds, M.D.
Chief Medical Officer
February 2, 2026
TO: Supervisor Hilda L. Solis, Chair
Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell, Chair Pro Tem
Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath
Supervisor Janice Hahn
Supervisor Kathryn Barger
FROM: Lisa H. Wong, Psy.D.
Director
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR
A PERCENTAGE INCREASE EXCEEDING TEN PERCENT OF THE
MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL
HEALTH’S LEGAL ENTITY AND 24-HOUR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT
CONTRACTS
In accordance with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ (Board) Policy No. 5.120 (Authority To Approve Increases To Board-Approved Contract Amounts), the Department of Mental Health (DMH) is notifying your Board of our Department’s intent to request delegated authority for a percentage increase exceeding ten percent of the Maximum Contract Amount (MCA) for certain existing Legal Entity (LE) and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts. DMH will request delegated authority for a 25 percent increase of their MCAs for the existing LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.
JUSTIFICATION
DMH will present your Board a letter for approval to amend the LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts for FY 2025-26 to increase their MCAs as the contractors have reached their previously Board-approved 25 percent delegated authority. The total increase for the LE contracts is estimated to be $3 million, fully funded by Federal Financial Participation (FFP) Medi-Cal, StateState Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), and 2011 Realignment State, , and local revenues.
Each Supervisor
February 2, 2026
The total increase for the 24-Hour Residential Treatment contract is $283,630 for FY 2025-26, fully funded by federal, State, and Mental Health Services Act MHSA revenues.
The authority to increase the percentage exceeding ten percent allows DMH to amend the LE and 24-Hour Residential Treatment contracts in a timely manner for the provision and expansion of specialty mental health services without interruption to clients who need these services.
NOTIFICATION TIMELINE
Board Policy No. 5.120 requires departments to provide written notice to your Board, with a copy to the Chief Executive Office, at least two weeks prior to the Board Meeting at which the request to exceed ten percent of the MCA will be presented. In compliance with this policy, DMH is notifying your Board of our intent to request delegated authority for up to 25 percent of the MCA through a Board letter to be presented on March 3, 2026.
If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at [email protected] or (213) 947-6670, or your staff may contact Stella Krikorian, Division Manager, Contracts Development and Administration Division, at [email protected] or (213) 943-9146.
LHW:RH:KN
SK:DO:atm
c: Executive Office, Board of Supervisors
Chief Executive Office
County Counsel
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 7 on
Accountability and Oversight
Hon. Gregg Hart, Chair
PRESENTED TO:
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
Overview of Major Impacts
of H.R. 1 – One Big
Beautiful Bill Act
AUGUST 20, 2025
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 1
Presentation’s Focus
Highlights major impacts to state activities.
Reflects early understanding of the legislation’s changes. Describes first order effects and actions for the legislature. Does not outline possible state responses to mitigate impacts.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2
What Are the Major Areas of Focus?
Health Care Coverage and Financing. Limits states’ ability to tax Medicaid services in order to draw down federal funding. Limits certain payments to Medicaid providers. Requires many able-bodied adults in Medicaid to work, study, or complete community service.
Increases frequency of eligibility redeterminations for childless adults. Food Assistance. Limits CalFresh eligibility, increases states’ share of cost for administration, and shifts a portion of benefit costs to states (depending on error rate).
Higher Education. Expands Pell Grant eligibility to students enrolled in accredited short-term workforce training programs. Places new caps on annual and aggregate federal student loans for all borrowers but undergraduate students. Replaces several existing student loan repayment plans with two new plans. Establishes new accountability earnings test for academic programs to retain federal loan eligibility. Personal and Corporation Taxes. Extends the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA, 2017), which largely reduced taxes for most individuals and businesses. Creates several new temporary deductions for seniors, overtime pay, tips, and auto loan interest, as well as increases the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction.
Makes permanent a number of business provisions, including bonus depreciation and full expensing for short-lived Research and Development (R&D) investment permanent.
Clean Energy and Electric Vehicle Credits. Phases out various renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electric vehicle-related tax credits. Rescinds unobligated Inflation Reduction Act funding for various energy and natural resources-related programs.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 3
When Do the Impacts Occur?
Health Care Coverage and Financing
Food Assistance
Upon Enactment (Immediate, Pending Federal Guidance):
— Expands work requirements for able-bodied adults with dependents.
— Limits eligibility for non-citizens.
— Limits allowable utility and internet deductions.
October 1, 2026: Increases the state and county shares of administrative costs.
October 1, 2027: Increases the state share of benefit costs (depending on error rate).
Summary of Major Health Changes
Topic Description Starting Date
Medi-Cal Providers
Provider tax rates Limits states’ ability to disproportionally tax Medicaid services and draw down federal funding.
July 2025a
Abortion providers Prohibits federal Medicaid payments for family planning services to certain abortion providers.
July 2025
Rural Health Transformation Program Provides funds ($50 billion over five years) to states to support rural hospitals and providers.
October 2025
Provider payment limit Reduces payment limit to providers in managed care system. January 2028 Provider tax revenue limit Reduces revenue limit over time. October 2028 Adults in Medi-Cal
Community engagement Requires most able-bodied adults to work, study, or complete community service.
End of 2026b
Redetermination frequency Increases frequency of eligibility redeterminations for childless adults. End of 2026 Cost Sharing Requires states to impose cost sharing on higher-income childless adults. October 2028 People With Unsatisfactory Immigration Status in Medi-Cal Medicaid eligibility Narrows eligibility for noncitizens. October 2026 Federal match Reduces federal match on emergency services. October 2026 People in Covered California
Premium tax credits Narrows eligibility for noncitizens. January 2027 Automatic re-enrollment Eliminates automatic re-enrollment for premium and cost-sharing subsidies. January 2028 a Secretary of Health and Human Services can grant states up to three years. b Secretary of Health and Human Services can grant states option to delay up to two years.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 4
(Continued)
Higher Education
July 1, 2026. Changes implemented relating to short-term workforce Pell Grants, student loan caps, and loan repayments for new borrowers.
2028. Existing borrowers with certain types of federal student loans have until 2028 to switch into other plans, including the two new plans. Schools can lose eligibility for federal student loans as a result of failing the accountability earnings test beginning in 2028.
Personal and Corporation Taxes
2025: Increases in the SALT, other new individual deductions, and full expensing for R&D are effective this tax year.
2026: Most other provisions (including making TCJA provisions permanent) effective next tax year.
Clean Energy and Electric Vehicle Credits
September 30, 2025: Elimination of electric vehicle tax credit. December 31, 2025: Elimination of residential solar and energy efficiency improvement tax credits.
June 30, 2026: Elimination of electric vehicle charger tax credit. July 4, 2026: Utility-scale wind and solar projects must either begin construction by July 4, 2026 or be placed in service by December 31, 2027 to be eligible for tax credits.
When Do the Impacts Occur?
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 5
Which Changes Require Further Federal
Guidance?
Health Care Coverage and Financing
Several of the major changes impacting Medi-Cal will require additional federal guidance before implementation. For example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be required to promulgate guidelines for the implementation of community engagement requirements by June 2026. Additionally, the new rural health transformation program will require federal guidance on how funds will be distributed and specific requirements on program eligibility.
Food Assistance
Changes to work requirements and eligibility (which likely cannot be implemented until guidance is issued).
Federal government likely to issue further guidance on the remaining changes, although the impacts of those changes are relatively clear based on the legislation.
Higher Education
Nearly all changes require further federal guidance. Beginning in July 2025, the federal government began rolling out new guidance, with further guidance expected over the next year or two.
Personal and Corporation Taxes
Several provisions, especially the new deductions, will require additional Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and regulations.
In particular, guidance is needed to clarify eligibility requirements and lay out claiming instructions. The IRS anticipates releasing guidance starting in the fall.
Clean Energy and Electric Vehicle Credits
Limited, but guidance is expected on the definition of “beginning construction” as well as restrictions around the amount of assistance provided by certain foreign entities.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 6
Which Changes Could Require Implementing
State Legislation?
Health Care Coverage and Financing
Extent of Statutory Changes Needed Unclear at This Time. Until the state receives further federal guidance, the extent of statutory changes is unknown. We anticipate at least some changes will be required.
Many Administrative Actions Likely. The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and counties—who administer Medi-Cal—will need to take a variety of steps to implement the federal changes. For example, DHCS likely will need to update regulations and could need to submit Medicaid State Plan Amendments. Counties will need to implement conforming changes and update processes for changes to redeterminations and eligibility.
Food Assistance
Potential Changes Related to Eligibility. Possible that some changes related to eligibility will require statutory changes to facilitate implementation, pending federal guidance.
Potential Impacts to the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP). The CFAP provides benefits to certain individuals not eligible for CalFresh due to their immigration status. The changes to federal CalFresh eligibility may mean the Legislature will want to consider how the rules of CFAP compare to the new federal rules.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 7
What Changes Could Require State Action in
the Current Year?
Health Care Coverage and Financing
Potentially Restructuring the Managed Care Organization (MCO) Tax and Addressing Financing Shortfall.
— While changes to provider taxes take effect immediately, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has discretion to grant three-year extensions. If the state is unable to secure an extension, DHCS would need to restructure the tax to comply with the new rules. Due to the constraints under Proposition 35 (2024), the new tax could be significantly smaller than the current version, effectively eliminating budgeted state savings.
— The most recent spending plan includes General Fund savings of $4.2 billion in 2025-26 and $2.8 billion in 2026-27 from the existing version of the MCO tax. Absent this financing mechanism, the state would need to identify ways to backfill these funds or reduce costs.
Potentially Restructuring the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee (HQAF). If the federal government does not approve the state’s recently submitted HQAF, DHCS would need to restructure the fee to comply with the new rules. The fiscal impact to the state would depend on how the state restructures the fee.
Food Assistance
Eligibility Changes. Once federal guidance is issued, the state will have greater clarity as to whether statutory changes or other actions are required to effectuate the new requirements. The Legislature also may wish to consider implications for CFAP.
Others. While not immediately required, the Legislature likely will want to start considering approaches for mitigating state costs in CalFresh due to federal changes (such as reducing the error rate).
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 8
What Changes Could Require Action in the
Budget Year?
Based on our current understanding of the bill and its implementation, there are a few steps the Legislature likely will want to consider. As additional guidance and information is released, there may be additional steps the state will be required to take. We also recommend the Legislature ask the administration for regular updates on new guidance as it is released, as well as any initial steps departments may be taking.
Health Care Coverage and Financing
Prepare for Implementation of Eligibility Rules.
Food Assistance
Develop Approaches for Reducing Error Rate.
Consider Options for Improving Efficiency in Program
Administration.
Outlook
CCCA Action Alert
From California Contract Cities Association <[email protected]> Date Tue 2/3/2026 12:43 PM
To Karina Banales <[email protected]>
CCCA Regional Update & Action Alert
CCCA Members -
Last week, LA County Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell introduced a motion (p.3) that calls for a temporary ½ cent general sales tax measure to be put on the June primary ballot.
Here is some quick background on why the motion was introduced:
Supervisor Mitchell states that the measure is necessary to combat an expected, county-wide health services crisis caused by the passage of HR 1.
LA County's Department of Health Services (DHS) is faced with a $1 billion cut to their annual budget.
DHS expects the budget cut to result in hospital closures as well as clinics and emergency room overcrowding unless another funding source is put in place.
Here is what the general sales tax measure would do and how revenue would be utilized:
The revenue would replace the lost DHS funds, generating approximately $1 billion annually until 2031.
The revenue would go into the County's general fund and be used to finance various healthcare services across LA County.
A nine-member citizens’ oversight committee would be established to ensure fiscal accountability.
A report would be filed with the Board of Supervisors each year until funding is exhausted.
The motion is headed for a vote at the LA County Board of Supervisors on February
10. If the motion is approved by a 2/3 vote at the meeting, the County will:
Adopt a resolution calling for a special election during the June primary, where the measure will need a majority vote to become law.
Direct the CEO's office to work with legislators to advance a state bill that exempts the measure from the current state cap on local sales taxes. Assembly Member Isaac Bryan & Senator Maria Elena Durazo have already committed to driving such legislation forward.
Adopt a spending plan for the measure.
Right now, we are encouraging Member Cities to work with your City Managers to:
ACTION 1: Send us your feedback on the motion ASAP. You can send the information to:
Marcel Rodarte, [email protected]
Jorge Morales, [email protected]
Lindsey Skolnik, [email protected]
ACTION 2: Reach out to your County Supervisor about your feedback on the motion before February 10. Below is the contact information for each LA County Supervisor:
1 st District, Supervisor Hilda L. Solis: 213-974-4111 or [email protected]
2 nd District, Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell: 213-974-2222 or [email protected]
3 rd District, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath: 213-974-3333 or [email protected]
4 th District, Supervisor Janica Hahn: 213-974-4444 or
[email protected]
5 th District, Supervisor Kathryn Barger: 213-974-5555 or [email protected]
If you’re unsure who your supervisor is, you can find out here:
https://www.lavote.gov/apps/precinctsmaps
ACTION 3: Reach out to your state representatives about your feedback on the motion. If the motion passes, legislators could eventually vote on the state bill that exempts the sales tax measure from the current state cap on local sales taxes.
If you're unsure who your state representatives are, you can find out here:
https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Below are brief talking points you can use in your outreach to raise general concerns about the measure:
The County is considering placing a temporary half-cent (0.5%) countywide sales tax on the June 2026 ballot to address funding cuts to health and safety net services under HR1 - the Big Beautiful Bill. It is estimated to generate approximately $1 billion annually.
The measure will be structured as a General Sales Tax, not a special tax. This means the revenue collected will go into the County’s General Fund. It also means the measure will only require a majority vote on the ballot to pass, rather than a 2/3 vote.
The motion states the tax will be temporary, effective from October 1, 2026 to October 1, 2031. However, Measure H was also meant to be temporary.
The LA County Board of Supervisors retains authority to reduce or repeal the tax early if conditions improve…but will they? There are always other needs, and since the revenue is going into the General Fund, it could be reallocated.
Several cities have been actively evaluating their own local sales tax measures and a countywide half-cent would consume remaining capacity, effectively foreclosing city options to raise funds for their respective communities.
Questions? Contact [email protected] or [email protected].
California Contract Cities Association | 17315 Studebaker Road Suite #210 | Cerritos, CA 90703 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Paul Seo, Mayor
Stephen Perestam, Mayor Pro Tem
David L. Bradley, Councilmember
Barbara Ferraro, Councilmember
George Lewis, Councilmember
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV January 29, 2026
Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street, Suite 383
Los Angeles, CA 90012
OPPOSE – Motion Securing Funding to Preserve Critical County Services Cut by H.R.1
Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors:
On behalf of the City Council and residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write to respectfully express our strong opposition to the Board Motion - Securing Funding to Preserve Critical County Services Cut by H.R.1 by Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell, which would require a special election on June 2, 2026 to implement a countywide general retail transaction and use (sales) tax increase measure that would impose an additional ½ percent (0.5%) general tax on the residents of Los Angeles County.
While the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes the serious fiscal challenges facing Los Angeles County, this measure would increase the sales tax burden on our residents and local businesses without providing cities any guaranteed benefit or revenue sharing to fund essential local services. This measure further increases the State and Local Tax burden on our county residence without any guarantee that the funds would be spent efficiently or equitably. Furthermore, this measure would eliminate or put at risk any future measures for local tax capacity, potentially eliminating any city’s ability to pursue future voter-approved revenue measures that would directly benefit local residents.
Rancho Palos Verdes is already facing significant economic challenges due to the lack of adequate state and federal funding to address ongoing landslide risks to public infrastructure and homes. These challenges have strained City resources and further underscore the importance of preserving local revenue sources rather than introducing new general use taxes that would financially burden residents without any direct benefit and could be redirected towards other inefficient County programs with
no direct benefit to local communities.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully urges the Board to pursue alternative strategies to explore funding solutions that do not undermine local government’s ability to retain existing local revenue sources.
We appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Seo
Mayor
Item: 15.A.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)
Title: City Attorney
Background:
None.
Discussion:
None.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
None.
Attachments:
None
Item: 15.B.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2026
To: City Council
From: Nicolas Papajohn, City Attorney
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) The City Finds, Based on Advice from Legal Counsel, that Discussion in Open Session will Prejudice the Position of the City in the Litigation. (2 Cases) A.
Name of Case: City of Rolling Hills v. SCE CPUC Docket No. C.24-10-008 B. Name of Case: City of Rolling Hills v. SoCalGas CPUC Docket No. C.24-10-009 Background:
None.
Discussion:
None.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
None.
Attachments:
None