Rolling Hills City Council
September 14, 2026

1 City Council
Monday, September 14, 2026, 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
City of Rolling Hills
Members of the public may participate in-person, by Microsoft Teams, or email.

City Council meetings are live-streamed and indexed archives of meetings are available via the city’s official website at https://rollinghillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/
To watch meeting live on the city's website: https://rollinghillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/ To watch meeting live on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofrollinghills Remote Public Participation and Public Comment Instructions Members of the public may participate remotely in the City Council meeting through Microsoft Teams Webinar. Advance registration is required to participate remotely.

Register in advance for this meeting at: https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/0569778d-44ed-49aa-b4e4-ebb3f93af161@4e8d6bfc2bb2-4d4f-9810-b882b37fc685?source=copyLinkLegacyShareLinkDialog After registering, you will receive a confirmation email from Microsoft Teams containing instructions for joining the meeting. The email will include:
- A link to join the meeting using a computer, tablet, or smartphone; and - Telephone access information, including a phone number and conference ID, for individuals who wish to participate by telephone. - Registration confirmation emails will come from an email address starting with noreply@cityofrollinghills — Please check Junk Mail if you do not receive.

Providing Public Comment
Members of the public attending remotely may provide public comment during designated comment periods. Please use the name provided during registration so City staff can properly identify participants.

Participants joining through Microsoft Teams may indicate they wish to speak by selecting the “Raise Hand” feature. Participants joining by telephone may indicate they wish to speak by pressing *5 on their telephone keypad. When recognized, the meeting host will provide instructions for addressing the City Council.

Email: to participate by written communication, emails must be received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting (emails will not be read out loud)
Written materials pertaining to matters listed on the posted agenda received after the agenda has been published will be added as supplemental materials under the relevant agenda item. Public comments may be submitted by email to [email protected]. Emails must be received before 3:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to ensure council and staff have the ability to review materials prior to the meeting.

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Pledge of Allegiance

2 4. Presentations/Proclamations/Announcements

4.A. Recognition of Good Samaritans who responded to a Portuguese Bend Road lightning strike tree fire on Tuesday, September 8, 2026 RECOMMENDATION:

5. Approve Order of the Agenda
This is the appropriate time for the Mayor or Councilmembers to approve the agenda as is or reorder.

6. Blue Folder Items (Supplemental)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

6.A. For Blue Folder Documents approved at the City Council Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

7. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.

8. Consent Calendar
Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the Consent Calendar. The Mayor or any Councilmember may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed, discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The Mayor will call on anyone wishing to address the City Council on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has not been pulled by Councilmembers for discussion.

8.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of September 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

8.B. Approve Motion to Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading of All Ordinances and Resolutions Listed on the Agenda
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

8.C. Approve the following Minutes of August 24, 2026: City Council Regular Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

8.D. Payment of Bills
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

8.E. Adopt Resolution No. 1424 authorizing a Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget Modification to increase Appropriations and Estimated Revenues in the Capital Projects Fund (40) in the amount of $445,518 to account for the contributions from the Rolling Hills Community Association for the Tennis Courts ADA Improvements Project

3 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

9. Excluded Consent Calendar Items

10. Commission Items

11. Public Hearings

12. Discussion Items

12.A. Receive and File Preliminary Year-End results for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council hear a report from staff on the preliminary yearend results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026.

12.B. Receive and file updates regarding the funded status of the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and pension program
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

12.C. Consideration of Revisiting Fireworks Enforcement and Administrative Citation options (Presented by Ethan Yu, 2026 Summer Intern)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the City’s fireworks enforcement approach and either reaffirm its October 11, 2021 decision, direct staff to evaluate potential changes and return with options for consideration, or provide other direction to staff.

13. Matters From the City Council

13.A. Discussion and Direction Regarding an Updated City Council Group Photograph RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss updating the City Council group photograph and provide direction to staff.

13.B. Receive and File an Update Regarding the Los Angeles County Measure G Governance Reform Task Force
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file an update regarding the Los Angeles County Measure G Governance Reform Task Force and provide direction to staff, as appropriate.

13.C. Consideration of a Letter Requesting the Governor’s Veto of Assembly Bill 1383 (McKinnor) Regarding Public Employee Retirement Benefits RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Reaffirm its opposition to Assembly Bill 1383 (McKinnor); and

4 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit a letter requesting that Governor Gavin Newsom veto Assembly Bill 1383.

13.D. Consideration of Support for Assembly Bill 1546 (Schultz) Regarding Repeat Driving Under the Influence Offenses
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Support Assembly Bill 1546 (Schultz); and

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter requesting that the Governor approve the bill.

14. Matters From Staff

14.A. Receive and File a Verbal Update Regarding the City’s Outdoor Emergency Siren System
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file a verbal update regarding the City’s Outdoor Emergency Siren System.

14.B. Receive and File a Verbal Update Regarding El Niño Conditions and Preparedness Efforts
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file a verbal update regarding El Niño conditions and preparedness efforts.

14.C. Adopt Resolution No. 1423 and approve an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complaint Policy to ensure compliance with the ADA, 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 35.107 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1423 approving the ADA/Section 504 Nondiscrimination and Complaint Policy and receive the accompanying administrative complaint procedures and complaint form.

14.D. Consideration of an Advertisement in the Peninsula Symphony’s 60th Season Program Book
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff.

15. Recess to Closed Session

15.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of case: Rolling Hills Canyon Oversight and Runoff Evaluation Assoc. v. City of Rolling Hills (Case No. 26STCP03217)
RECOMMENDATION:

16. Reconvene to Open Session

17. Adjournment

5 Next regular meeting: Monday, September 28, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.

Notice:

Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.

Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.

Item: 4.A.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Recognition of Good Samaritans who responded to a Portuguese Bend Road lightning strike tree fire on Tuesday, September 8, 2026 Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Attachments:

None

Item: 6.A.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: For Blue Folder Documents approved at the City Council Meeting Background:

Discussion:

Fiscal Impact:

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260914_CC_Item12C

BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 14, 2026
12C. Consideration of Revisiting Fireworks Enforcement and Administrative Citation options (Presented by Ethan Yu, 2026 Summer Intern)
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Attachment B - CL_AGN_210913_CC_FireWorkOrdinance.pdf
Updated with missing attachments

Item: 8.A.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of September 14, 2026
Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260914_CC_AffidavitofPosting

Administrative Report

8.A., File # 2026-281 Meeting Date:9/14/2026
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk
TITLE

APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below.

Legislative Body City Council
Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda
Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City Hall Window
City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agendas_meetings.php https://rollinghillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/
Meeting Date & Time SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 7:00pm Open Session As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was posted at the date displayed below.

Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Date: September 11, 2026

Item: 8.B.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Approve Motion to Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading of All Ordinances and Resolutions Listed on the Agenda
Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve.

Attachments:

None

Item: 8.C.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Approve the following Minutes of August 24, 2026: City Council Regular Meeting Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve as presented.

Attachments:

1. CL_MIN_260824_CC_F

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 24, 2026

Minutes
Rolling Hills City Council
Monday, August 24, 2026
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m.

1. Call To Order
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Dieringer presiding.

2. Roll Call
Councilmembers Present: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer Councilmembers Absent:

Staff Present: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Samantha Crew, Management Analyst
Whitney Berry, Planning Manager
Nicolas Papajohn, City Attorney

3. Pledge Of Allegiance – Mayor Pro Tem Black

4. Presentations / Proclamations / Announcements

4.A. Receive and file a presentation from the City of Rolling Hills Summer Interns on their respective projects
Presentation by Intern Joshua White

5. Approve Order of the Agenda
Motion by Councilmember Pieper to move Items 12B followed by 12A ahead of Commission Items. Without objection, so ordered by Mayor Dieringer.

6. Blue Folder Items (Supplemental) – None
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to receive and file Blue Folder item 13A. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

7. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items – None

8. Consent Calendar

8.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of August 24, 2026

8.B. Approve Motion to Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading of All Ordinances and Resolutions Listed on the Agenda

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 24, 2026

8.C. Approve the following Minutes of August 10, 2026: City Council Regular Meeting

8.D. Payment of Bills

8.E. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage and Complaint Reports for July 2026

8.F. Adopt Resolution No. 1421 amending the City of Rolling Hills Conflict of Interest code pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974; and find that this item is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)

8.G. Receive and file Notice of Nominees for Public Office Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve the Consent Calendar with amended minutes. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

9. Excluded Consent Calendar Items – None
Mayor Dieringer moved to Item 12B.

12. Discussion Items

12.B. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Procurement of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Drones for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Lomita Station and Authorize the Mayor to sign
Presentation by Management Analyst Crew
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve as presented with a minor amendment adding a missing word “City” in the first paragraph of page two:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Dieringer moved to Item 12A.

12. A. Consideration and approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Geosyntec Consultants, Inc for municipal stormwater consulting services Presentation by Management Analyst Crew
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve as presented. Motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: Wilson, Black
ABSENT: None

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 24, 2026

10. Commission Items

10.A. Receive and file Zoning Case No. 26-75: Request for a Variance to waive the stable and corral set aside requirement related to an addition to an existing residence; and finding the project exempt from CEQA for 87 Eastfield Drive (AIN 7567-005-025)(Brockway) Presentation by Planning Manager Berry
Mayor Pro Tem Black left the dais at 8:27 p.m. and returned at 8:33 p.m. He left the dais again at 8:35 p.m. and returned at 8:37 p.m.

Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

10.B. Receive and file Zoning Case No. 26-55: Site Plan Review for non-exempt grading related to additions and site improvements; and Variance requests to construct in the front yard setback and to waive the requirement for a stable and corral set aside area; and finding the project exempt from CEQA for 29 Eastfield Drive (Lot 45-EF)(Aquino) Presentation by Planning Manager Berry
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

11. Public Hearings – None

12. Discussion Items

12.C. Review the proposed Resolution to be presented at the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference's General Assembly on September 25, 2026 and provide direction to the City's voting delegate, Mayor Dieringer
Presentation by Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Horvath Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file; authorize Mayor Dieringer to vote in favor of the resolution at the League of California Cities General Assembly. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

13. Matters From the City Council

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 24, 2026

13.A. Consideration of authorizing the Mayor to send a Letter Supporting Legislative Efforts to Preserve Prescribed Grazing for Wildfire Prevention
Presentation by Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Horvath Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file; authorize Mayor to send a letter without mention of cost effectiveness. Motion carried with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: Wilson
ABSENT: None

13.B. Receive and file a report regarding the City Council's direction authorizing the Mayor to express opposition to Proposed Wildfire Liability Reforms Limiting Public Agency Cost Recovery
Presentation by City Manager Bañales
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to receive and file; authorize Mayor Dieringer to continue advocacy through letters and/or direct engagement. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

13.C. Receive and file an update on the Los Angeles County Measure G Governance Reform Task Force
Presentation by City Manager Bañales
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to receive and file; Authorize the Mayor to work with City staff to prepare, finalize, and transmit a City letter requesting the formal and direct engagement of incorporated cities in the development of Measure G implementation recommendations; Authorize the Mayor to sign a forthcoming joint or regional letter on behalf of the City, provided the letter is consistent with the City Council’s direction and the City’s legislative priorities; and Direct staff to report the final letters and actions taken to the City Council at a subsequent meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

14. Matters From Staff – None

15. Recess To Closed Session – None

16. Reconvene To Open Session – None

17. Adjournment: 9:07 P.M.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. on August 24, 2026. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, September 14, 2026 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 24, 2026

at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via the City’s website link at: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php All written comments submitted are included in the record and available for public review on the City website.

Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
Bea Dieringer, Mayor

Item: 8.D.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Payment of Bills
Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve as presented.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260914_CC_PaymentOfBills_E

Check No. Check Date Payee Description Amount
029258 9/9/2026 Christian Horvath C.Horvath Reimburse Mileage 05-20-26 to 08-21-26 111.94 029259 9/9/2026 Environmental Design Associates Landscape Review-2 Possum Ridge Rd 600.00 029260 9/9/2026 Ethan Michael Yu 2026 Summer Intern Program 1,666.67 029261 9/9/2026 Kris Doolin C&D Refun_ZC#24-056_17 Buggy Whip Drive 1,000.00 029262 9/9/2026 McGowan Consulting July-August 2026 Municipal Stormwater Consulting Services
5,346.60
029262 9/9/2026 McGowan Consulting May 2026 Municipal Stormwater Consulting Services 2,037.60 CHECK TOTAL $ 7,384.20
029263 9/9/2026 Whitney Berry W.Berry Mileage Reimbursement 05-19-26 to 08-26-26 167.27 ACH-1363 9/14/2026 Bennett Landscape August 2026 - Irrigation Repairs 347.85 ACH-1364 9/14/2026 Bennett Landscape September 2026 Landscape Maintenance Services 1,020.00 ACH-1365 9/14/2026 California JPIA Pollution Liability Ins - FY26-27 500.00 ACH-1366 9/8/2026 CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability-PEPRA FY26-27 8,637.50 ACH-1367 9/1/2026 Cox Communications Phone Service Aug 26 to Sept 25, 2026 94.27 ACH-1368 9/8/2026 Delta Dental September 2026 Dental Coverage 1,340.74 ACH-1369 9/10/2026 Forum Info-Tech. Inc./Levelcloud September 2026 IT Cloud Hosting 4,562.06 ACH-1370 8/27/2026 The Gas Company Gas usage from 07-09-26 to 08-10-26 24.30 ACH-1371 9/14/2026 County of Los Angeles July 2026 Animal Housing Costs and Care 42.59 ACH-1372 9/14/2026 LA County Sheriff's Department July 2026 LASD Supp Traffic Enf 2,678.01 ACH-1373 9/14/2026 MV CHENG AND ASSOCIATES August 2026 Monthly Accounting Services 15,195.00 ACH-1374 9/1/2026 Nextiva September 2026 Business Phone Service 295.37 ACH-1375 9/1/2026 Race Communications September 2026 Communications Fiber 1,020.00 ACH-1376 9/1/2026 Standard Insurance Company September 2026 Life Insurance Policy #161783 Div 0001
235.34
ACH-1377 8/21/2026 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents -
306580
Deferred Comp Contributions PR Ending 08-18-26 1,332.17 ACH-1378 9/1/2026 Vision Service Plan - (CA) September 2026 Vision Coverage 160.84 PR LINK 8/21/2026 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR17 Payroll Processing Fee PR#17_08/05/26 - 08/18/26 93.97 PR LINK 8/21/2026 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR17 Pay Period PR#17_08/05/26 - 08/18/26 22,436.02 PR LINK 9/4/2026 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR18 Payroll Processing Fee PR#18_08/19/26 - 09/01/26 84.81 PR LINK 9/4/2026 PR LINK - Payroll & PR Taxes PR18 Pay Period PR#18_08/19/26 - 09/01/26 26,624.76 REPORT TOTAL 71,030.92

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AP27-005, ACH27-005
Check Run 09/09/2026

Item: 8.E.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Robert Samario, Finance Operations Lead Consultant Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 1424 authorizing a Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget Modification to increase Appropriations and Estimated Revenues in the Capital Projects Fund (40) in the amount of $445,518 to account for the contributions from the Rolling Hills Community Association for the Tennis Courts ADA Improvements Project Background:

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 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 that totaled from $700,360 to $2,648,138.83.

On April 14, 2025, staff presented the three bids for the City Council's consideration and potential awarding to the lowest responsible bidder. The City Council, in the public interest, rejected all bids and requested staff re-issue the bid again in the hopes that more contractors would participate and lower the bid amount. Staff revised the bid and accompanying breakdown form with the intention of simplifying the process for interested bidders.

On April 30, 2025, staff re-released a public notice of bid for Tennis Court Improvement Project, Job No. 2025-03 Request for Bid.

On May 27, 2025, the City received one (1) sealed bid at the 2 pm Bid Closing.

On July 28, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Fidelity Builders, Inc. for providing construction services on the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project in an amount not-toexceed $783,506.25 and found the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

On August 11, 2025 the City Council approved Resolution No. 1396, authorizing a budget amendment to transfer an additional $158,679 from General Fund Reserves into the Capital Projects Fund 40-935 for the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project.

Discussion:

As part of a lease agreement with the City of Rolling Hills, the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) operates and manages the City Tennis Courts. In August 2025, the RHCA sent the City a letter (Attachment B) stating that “Pursuant to its lease agreement with the City of Rolling Hills, RHCA will contribute 50% of the cost of the project as part of its maintenance obligations for the leased property.”
As such, and having received all progress payments for the RHCA, the City needs to appropriate an additional Four Hundred Forty-Five Thousand, Five-Hundred and Eighteen Dollars ($445,518) from a corresponding increase in estimated revenues in the Capital Projects Fund for the portion reimbursable from the RHCA for the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project.

Resolution No. 1424 (Attachment A) allows for the budget modification and staff recommendation is to approve as presented.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve as presented.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - ResolutionNo1424_TC-ADA_CIP_BudgetAmendment_F

2. Attachment B - PW_CHC_250825_RHCA_CostShare_Letter

Resolution No. 1424 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1424

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026

BUDGET MODIFICATION TO INCREASE

APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES
IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (40) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $445,518 TO ACCOUNT FOR THE

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE ROLLING HILLS

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR THE TENNIS

COURTS ADA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA,

DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

A. On July 10, 2023 the City Council approved Resolution No. 1344, authorizing a budget amendment to transfer $307,000 from General Fund Reserves into the Capital Projects Fund 40-935 for the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project.

B. On August 11, 2025 the City Council approved Resolution No. 1396, authorizing a budget amendment to transfer an additional $158,679 from General Fund Reserves into the Capital Projects Fund 40-935 for the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project.

C. As part of a lease agreement with the City of Rolling Hills, the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) operates and manages the City Tennis Courts.

D. On August 25, 2025, the RHCA sent a letter to the City stating that “Pursuant to its lease agreement with the City of Rolling Hills, RHCA will contribute 50% of the cost of the project as part of its maintenance obligations for the leased property.”
E. The City desires to appropriate an additional Four Hundred FortyFive Thousand, Five-Hundred and Eighteen Dollars ($445,518) from a corresponding increase in estimated revenues for the 50% portion reimbursable from the RHCA for the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project.

Section 2. The sum of Four Hundred Forty-Five Thousand, FiveHundred and Eighteen Dollars ($445,518) is hereby appropriated, funded by a

Resolution No. 1424 2
corresponding increase in estimated revenue, in the Capital Projects Fund (40) for the Tennis Court ADA Improvement Project.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September, 2026 ______________________________

BEA DIERINGER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK

Resolution No. 1424 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1424 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026

BUDGET MODIFICATION TO INCREASE

APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES
IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (40) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $445,518 TO ACCOUNT FOR THE

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE ROLLING HILLS

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR THE TENNIS

COURTS ADA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of September 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK

Item: 12.A.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Robert Samario, Finance Operations Lead Consultant Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive and File Preliminary Year-End results for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
Background:

At the end of each fiscal year, staff present the preliminary year-end revenue and expenditure totals and their related budgets to the City Council. Although the revenue and expenditure amounts in this report are unaudited, they are close enough to final to provide the City Council with a good idea of how the City ended the fiscal year, which includes both the results relative to the amended budget, but also in terms of whether the City ended the fiscal year with a surplus or deficit.

Discussion:

The largest and most important fund is the General Fund, which is where the traditional and ongoing services provided to the community are accounted for, including public safety, building/planning, emergency preparedness, and city administration.

However, the City has a number of other funds that account for other important activities, programs, and services. Most of these funds account for monies that are restricted to a specific purpose and, therefore, are required to be accounted for separately. The City also accounts for large capital projects separately, including projects funded from federal and state grants. Lastly, the City provides refuse collection and disposal services by contract. This operation is accounted for in an enterprise fund.

A recap of the fiscal year 2025-26 preliminary year-end results for the General Fund is provided below. However, a more detailed analysis of both the General Fund, the restricted funds, and the enterprise fund is included in Attachment A to this report. In addition, detailed revenue and expenditure reports are presented in Attachments B through F.

General Fund
The adopted fiscal year 2025-26 revenue budget totals $2,679,259. Through June 30, 2026, actual revenues from all sources totaled $2,853,305, resulting in a favorable variance of $174,046.

The originally adopted operating budget for fiscal year 2025-26 totaled $2,620,019. The amended

budget includes appropriation carryovers and budget amendments approved between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, and totals $3,492,018, of which $871,999 is for one-time capital transfers.

Excluding capital transfers, expenditures through June 30, 2026, totaled $2,704,777, resulting in an unfavorable variance of $84,758. Attachment A provides a detailed discussion of each significant variance.

The preliminary results are summarized in the table below.

Overall, operating revenues exceeded operating revenues by $148,528 at year-end. Including capital expenditures of $589,292, the total impact on General Fund reserves is $440,764. Note that reserves have already been set aside for the $589,292 in capital expenditures.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

That City Council hear a report from staff on the preliminary year-end results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_260914_CC_Narrative_Analysis

2. Attachment B - CL_AGN_260914_CC_General_Fund_Summary

3. Attachment C - CL_AGN_260914_CC_GeneralFund_Revenues

4. Attachment D - CL_AGN_260914_CC_GeneralFund_Expenditures

5. Attachment E - CL_AGN_260914_CC_Restricted_Funds

6. Attachment F - CL_AGN_260914_CC_GF_Reserve_Balance

7. CL_AGN_260914_CC_FY25-26_PrelimYE_Results_Presentation

Attachment A

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Fiscal Year 2025/26
Preliminary Year-End Results

OVERVIEW
The analysis below provides a comparison of actual revenues and expenditures to the amended budget through June 30, 2026. Note that the year-end results are still preliminary and are thus subject to change; however, the amounts reported are unlikely to change materially and thus provide a good indication of the final results and how the City ended the fiscal year.

The largest and most important fund is the General Fund, which is where the City of Rolling Hills’ primary and ongoing services provided to the community are accounted for, including public safety, building/planning, emergency preparedness, and city administration.

The City also has a number of other funds that account for important activities, programs, and services. Most of these funds are used to account for monies that are restricted to a specific purpose and, therefore, are required to be accounted for separately. The City also accounts for large capital projects separately, including projects funded from federal and state grants.

Lastly, the City provides refuse collection and disposal services by contract. This operation is accounted for in an enterprise fund. Fees for services are collected by the County of Los Angeles on behalf of the City through the property tax assessment and collection system.

Each of the City’s funds are discussed below in the context of the mid-year review.

GENERAL FUND
General Fund Revenues
A summary of General Fund revenues is provided in the table below, which shows that the adopted fiscal year 2025-26 revenue budget totals $2,679,259. Through June 30, 2026, actual revenues from all sources totaled $2,853,305, resulting in a favorable variance of $174,046. In total, revenues are very close to the year-end projections used to develop the revenues adopted for fiscal year 2026-27. However, as shown in the table, results are much better than projected for property taxes, building revenues, and interest earnings.

An analysis of each key revenue is provided below.

2 ,
Property Taxes. As the largest single revenue by far, representing 56% of total budgeted revenues, the performance of property taxes is extremely important to the City’s finances.

At a more macro level, however, the 3.3% growth last fiscal year was an historic low when excluding the impacts on revenues during COVID19 in 2020 and 2021. As staff has discussed with Council over the last year, the landslide in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula last year, which caused
major shutdown in utilities and damages to
public and private properties, has likely impacted
home sales. This is likely the cause for the below
average growth last fiscal year. However, the
growth this fiscal year surged to 6%. This is a
surprising result, which was well ahead of the

3.5% projected growth. Although not yet fully
understood, one of the reasons for the strong
growth was an unusually large allocation in July and August of 2026 relative to the same months last fiscal year ($69,922 in 2025 vs $102,215 in 2026). More analysis will be needed to determine why the growth was well above expectations.

Revenues Variance Original
Adopted Thru Favorable Year-End
Budget 6/30/2026 (Unfav) Projection
Property Taxes $ 1,501,494 $ 1,567,258 $ 65,764 $1,508,513 Sales Taxes 15,000 13,063 (1,937) 8,276
Property Transfer Tax 62,400 55,697 (6,703) 60,157
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 290,265 299,013 8,748 296,358
Building & Other Permits 450,000 519,241 69,241 496,000 C&D Permits 10,000 6,900 (3,100) 4,400
Variance, Planning & Zoning 30,000 28,700 (1,300) 21,700 Animal Control Fees 300 306 6 273
Franchise Fees 13,000 7,135 (5,865) 8,300
Fines & Traffic Violations 4,000 5,500 1,500 5,117
Cost Recovery - Publications 3,000 7,500 4,500 2,800
RHCA Lease Revenue 69,000 68,991 (9) 69,000
Public Safety Aug Fund 1,800 1,124 (676) 1,099
Interest on Investments 160,000 180,405 20,405 155,569
PARS Earnings 44,000 63,042 19,042 69,631
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,000 5,430 4,430 121,000
Transfers In - Refuse Fund 24,000 24,000 - 24,000
TOTALS $ 2,679,259 $ 2,853,305 $ 174,046 $2,852,194
Fiscal Total
Year Revenues Growth
2018 $ 1,089,838 8.2%
2019 1,189,613 9.2%
2020 1,201,368 1.0%
2021 1,222,948 1.8%
2022 1,323,001 8.2%
2023 1,380,891 4.4%
2024 1,432,117 5.0%
2025 1,478,795 3.3%
2026 1,501,494 1.5% Budget
2026 1,567,258 6.0% ActualPage 30 of 238
3 Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). RPTT, also referred as a documentary tax, is assessed when a property is sold. The tax is $1.10 per thousand dollars in sales value. Revenues collected by County are shared 50-50 with the city where the property is located so that cities effectively receive $0.55 per thousand dollars of sales value.

Revenues are driven, first, by the number of
properties sold and, second, the sales price.

The accompanying table presents a five-year
history of RPTT revenues for the City of Rolling Hills
starting with fiscal year 2021. After a spike in fiscal year 2021 during which RPTT reached almost
$133,000, revenues declined over a two-year
period to $49,160 in fiscal year 2023. Revenues
increased to $63,040 in fiscal year 2024, which was the basis for the estimate used in the fiscal year 2026 adopted revenue budget, but fell back to $43,833 last fiscal year. At June 30, 2026, revenues are $55,697. However, we are still waiting to receive the June 2026 payment this August, thus are projecting to realize a total of $60,157.

Building and Other Permits. Revenues from this category are the General Fund’s second-largest revenue, with budgeted revenues of $450,000. The revenues are generated through two independent contractors providing building and planning services, one with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department (LACPWD) and the other with a private engineering and consulting firm, The Willdan Group.

Last year we saw a dramatic shift in both the revenues generated by LACPWD and the fees they charged the City of Rolling Hills for their services. As shown in the accompanying table, in fiscal year 2025 revenues declined by approximately $150,000 from fiscal year 2024, while the County’s fees charged the City increased
by over $100,000. This unprecedented
dynamic is still being investigated and has
not been resolved. Some of this may be
the result of the action taken in October
2024 by the County of Los Angeles Board
of Supervisors, which waived fire
department inspection fees, and the City
Council’s subsequent decision to waive
permit fees for projects on properties affected by land movement. These fees were not thought initially to be significant, but this will become clearer once the investigation is complete.

In the current fiscal year through June 30, 2026, revenues generated by LACPWD have increased modestly from $295,159, but the County’s charges of $296,781 do not correlate with the revenues. The fees collected by the County on behalf of the City are intended to generate a 25% surplus to cover City administration costs associated with the program. Because of the fees are Fiscal Total
Year Revenues
2021 $ 132,888
2022 80,719
2023 49,160
2024 63,040
2025 43,833 Actual
2026 62,400 Budget
2026 60,157 Estimate
Real Property Transfer Taxes
Fiscal Revenue County
Year Collections Charges Net
2022 $ 241,947 $ 206,177 $ 35,770
2023 198,166 156,678 41,488
2024 398,898 347,115 51,783
2025 242,422 450,911 (208,489)
2026 295,159 296,781 (1,622)
County Building Services

4 usually collected at the beginning when the applicant submits their plans for review, but the charges imposed on the City by the County occur over several months to over a year, there will always be a mismatch of monthly revenues collected versus the amount charged by the LACPWD.

However, over the long-term, revenues should exceed costs by approximately 25%. Instead over the last two fiscal years, revenues are $210,111 below costs, resulting in a net 28% loss.

In contrast, revenues generated through Willdan totaled $224,081 through June 30, 2026, versus costs of $69,216.

In total, building revenues are $519,241 but are estimated to reach $544,241 since we have yet to receive the June remittance. This is approximately $94,000 over budget.

Interest on Investments. Investment earnings are generated from two separate and distinct investment portfolios. The first is the City’s primary investment portfolio tied to the City’s operations. The second is the portfolio held in a trust pursuant to I.R.S. Code Section 115 restricted to liabilities associated with the City’s pension program.

The earnings generated from the main investment portfolio totaled $180,405 through June 30, 2026. This is $20,405 over the $160,000 adopted budget. This favorable result is largely due to the conservative estimates used to develop the budget.

The earnings from the Section 115 pension trust portfolio totaled $63,042. Because state laws governing pension trust funds allow for riskier investments, including equities, which are not otherwise allowed for the investment of public funds, the earnings are generally more volatile.

For that reason, staff tends to be much more conservative in its estimates since it is possible for the fund to realize net losses in a fiscal year. Fortunately, the $63,042 was better than the budget estimate of $44,000.

General Fund Expenditures
The originally adopted budget for fiscal year 2025-26 totaled $2,620,019. Since there were no appropriation carryovers or budget amendments approved between July 1 and June 30, 2026 to the operating budget, the amended budget also totals $2,620,019.

Excluding capital transfers, operating expenditures through June 30, 2026, totaled $2,704,777, resulting in a modest unfavorable variance of $84,758. A discussion of the key variances at the department level is provided below.

5 • 01 - City Administrator/Manager Department
The $153,202 unfavorable variance was essentially the result of two items. The first relates to payments totaling $85,208 made to CalPERS towards the City’s unfunded pension liability.

The payments are not budgeted since, as planned, the payments were reimbursed from a drawdown on the City’s Section 115 Trust.

The second item is tied to legal costs from the City’s contracted attorney. The budget for “general services” (Account 801) is $90,000, but actual costs totaled $141,281. These unexpected results in entirely due to a high volume of requests for public records under the Public Records Act (PRA) that was enacted more than fifty years ago. Costs incurred for the City’s attorney to analyze and respond to the requests totaled $85,291 in fiscal year 2025-26.

Last fiscal year, these costs totaled only $968.

In addition to the general services, the City’s attorney has spent considerable time and effort related to the landslide of 2024, in particular, additional legal expenses were incurred in connection with the land movement, including filing claims with the California Public Utilities Commission. In total, the City incurred $51,461 in unbudgeted legal costs. • 05 - Finance Department
The Finance Department Budget totals $160,000, consisting of three accounts: Dues and Subscriptions ($4,500), Annual Audit ($35,000), and Consulting Fees ($120,500). Consulting fees are tied to the contracted finance department services, which totaled $112,910, realizing savings of $7,590. The cost of the audit was about 10% ($3,300) over budget due to the timing of the work and invoices not aligning with the fiscal year.

Adopted Amended Actuals
Department Budget Budget at 6/30/26 Variance
City Administrator $ 875,874 $ 875,874 $ 1,029,076 $ (153,202) Finance 160,000 160,000 154,986 5,014
Planning & Development 894,681 894,681 829,175 65,506
Public Safety 339,324 339,324 336,658 2,666
Non-Departmental 149,600 149,600 129,890 19,710
City Properties 200,540 200,540 224,992 (24,452)
Total Operations $ 2,620,019 $ 2,620,019 $ 2,704,777 $ (84,758)

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures by Department
Preliminary Year-End Results as of June 30, 2026

6 • 15 - Planning Department
Overall, expenditures through June 30, 2026, are $65,506 below budget. However, there are a few individual accounts that were materially over or under that are discussed in detail below.
• 01-15-705 Temporary Salaries – The City hired contracted planning staff to backfill the vacant Planning Director/Planning Manager position, which cost $163,794 through April 2026 when the Planning Manager position was filled. Even though these costs were not budgeted, these costs were effectively funded from savings in all other payroll accounts stemming from the unfilled position and, in fact, resulted in an overall savings of approximately $15,000.
• 01-15-875 Willdan Building Services – This account is over budget by $24,216 at midyear. However, the revenues generated by Willdan in connection with their expedited building/planning services are well above expectations, so the net results are very favorable.
• 01-15-878 Building Services – LA County – The $46,781 overage, under normal circumstances, would not be a concern since it would also come with additional revenues. Last fiscal year, costs increased dramatically to $450,911, which also matched by a substantial decline in revenues, as previously discussed. The current year County charges of $296,781 would normally bring close to $400,000 in revenues. However, only $295,159 in revenues were generated from the County’s services. As noted above in the revenue discussion, staff will continue to follow-up on the unusual results over the last two fiscal years.
• 01-15-886 Code Enforcement – This account totaling $62,880 has realized $11,970 in costs through June 30, 2026. This is due to the City’s decision to bring code enforcement in-house. Thus, all costs for code enforcement going forward will be included in the permanent salary and benefit accounts.
• 75 - City Properties
The table below details each of the accounts that make up the City Properties Department.

In total, the department was $24,452 over budget. The two main drivers of this overage are accounts 895 – IT Services and 925 – Utilities.

7 The fees charged by the City’s Information Services provider increased starting last fiscal year.

This fiscal year, costs exceeded the budget by $4,171. Staff continues to work on reducing costs, which may include changing IT providers.

However, the main cause of the overage was the large increase for utilities, specifically water.

In fiscal year 2024-25, the City of Rolling Hills paid $29,780 for water usage. During fiscal year 2025-26, the City paid $53,075, almost double the amount paid last fiscal year. This was due to underground leaks in city pipelines. The leaks have been fixed and the City is pursuing credits from Cal Water Service to mitigate some of the costs.

General Fund Summary
The table below summarizes both revenues and expenditures to show the preliminary year-end results. Based on total revenues of $2,853,305 and expenditures of $2,704,777, the General Fund ended the fiscal year with a surplus of $148,528. This is $89,288 better than the adopted budget which called for a surplus of $59,240.

Adopted Amended Actuals at Variance
Budget Budget 06/30/2026 Fav (Unfav)
Operating Revenues $ 2,679,259 $ 2,679,259 $ 2,853,305 $ 174,046 Operating Expenditures 2,620,019 2,620,019 2,704,777 (84,758) Operating Surplus (Deficit) 59,240 59,240 148,528 89,288 Capital Transfers - (871,999) (589,292) 282,707
Surplus (Deficit) - Total $ 59,240 $ (812,759) $ (440,764) $ 371,994 Page 35 of 238 8 The $148,528 operating surplus will add to total General Fund reserves as further discussed below. In addition, while the $589,292 spent on capital results in a net use of reserves of $443,764, this use of reserves has already been aside when first budgeted.

General Fund Reserves
As of June 30, 2025, based on the audited financial statements, the General Fund had total reserves of $4,116,734. However, the City has set-aside (budgeted) $871,999 for capital improvement projects, leaving a balance of $3,244,735. In addition, based on the preliminary year-end results, the General Fund generated a $148,528 surplus, bringing the projected balance at June 30, 2026 of total reserves
to $3,393,263.

Several years ago, the City
adopted reserves policies
establishing a reserve for
contingencies equal to the
adopted revenue budget. For
fiscal year 2026-27, the adopted revenue budget totaled $2,798,554. This leaves $594,709 available for other one-time costs and shown in the accompanying table.

Although planned and for worthwhile projects, the continued use of reserves for capital improvements has reduced the total reserve balances. At June 30, 2021, the General Fund had $5.6 million in total reserves versus approximately $4.0 million at June 30, 2026. However, as long as the City continues to fund its continency reserve, it has the ability to respond to emergencies or other unexpected events that have a material impact on the City’s finances.

RESTRICTED FUNDS
Transit/Transportation Funds
The City of Rolling Hills receives an allocation each month from the County pursuant to several special sales tax measures approved by Los Angeles County voters over the last several decades that are restricted to transit and transportation programs and projects. The measures include Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R, and Measure M. Since the City of Rolling Hills does not own and operate a transit system and, in fact, has no transit service provided within the City limits; nor does the City own and maintain any public roads, the funds received pursuant to the four tax measures are either gifted to other agencies or exchanged for unrestricted monies with other agencies who can utilize the funds in accordance with restrictions applicable to the revenues.

Fund Balance - June 30 ,2025 $ 4,116,734
Projected Year-End Surplus 148,528
Amount Budgeted for Capital (871,999)
Total Reserves - June 30, 2026 3,393,263
Reserve for Contingencies (2,798,554)
Projected Reserves Above Policy $ 594,709Page 36 of 238 9 Revenues received within these transit/transportation funds are once again tracking below budgeted expectations as we saw in the last two fiscal years. Revenues last year ended the fiscal year between 5-10% below the adopted budget and was only slightly reduced based on the assumption the decline last fiscal year was anomaly. In fact, revenues have declined steadily since at least fiscal year 2022-23. Based on discussion with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff, the decline in revenue corresponds with the decline in City’s population. As shown the chart below, the population in the City of Rolling Hills has been in decline since 2014, but more precipitously starting in 2019. Because all of the transportation sales tax measures are allocated based on population, a decline in population will result in a decline in revenues allocated the agency.

Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Fund
The City maintains a COPS Fund for monies received from the County’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund created in 2009 through an increase to statewide vehicle license fees.

The revenues can only be used for supplemental law enforcement services.

Total revenues of $201,537 exceeded the budget of $172,000. COPS allocations have been steadily increasing the last few years, and grew from $186,000 in fiscal year 2023-24 to $201,537 this fiscal year. Staff’s budget estimate has simply not kept up with this trend.

Measure W Fund
The City of Rolling Hills receives an allocation of the countywide special parcel tax pursuant to Measure W (The Safe, Clean Water Act) for parcels located within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. These revenues are intended for storm water recycling and water quality improvement projects and programs. The City of Rolling Hills receives a single payment each year for the full annual allocation. In December 2025, the City received $104,439, which is very close to the $106,000 total budget.

10 ENTERPRISE FUND
Refuse Fund
The Refuse Fund is the City’s only enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are typically used to account for utilities owned and operated by governments, such as water, wastewater, electricity, and refuse, and other operations that are similar to those provided by the private sector, such as airports and golf courses.

The Refuse Fund accounts for the contracted waste collection and disposal for all City of Rolling Hills residents. The fees charged to City residents are processed as a “Direct Assessment” through the County Assessor’s Office, which means the annual assessment is added to the property tax bill sent to property owners by the County, payable in two installments. Thus, the payments the City receives from the County for refuse services are combined with the payments the City receives for regular property taxes.

Revenues, budgeted at $1,055,601, are intended to cover the refuse contract plus $24,000 paid to the General Fund for administrative support. Through June 30, 2026, revenues totaled $1,058,601. These revenues almost exactly match the $1,058,559 in costs.

ATTACHMENT B
Adopted Amended Actuals at Variance
Budget Budget 06/30/2026 Fav (Unfav)
Operating Revenues $ 2,679,259 $ 2,679,259 $ 2,853,305 $ 174,046 Operating Expenditures 2,620,019 2,620,019 2,704,777 (84,758) Operating Surplus (Deficit) 59,240 59,240 148,528 89,288 Capital Transfers - (871,999) (589,292) 282,707
Surplus (Deficit) - Total $ 59,240 $ (812,759) $ (440,764) $ 371,994

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Preliminary Year-End Results
General Fund Summary

ATTACHMENT C
Revenues Variance Original
Adopted Thru Favorable Year-End
Budget 6/30/2026 (Unfav) Projection
Property Taxes $ 1,501,494 $ 1,567,258 $ 65,764 $ 1,508,513 Sales Taxes 15,000 13,063 (1,937) 8,276
Property Transfer Tax 62,400 55,697 (6,703) 60,157
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 290,265 299,013 8,748 296,358
Building & Other Permits 450,000 519,241 69,241 496,000 C&D Permits 10,000 6,900 (3,100) 4,400
Variance, Planning & Zoning 30,000 28,700 (1,300) 21,700 Animal Control Fees 300 306 6 273
Franchise Fees 13,000 7,135 (5,865) 8,300
Fines & Traffic Violations 4,000 5,500 1,500 5,117
Cost Recovery - Publications 3,000 7,500 4,500 2,800
RHCA Lease Revenue 69,000 68,991 (9) 69,000
Public Safety Aug Fund 1,800 1,124 (676) 1,099
Interest on Investments 160,000 180,405 20,405 155,569
PARS Earnings 44,000 63,042 19,042 69,631
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,000 5,430 4,430 121,000
Transfers In - Refuse Fund 24,000 24,000 - 24,000
TOTALS $ 2,679,259 $ 2,853,305 $ 174,046 $ 2,852,194

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Revenues
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Preliminary Year-End Results

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary Variance
Adopted Amended Actuals Favorable
Budget Budget 6/30/2026 (Unfav)
01 - CITY ADMINISTRATOR
702 Salaries -Full Time $ 453,862 $ 453,862 $ 443,479 $ 10,383 705 Temporary Salaries 7,000 7,000 - 7,000
710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 37,204 37,204 33,280 3,924 712 CalPERS Unfunded Liability - - 85,208 (85,208)
715 Workers Compensation Insurance 9,100 9,100 8,296 804 716 Group Insurance 92,036 92,036 98,809 (6,773)
717 Retiree Medical 40,000 40,000 46,228 (6,228)
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 35,309 35,309 32,243 3,066
719 Deferred Compensation 4,141 4,141 5,200 (1,059)
720 Auto Allowance 3,600 3,600 3,600 -
721 Phone Allowance 2,400 2,400 2,400 -
740 Office Supplies 8,000 8,000 4,429 3,571
745 Equipment Leasing Costs 10,000 10,000 8,127 1,873
750 Dues & Subscriptions 14,822 14,822 16,768 (1,946)
755 Conference Expense 1,500 1,500 1,740 (240)
757 Meetings Expense 2,100 2,100 2,273 (173)
759 Training & Education 4,000 4,000 510 3,490
761 Auto Mileage 700 700 1,160 (460)
765 Postage 18,500 18,500 13,650 4,850
775 City Council Expense 7,500 7,500 5,495 2,005
776 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,500 1,500 1,917 (417)
780 Comm./Newsletters & Outreach 3,500 3,500 2,300 1,200 785 Codification 3,000 3,000 1,817 1,183
790 Advertising 2,000 2,000 - 2,000
795 Other Gen Admin Expense 3,300 3,300 3,265 35
801 City Attorney 90,000 90,000 141,281 (51,281)
802 Legal Expense - Other 3,000 3,000 5,467 (2,467)
804 Legal Expense -CPUC - - 51,461 (51,461)
820 Website 3,900 3,900 3,400 500
850 Election Expense City Council - - 589 (589)
Department/Object Account

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FY 2025-26 Preliminary Year End Results

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
1 Page: 1

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary Variance
Adopted Amended Actuals Favorable
Department/Object Account Budget Budget 6/30/2026 (Unfav) 890 Consulting Fees 10,000 10,000 413 9,588
891 Records Management 3,900 3,900 4,271 (371)
Total City Administrator 875,874 875,874 1,029,076 (153,202) 05 - Finance
750 Dues & Subscriptions 4,500 4,500 3,776 724
810 Annual Audit 35,000 35,000 38,300 (3,300)
890 Consulting Fees 120,500 120,500 112,910 7,590
Total Finance 160,000 160,000 154,986 5,014
15- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
702 Salaries 232,520 232,520 119,208 113,312
703 Salaries - Part-Time 26,889 26,889 163,794 (136,905) 710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 19,234 19,234 9,536 9,698 715 Workers Comp. Insurance 3,900 3,900 3,556 344
716 Group Insurance 42,977 42,977 29,235 13,742
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 20,000 20,000 9,015 10,985
719 Deferred Comp 4,681 4,681 - 4,681
720 Auto Allowance 1,200 1,200 - 1,200
721 Phone Allowance 600 600 - 600
750 Dues & Subscription 15,000 15,000 13,323 1,677
755 Conference Expense 3,000 3,000 - 3,000
759 Training & Education 1,000 1,000 350 650
761 Auto Mileage 300 300 111 189
770 Telephone - - 317 (317)
776 Miscellaneous Expenses 2,000 2,000 - 2,000
790 Publication/Advertising/Noticing 10,000 10,000 6,795 3,205 802 Legal Expenses-Other 10,000 10,000 13,323 (3,323)
872 Property Development-Legal Exp 37,000 37,000 30,181 6,819 875 Willdan Building 45,000 45,000 69,216 (24,216)
878 Build Inspect. LA County 250,000 250,000 296,781 (46,781) 881 Storm Water Management 88,000 88,000 42,164 45,836
884 Special Project Study & Consult. 5,000 5,000 6,800 (1,800) 886 Code Enforcement 62,880 62,880 11,970 50,910
890 Consulting Fees (Onward) 7,500 7,500 - 7,500
2 Page: 2

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary Variance
Adopted Amended Actuals Favorable
Department/Object Account Budget Budget 6/30/2026 (Unfav) 928 Traffic Engineering 6,000 6,000 3,500 2,500
Total Planning & Development 894,681 894,681 829,175 65,506 25 - Public Safety
830 Law Enforcement 320,424 320,424 320,424 (0)
833 Other Law Enforcement Exp 2,400 2,400 6,267 (3,867) 837 Wild Life Mgmt & Pest Control 10,000 10,000 2,553 7,447 838 Animal Control Expense 6,500 6,500 7,414 (914)
Total Public Safety 339,324 339,324 336,658 2,666
65 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL
895 Insurance & Bond Expense 55,000 55,000 45,287 9,713 901 South Bay Comm. Organization 17,600 17,600 14,849 2,751 915 Community Recognition 8,000 8,000 7,901 99
917 Emergency Preparedness 69,000 69,000 61,853 7,147
Total Non-Departmental 149,600 149,600 129,890 19,710
75 - CITY PROPERTIES
892 IT Services 72,000 72,000 76,171 (4,171)
893 Agenda Management Services 6,600 6,600 6,570 30
894 Computer Hardware Fund 5,000 5,000 4,483 517
925 Utilities 65,000 65,000 88,432 (23,432)
930 Repairs & Maintenance 21,200 21,200 22,703 (1,503)
932 Area Landscaping 13,740 13,740 14,681 (941)
946 Buildings & Equipment 15,000 15,000 11,479 3,521
947 Non-Building Improvements 2,000 2,000 473 1,527
Total City Properties 200,540 200,540 224,992 (24,452)
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 2,620,019 2,620,019 2,704,777 (84,758)

CAPITAL TRANSFERS
Capital Projects Fund (40) - 871,999 589,292 282,707
GRAND TOTALS $ 2,620,019 $ 3,492,018 $ 3,294,069 $ 197,948 3 Page: 3

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary
Amended Actuals Variance
Budget Thru 6/30/26 Fav (Unfav)
10 - COPS FUND
Revenues
570 COPS Allocation $ 172,000 $ 201,537 $ 29,537
Expenditures
840 COPS Program Expenditures $ 172,000 $ 151,119 $ 20,881 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 50,418 $ 50,418 16 - CAPITAL GRANT FUND
Revenues
588 Crest Road FEMA Grant - 4434-526-112R $ 526,502 $ - $ (526,502) 590 Veg. Mgmnt FEMA Grant - HMGP-4382-175-13R - 534,941 534,941 591 Eastfield FEMA DR-4382-177-7R-CA 928,088 654,659 (273,429) XXX Rule 20A Credits/Transfers In - Crest Road 175,501 - (175,501) XXX Rule 20A Credits/Transfers In - Eastfield Dr 309,363 - (309,363) Total Revenues 1,939,454 1,189,601 (749,853)
Expenditures
957 Crest Road East Project - 4434-526-112R 702,003 (200) 702,203 960 Eastfield Drive Utility U.G. - 4382-177-7R 1,237,451 10,714 1,226,737 Total Expenditures 1,939,454 10,514 1,928,940
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 1,179,087 $ (2,678,793) 21 - TDA Article 3
Revenues
TDA Grant Revenue $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Restricted Funds and Refuse Fund
Preliminary Year-End Results
Fiscal Year 2025-26
1

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary
Amended Actuals Variance
Budget Thru 6/30/26 Fav (Unfav)
22 - SB 1383 FUND
Revenues
Cal Recycle Grant $ - $ - $ -
Expenditures
776 Misc Expense - 34,928 (34,928)
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ (34,928) $ (34,928) 25 - PROPOSITION A FUND
Revenues
500 Grant Revenues $ 52,750 $ 44,557 $ (8,193)
670 Interest Earned 300 - (300)
Total Revenues 53,050 44,557 (8,493)
Expenditures
620 Prop A Exchange - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 53,050 $ 44,557 $ (8,493) 26 - PROPOSITION C
Revenues
501 Grant Revenue-Prop C $ 43,750 $ 36,959 $ (6,791)
670 Interest Earned 250 - (250)
Total Revenues 44,000 36,959 (7,041)
Expenditures
906 Prop C Gifted $ - $ -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 44,000 $ 36,959 $ (7,041) 27- MEASURE R TRANSIT
Revenues
502 Measure R Grant Revenues $ 29,000 $ 25,557 $ (3,443) 670 Interest Earned 250 - (250)
Total Revenues 29,250 25,557 (3,693)
2

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary
Amended Actuals Variance
Budget Thru 6/30/26 Fav (Unfav)
Expenditures
907 Measure R Gifted - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 29,250 $ 25,557 $ (3,693) 29 - MEASURE M
Revenues
507 Measure M Local Return $ 33,000 $ 28,949 $ (4,051)
670 Interest Earned 250 - (250)
Total Revenues 33,250 28,949 (4,301)
Expenditures
XXX Measure M Gifted - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 33,250 $ 28,949 $ (4,301) 30 - MEASURE W
Revenues
508 Grant Revenues $ 106,000 $ 104,439 $ (1,561)
670 Interest Earned 500 - (500)
Total Revenues 106,500 104,439 (2,061)
Expenditures
913 Storm Water Management - 30% 31,950 - 31,950
914 Storm Water Management - 70% 74,550 91,830 (17,280) 106,500 91,830 14,670
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 12,609 $ 12,609 40 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
675 Misc Revenues (Reimb from RHCA) $ - $ 445,518 $ 445,518 699 Transfers from General Fund 871,999 589,292 (282,707) 871,999 1,034,810 162,811
Expenditures
3

ATTACHMENT D
Preliminary
Amended Actuals Variance
Budget Thru 6/30/26 Fav (Unfav)
899 Outdoor Siren System - Design & Constr 44,239 13,050 31,189 935 Tennis Court ADA Improvements 437,816 868,906 (431,090) 948 City Hall ADA Improvements 83 83 -
949 CH Emergency Back-Up Dual-Fuel Generator 371,100 152,772 218,328 962 Phase 1 Bifurcated 8" Sewer Main Engineering 18,762 - 18,762 Total Expenditures 871,999 1,034,810 (162,811)
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ - $ -
50 - REFUSE FUND
Revenues
665 Service Charges $ 1,055,603 $ 1,058,601 $ 2,998
Total Revenues $ 1,055,603 $ 1,058,601 $ 2,998
Expenditures
815 Refuse Service Contract $ 1,031,603 $ 1,034,559 $ (2,956) 999 Transfers Out $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ -
Total Expenditures $ 1,055,603 $ 1,058,559 $ (2,956)
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 42 $ 42
4

ATTACHMENT F
Res.

No. Date Description Amount
Preliminary Year-End Surplus $ 148,528
Carryovers
Capital Improvement Fund (40) (524,939)
FY 2025/26 Amendments
1396 08/11/2025 Const. Services - Tennis Court ADA (158,679) 1402 01/26/2026 Const. Services - CH Emerg Back-Up Generator (111,150) 1406 04/14/2026 SC Gas Const Services - CH Backup Generator (77,231) Total Amendments (347,060)
Total Budgeted Use of Reserves $ (723,471)
Fund Balance - June 30 ,2025 $ 4,116,734
Projected Use of Reserves (723,471)
Reserve for Contingencies (2,798,554)
Projected Reserves Above Policy $ 594,709

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Budget Adjustments and Reserves Status
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FISCAL YEAR 2025/26

PRELIMINARY YEAR-END RESULTS
SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

PURPOSE OF REPORT
▪ To present status of revenues and expenditures
through June 30, 2026, in relation to the budget
▪ Caveat:
▪ These are unaudited and unfinalized numbers
▪ For the General Fund, they should be close to final numbers ▪ Attachment A provides a narrative analysis of all
funds
▪ However, focus of today is the General Fund

GENERAL FUND REVENUES

General
Fund
Revenues
Revenues Variance Original
Adopted Thru Favorable Year-End
Budget 6/30/2026 (Unfav) Projection
Property Taxes $ 1,501,494 $ 1,567,258 $ 65,764 $1,508,513 Sales Taxes 15,000 13,063 (1,937) 8,276
Property Transfer Tax 62,400 55,697 (6,703) 60,157
Motor Vehicle In Lieu 290,265 299,013 8,748 296,358
Building & Other Permits 450,000 519,241 69,241 496,000 C&D Permits 10,000 6,900 (3,100) 4,400
Variance, Planning & Zoning 30,000 28,700 (1,300) 21,700 Animal Control Fees 300 306 6 273
Franchise Fees 13,000 7,135 (5,865) 8,300
Fines & Traffic Violations 4,000 5,500 1,500 5,117
Cost Recovery - Publications 3,000 7,500 4,500 2,800
RHCA Lease Revenue 69,000 68,991 (9) 69,000
Public Safety Aug Fund 1,800 1,124 (676) 1,099
Interest on Investments 160,000 180,405 20,405 155,569
PARS Earnings 44,000 63,042 19,042 69,631
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,000 5,430 4,430 121,000
Transfers In - Refuse Fund 24,000 24,000 - 24,000
TOTALS $ 2,679,259 $ 2,853,305 $ 174,046 $2,852,194 Page 52 of 238

PROPERTY TAXES
▪ FY 2024-25 growth of 3.3% is lowest in 4 years
▪ Excluding COVID years, lowest since 2018
▪ Likely due to the impacts of land movements
in the PVP
▪ Actual FY 2025-26 results well ahead of
budget and initial YE projections in April
▪ Primarily due to final allocations of July and
August 2026
▪ FY 2024-25 - $69,922
▪ FY 2025-26 - $102,215
Fiscal Total
Year Revenues Growth
2018 $ 1,089,838 8.2%
2019 1,189,613 9.2%
2020 1,201,368 1.0%
2021 1,222,948 1.8%
2022 1,323,001 8.2%
2023 1,380,891 4.4%
2024 1,432,117 5.0%
2025 1,478,795 3.3%
2026 1,501,494 1.5% Budget
2026 1,567,258 6.0% Actual Page 53 of 238

BUILDING REVENUES - LACDPW
City County %
Revenues Fees Net Profit (Loss)
FY 2025-26 $ 295,159 $ 296,781 $ (1,622) -0.5%
FY 2024-25 242,422 450,911 (208,489) -46.2%
FY 2023-24 398,898 347,115 51,783 14.9%
FY 2022-23 198,166 156,678 41,488 26.5%

BUILDING REVENUES - Willdan
City Willdan %
Revenues Fees Net Profit (Loss)
FY 2025-26 $ 224,081 $ 69,216 $ 154,865 223.7%
FY 2024-25 106,610 40,603 66,007 162.6%

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY DEPT
Adopted Amended Actuals
Department Budget Budget at 6/30/26 Variance
City Administrator $ 875,874 $ 875,874 $ 1,029,076 $ (153,202) Finance 160,000 160,000 154,986 5,014
Planning & Development 894,681 894,681 829,175 65,506
Public Safety 339,324 339,324 336,658 2,666
Non-Departmental 149,600 149,600 129,890 19,710
City Properties 200,540 200,540 224,992 (24,452)
Total Operations $ 2,620,019 $ 2,620,019 $ 2,704,777 $ (84,758) Page 57 of 238

CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT
▪ $153,202 over budget
▪ Two areas created the overall unfavorable variance
▪ Legal Costs ($105,209)
▪ Payment of the Unfunded Pension Liability ($85,208)
▪ Legal Costs
▪ CPUC work tied to landslide and related legal actions ($51k) ▪ CPRA requests
▪ $85,291 vs $968 last fiscal year

CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT
▪ The $85,208 payment to CalPERS was not budgeted because it was reimbursed by a drawdown from PARS (Section 115
Pension Trust Account)
▪ Staff also requested reimbursement from PARS for last fiscal year

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
▪ Overall favorable variance of $65,506
▪ Two main causes
▪ Stormwater Management - $45,836
▪ Code Enforcement - $50,910
▪ Unbudgeted temp salaries for planning services of $136k ($26,889 budget vs $163,794 actual)
▪ Entirely offset by salary and benefit savings (net savings of $15K) ▪ $71k over on charges from LACDPW and Willdan

BUDGET SUMMARY

BUDGET SUMMARY
Adopted Amended Actuals at Variance
Budget Budget 06/30/2026 Fav (Unfav)
Operating Revenues $ 2,679,259 $ 2,679,259 $ 2,853,305 $ 174,046 Operating Expenditures 2,620,019 2,620,019 2,704,777 (84,758) Operating Surplus (Deficit) 59,240 59,240 148,528 89,288 Capital Transfers - (871,999) (589,292) 282,707
Surplus (Deficit) - Total $ 59,240 $ (812,759) $ (440,764) $ 371,994 Page 62 of 238

STATUS OF RESERVES

RESERVE BALANCES AT 6/30/26
Fund Balance - June 30 ,2025 $ 4,116,734
Projected Year-End Surplus 148,528
Amount Budgeted for Capital (871,999)
Total Reserves - June 30, 2026 3,393,263
Reserve for Contingencies (2,798,554)
Projected Reserves Above Policy $ 594,709 Page 64 of 238 RECAP
▪ Revenues over budget by $174k due largely to
Property Taxes and Building Revenues (Willdan)
▪ Expenditures exceed budget by $84k due to
unbudgeted legal costs and payment to PERS for
unfunded liability
▪ $148,528 operating surplus will be added to reserves
▪ Contingency reserve fully funded

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION

Item: 12.B.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Robert Samario, Finance Operations Lead Consultant Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive and file updates regarding the funded status of the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and pension program
Background:

The City of Rolling Hills provides two types of post-employment benefits to its employees. The first and more substantial is a lifetime pension upon retirement based on a formula tied to years of service and salary. The second is the lifetime payment of retiree’s health insurance premiums for individuals that retire from the City on or after age 60 with at least five years of service with the City. This second benefit is referred to as an Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB).

Note that in September 2012, then governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), substantially reducing the benefits for employees hired starting January 1, 2013. However, the benefits for those employees hired prior to that date were not affected.

Both post-employment benefits are contractual obligations of the City and, according to governmental accounting financial reporting standards, must be disclosed in the City’s annual financial statements.

In addition, the accrued liabilities associated with each must be reflected on the Statement of Net Position within the audited financial statements, which impact the reported financial health of the City.

The calculation of the accrued liability at the end of the fiscal year must be done by an actuary. In the case of the pension liability, CalPERS does the annual actuarial calculations. In the case of the OPEB, the City is responsible for contracting with an actuarial firm to perform the necessary calculations.

Discussion:

Pension Obligations
The pension program is administered by CalPERS, who determines the required annual contributions for each member agency based on annual actuarial valuations. The valuations rely on a number of assumptions, such as expected annual wage growth, projected years of employment, expected rate of return on the assets held and invested, expected life spans, etc.

If all the assumptions used by CalPERS were realized, the annual contributions needed to fund the

benefits would be stable and grow incrementally over time. However, actual results rarely match the assumptions, particularly with respect to the rate of return achieved on the billions of dollars held and invested by CalPERS. In most cases, the differences between the assumptions are relatively small; however, in other cases, the difference can be substantial, such as in 2008 during the Great Recession when CalPERS realized a 24% loss in the value of its investments held on behalf of member agencies. These differences, big or small, are referred to as “actuarial gains or losses.” In total, CalPERS has accumulated net losses from the actual results versus its assumptions over the last 20–30 years. Consequently, CalPERS has required additional payments from member agencies over this period to cover these losses. However, largely because of the dramatic losses sustained in 2008, many of the losses still remain, which are referred to as “unfunded liabilities.” Thus, in addition to the “normal cost” payments made by each agency annually, payments must be made annually to pay down the unfunded liabilities, much like paying down a mortgage or other longterm debt. The term for repaying down losses in any given year is twenty years.

As of June 30, 2026, the unfunded liability for the City of Rolling Hills totaled $1,076,491. However, the City has monies in a Section 115 Trust Fund, outside CalPERS, for purposes of funding its pension liabilities. The balance in the Section 115 Trust at June 30, 2026, was $431,654.44. Thus, the net liability is $674,877.

The table below shows the calculation of the unfunded liability as of June 30, 2026.

As shown in the table above, the funded status, which is an important measure of the progress and health of the pension program, is 72%. However, when factoring in the $431,654 monies in the Section 115 Trust, the funded status grows to 82.9%.

Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
Unlike the pension program, the payment of health benefits to retirees is not administered by an outside agency nor is there a structured funding program in place. Instead, local agencies offering any type of non-pension post-employment benefits can decide to accumulate funds for these future obligations, pay the benefits as they are due, or a combination of the two.

A number of years ago, the City of Rolling Hills set aside monies with CalPERS in a special account called the California Employer’s Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT), which is also a Section 115 trust.

The only difference between this trust and the trust used for the City’s pension plan is that the pension Section 115 trust used for its pension liabilities is administered by a private third-party

vendor called PARS. PARS invests the funds based on an investment strategy approved by the City Council, which is considered moderately aggressive. However, it is not as aggressive, or risky, as the investment strategy used by CalPERS to invest the monies it holds on behalf of member agencies.

The table above summarizes the funded status of the OPEB program as of June 30, 2026. As shown in the table, the assets held in the CERBT managed by CalPERS exceed the accrued liabilities for OPEB. This is an unusual situation, created by the very stable liability, and the continued strong earnings over the last few years. The City does have the ability to draw down these funds and use them to help build up reserves for capital improvements and other one-time costs, or shift the funds to the Pension Section 115 Trust to improve the pension’s funded status.

Fiscal Impact:

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260914_CC_Pension_OPEB_Status

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

STATUS OF PENSION AND OPEB PROGRAMS
SEPTEMBER 14, 2026

OVERVIEW
 City provides two distinct post-employment benefits to its employees
 Defined benefit pension
 Lifetime health insurance (OPEB) for qualifying retirees  Unlike current benefits provided, these are obligations to provide benefits in the future
 Both are subject to strict accounting and reporting
requirements to recognize the unfunded liabilities in the audited financial statements

PENSION PROGRAM

PENSION PROGRAM
 Promise to pay a “defined” pension upon retirement for life based on years of service and highest salary in final or last 3 years
 City’s pension program is administered by CalPERS
 Manage and invest the assets held on behalf of its member agencies ($637 billion)
 Pay out benefits to retirees
 Calculate annual required contributions of member agencies based on actuarial valuations performed each year

PENSION PROGRAM
 In September of 2012, then Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Public Employee Pension Reform Act
 Pension benefits for employees hired after 12/31/2012 were reduced
 Created two plans
 Classic employees (hired before 1/1/2013)
 PEPRA employees (hire after 12/31/2012)

PENSION PROGRAM
 Pension liabilities and annual required contributions are calculated using an array of actuarial assumptions
 Salary upon retirement (annual % increase to wages)
 Projected years of service
 Projected life span
 ROI on its investments (most volatile)
 Actual results that differ from assumptions are called “actuarial gains and losses”

PENSION PROGRAM
 Over the last 20+ years, CalPERS has accumulated net actuarial losses
 Biggest impact was the 2007-2008 Great Recession (24% loss in MV)  In addition to normal contributions, local agencies must make payments to pay off the outstanding unfunded liabilities
 Normal Contributions in FY 2025-26 – $42,816 (several vacancies)  Payment towards unfunded liability - $85,208

PEPRA Classic Totals
Total Accrued Liability $ 244,811 $ 3,701,428 $ 3,946,239 Market Value of Assets (PERS) (214,771) (2,624,937) (2,839,708) Unfunded Accrued Liability $ 30,040 $ 1,076,491 $ 1,106,531

87.7% 70.9% 72.0%
PARS Assets (431,654)
Net Liability $ 674,877
Funded Status 82.90%
Pension Status as of June 30, 2026

3-YEAR HISTORY
FY 2024-25 ROI was 11.6% (FY 2027-28 Payments)
FY 2025-26 ROI was 14.8% (FY 2028-29 Payments)
FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27
Section 115 Trust Balance $ 502,930 $ 552,542 $ 431,654 $ 460,000 Unfunded Liability 549,100 1,018,747 1,106,531 ?
Net Unfunded Liability $ (46,170) $ (466,205) $ (674,877) Return on Investments 21.3% -6.1% 5.8% 9.3%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24

OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS (OPEBs)

OPEB PROGRAM
 Unlike the pension program, OPEBs are not administered by an external agency
 Historically, very few agencies set money aside for these liabilities
 However, because of GASB 75 implemented in 2017,
requiring the recognition of liabilities in financial
statements, many agencies started setting aside monies
to offset the liabilities

OPEB PROGRAM
 After 2017, many agencies set up Section 115 Trusts to accumulate funds for accrued OPEB liabilities
 City of RH uses one for its pension liabilities
 CalPERS also got into the business of offering section 115 trusts
 Called the California Employer’s Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)
 City of RH put monies into CERBT more than 5 years ago

FUNDED STATUS
06/30/2026
Total Accrued Liability $ 519,420.00
Market Value of Assets (CEBRT) (929,957.41)
Unfunded Accrued Liability (Asset) $ (410,537.41)
Funded Status 179.04%

COMBINED FUNDED STATUS
OPEB Pension Totals
Total Accrued Liability $ 519,420 $ 3,946,239 $ 4,465,659 Market Value of Assets (CEBRT) (929,957) (2,839,708) (3,769,665) Unfunded Accrued Liability (Asset) $ (410,537) $ 1,106,531 695,994 External Section 115 (PARS) 431,654
Net Unfunded Liability $ 264,340
Funded Status 94.45%

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION

Item: 12.C.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Samantha Crew, Management Analyst
Subject: Consideration of Revisiting Fireworks Enforcement and Administrative Citation options (Presented by Ethan Yu, 2026 Summer Intern)
Background:

In 2021, the City Council discussed potential amendments to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) to strengthen enforcement of the existing Fire Code prohibition on fireworks. The conversation followed a July 10, 2021 incident at 26 Eastfield in which multiple residents reported fireworks being launched from the property. In response, staff consulted with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and City Attorney regarding potential enforcement options.

Existing Fireworks Prohibition
The Rolling Hills Municipal Code adopts the applicable Fire Code by reference, subject to certain City amendments. The Fire Code prohibits the possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and use of fireworks except as otherwise permitted by the Fire Code. Accordingly, fireworks are currently prohibited within the City except as specifically authorized under applicable Fire Code provisions.

Relevant existing Municipal Code and Fire Code provisions are included as Attachment A.

RHMC Section 15.20.050 establishes the penalty for violations of the Fire Code and provides that a person violating a provision of the Fire Code is guilty of a misdemeanor unless the violation is otherwise declared to be an infraction. The section further provides that each day a violation is committed, continued, or permitted constitutes a separate offense and establishes penalties of up to $1,000, imprisonment in County Jail for up to six months, or both.

The City’s existing administrative-citation provisions do not specifically identify fireworks or Fire Code violations as violations subject to administrative citation. The amendments considered in 2021 were intended to provide an additional administrative enforcement mechanism specifically for fireworks' violations and to broaden the number of persons who could be held responsible for such violations.

A draft ordinance was presented to the City Council on September 13, 2021 (Attachment B). The proposal would have:

1. Made violations of the fireworks prohibition subject to the City’s administrative-citation process;

2. Authorized the City’s code-enforcement officer and other authorized City employees or agents to enforce the provisions; and

3. Allowed the City to cite a defined “Responsible Party,” including property owners, persons in charge of or occupying the property, event organizers, and parents or guardians of involved minors, rather than only the individual lighting the fireworks.

The 2021 draft ordinance proposed amendments to three sections of the RHMC to supplement the City’s existing Fire Code enforcement authority. The proposed amendments included changes to the following sections:
• Section 15.20.050 – Violations: to retain the existing misdemeanor penalty for Fire Code violations while also making violations of the fireworks prohibition subject to administrative citations and penalties;
• Section 1.04.010 – Definitions: to expand the definitions applicable to enforcement, including the addition of a “Responsible Party” for purposes of fireworks violations; and • Section 1.08.030 – Violations Subject to Administrative Citation When: to add fireworks violations to those violations eligible for enforcement through the City’s administrative-citation process.

The proposed administrative fine schedule was:
• $500 for a first violation;
• $750 for a second violation within 12 months; and
• $1,000 for a third or subsequent violation within 12 months of the prior violation.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Council directed that any proposed ordinance retain existing misdemeanor enforcement authority and require sufficient corroborating evidence to support an administrative citation, rather than relying solely on a single neighbor’s report. On October 11, 2021, the City Attorney asked whether the Council wished to continue pursuing the ordinance before additional revisions were prepared (Attachment C). The Council voted not to proceed. As a result, the proposed amendments were not adopted, and the City’s existing enforcement provisions remained unchanged.

This year, the issue of fireworks enforcement was raised again during discussions of the Red Flag Ad Hoc Committee, which consists of Council members Leah Mirsch and Jeff Pieper. The Committee has focused on community outreach and education, particularly the importance of preventing potential sources of ignition within the City, which is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. As part of these efforts, staff prepared Red Flag warning flyers and banners to be distributed at the guard gates during Red Flag Warning events. The Committee also discussed how fireworks violations could be addressed and enforced, prompting renewed consideration of the ordinance proposed in 2021.

Discussion:

Since the City’s previous consideration of a fireworks ordinance, California has experienced several major wildfires that have destroyed entire residential communities and highlighted the consequences of fires in high-risk areas such as the Palos Verdes Peninsula. In 2025, the Palisades Fire burned through Pacific Palisades, Topanga, and Malibu, burning 23,448 acres, destroying 6,845 structures,

and damaging an additional 975 structures. That same year, the Eaton Fire burned approximately 14,000 acres in Altadena and areas near Pasadena along the San Gabriel Mountains, destroying 9,419 structures and damaging 1,076. In 2024, the Park Fire in Butte and Tehama counties burned approximately 429,603 acres, destroying 709 structures and damaging 54.

One notable example involving fireworks is the 2020 El Dorado Fire in San Bernardino County, which was ignited by a pyrotechnic smoke device used during a gender-reveal event. The fire burned 22,744 acres, damaged or destroyed nine structures and 15 outbuildings, and resulted in the death of a firefighter. While the other fires discussed above were not caused by fireworks, these incidents, together with the fireworks-related El Dorado Fire, demonstrate the potentially severe consequences of ignition in a high-fire-risk area and underscore the importance of preventing avoidable ignition sources.

Enforcement Options
As part of revisiting the 2021 proposal, the City Council may also wish to consider the appropriate relationship between the City's existing misdemeanor enforcement authority and a potential administrative-citation process for fireworks violations. The 2021 draft contemplated administrative citations as an additional enforcement tool while retaining existing misdemeanor authority.

An administrative-citation framework could provide the City with an additional mechanism to address fireworks violations through monetary penalties and the City's administrative enforcement process.

Retaining existing misdemeanor authority would preserve the enforcement mechanism currently provided under the City's Fire Code. Should the City Council wish to continue consideration of changes to the City's fireworks enforcement approach, the available enforcement options and applicable legal requirements could be further evaluated with the City Attorney.

Peninsula Cities’ Fireworks Regulations
The three neighboring Peninsula cities, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Palos Verdes Estates, are also mostly located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Each city has adopted specific fireworks regulations and implemented fines or enforcement practices intended to increase deterrence and strengthen enforcement of fireworks violations.

Rolling Hills Estates – Rolling Hills Estates prohibits the possession and discharge of fireworks, including those classified as “safe and sane,” under its Municipal Code. In April 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2506, amending the City’s administrative-citation fine schedule to establish a special fine amount for violations of Municipal Code Sections 9.04.040 and 12.24.110 pertaining to the possession and discharge of fireworks. The City directs residents to report fireworks violations to the Lomita Sheriff’s Station and state that fines may be up to $1,000 per violation.

Rancho Palos Verdes - The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council has declared that all fireworks are illegal year-round, including smoke bombs and devices used for gender-reveal events. In May 2022, the City increased its fines to:
$1,000 for a first fireworks violation;
$5,000 for a second violation; and
$7,500 for a third or subsequent violation.

Palos Verdes Estates – Palos Verdes Estates prohibits fireworks of any kind, including those classified as “safe and sane.” In March 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 771, which amended the City’s fireworks regulations to strengthen enforcement and provide for administrative citations as an additional enforcement mechanism. Under the amended provisions, fireworks violations are subject to the City’s administrative-citation process, with a fine of $1,000 per violation.

Safe and Sane
“Safe and sane” fireworks are fireworks approved by the California State Fire Marshal that do not explode, leave the ground, or travel through the air. Examples include certain fountains, sparklers, and ground-spinning fireworks. The term does not mean these fireworks are permitted everywhere, as cities may prohibit their possession or use.

Conclusion
The purpose of this report is not to present a fully drafted ordinance, but to place the 2021 discussion back before the City Council in light of recent wildfire events and changes made or considered by neighboring jurisdictions since the Council's prior decision. Staff is seeking direction regarding whether the City Council wishes to revisit its prior decision and consider one of the following options:

Option A – Reaffirm Prior Decision (No Change)
Reaffirm the City Council’s October 11, 2021 decision and take no further action regarding changes to the City’s existing fireworks enforcement provisions.

Option B – Direct Staff to Evaluate Potential Changes
Direct staff to continue evaluating potential changes to the City’s fireworks enforcement approach and return to the City Council with options for consideration.

Option C – Provide Other Direction
Provide other direction to staff regarding fireworks enforcement, including any specific issues or approaches the City Council would like staff to evaluate and bring back for future consideration.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with providing direction on this item. Should the City Council ultimately choose to pursue changes to the City's fireworks enforcement provisions, the City may incur City Attorney and staff costs associated with further evaluation, development of potential ordinance provisions, and enforcement procedures.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the City’s fireworks enforcement approach and either reaffirm its October 11, 2021 decision, direct staff to evaluate potential changes and return with options for consideration, or provide other direction to staff.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_260914_CC_Fireworks_Code_Provisions

2. Attachment B - CL_AGN_210913_CC_FireWorkOrdinance

3. Attachment C - CL_AGN_211011_CC_FireWorksOrdinanceConsideration

Attachment C - Relevant Fireworks Code Provisions Page 1

ATTACHMENT A

RELEVANT MUNICIPAL CODE AND FIRE CODE PROVISIONS
Fireworks Enforcement - City of Rolling Hills
The following provisions identify the City's current Fire Code adoption, the fireworks prohibition applicable through that adoption, the existing penalty for Fire Code violations, and the current Municipal Code provision governing violations subject to administrative citation.

1. RHMC Section 15.20.010 - Adoption of Fire Code
Except as hereinafter provided in this chapter, California Fire Code, 2025 Edition (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full. Said code shall constitute the Fire Code of the City of Rolling Hills.

In the event of any conflict between provisions of the California Fire Code, 2025 Edition, Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code, or any amendment to the Fire Code contained in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the provision contained in the latter-listed document shall control.

A copy of the California Fire Code, 2025 Edition, has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be at all times while in force maintained by the Clerk for use and examination by the public.

Source: Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.010. Current codification reflects Ordinance No. 389-U, adopted December 9, 2025.

2. California Fire Code Section 5601.1.3 - Fireworks
5601.1.3 Fireworks. The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling and use of fireworks are prohibited.

Exceptions:

1. Storage and handling of fireworks as allowed in Section 5604.

2. Manufacture, assembly and testing of fireworks as allowed in Section 5605 and Health and Safety Code Division 11.

3. The use of fireworks for fireworks displays, pyrotechnics before a proximate audience and pyrotechnic special effects in motion pictures, television, theatrical or group entertainment productions as allowed in Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 6 Fireworks, reprinted in Section 5608 and Health and Safety Code Division 11.

This is the fireworks prohibition referenced in the City's 2021 staff report. The City currently adopts the 2025 California Fire Code through RHMC Section 15.20.010.

3. RHMC Section 15.20.050 - Violations
Every person violating any provision of the Fire Code or of any permit or license granted hereunder, or any rule, regulation or policy promulgated pursuant hereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor unless such violation is declared to be an infraction by the Fire Code. Each such violation is a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which such violation is committed, continued or permitted, and conviction of any such violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Source: Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.050. Current codification reflects Ordinance No. 389-U, adopted December 9, 2025.

4. RHMC Section 1.08.030 - Violation - Subject to Administrative Citation When Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of Chapter 9.58, shall be subject to the administrative penalty provisions of this chapter.

Attachment C - Relevant Fireworks Code Provisions Page 2 Source: Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 1.08.030 (Ord. No. 352, Section 2, May 22, 2017). The current section does not list Fire Code or fireworks violations.

5. RHMC Section 1.04.010 - Definitions (Relevant Existing Language) The following words and phrases, whenever used in the ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills shall be construed as defined in this section, unless from the context a different meaning is intended or unless a different meaning is specifically defined and more particularly directed to the use of such words or phrases:

R. "Tenant" and "occupant" applied to a building or land, include any person who occupies the whole or a part of such building or land, whether alone or with others.

The current Section 1.04.010 does not contain a general definition of "Responsible Party." The 2021 draft ordinance proposed adding such a definition for fireworks enforcement purposes. The complete current Section 1.04.010 remains available in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.

Reference Sources
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Titles 1 and 15 (Municode Library); California Fire Code, 2025 Edition, Chapter 56; and City of Rolling Hills September 13, 2021 City Council staff report regarding proposed fireworks enforcement amendments.

Agenda Item No.: 8.B
Mtg. Date: 09/13/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

CONSIDER AND APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF

ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.20.050 (VIOLATIONS), 1.04.010 (DEFINITIONS), AND 1.08.030 (VIOLATION—SUBJECT TO

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION WHEN) TO MAKE VIOLATION OF THE

PROHIBITION AGAINST FIREWORKS WITHIN THE CITY SUBJECT
TO ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PENALTIES; AND FINDING

THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
DATE: September 13, 2021
BACKGROUND:

The State Fireworks Law contains a thorough guide for the state-wide administration and regulation of the manufacture, transportation, licensing, sale, and use of fireworks. (Health & Safety Code Section 12500, et seq.) California Health and Safety Code Section 11541 specifically authorizes a county or city to establish local fireworks prohibitions and regulations. The Los Angeles County Fire Code, which the City of Rolling Hills adopts by reference, prohibits safe and safe fireworks within the City since the City has no ordinance explicitly authorizing such use:

The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling and use of fireworks are prohibited.

Exceptions:
(1) Storage and handling of fireworks as allowed in Section 5604. (2) Manufacture, assembly and testing of fireworks as allowed in Section 5605 and Health and Safety Code Division 11.
(3) The use of fireworks for fireworks displays, pyrotechnics before a proximate audience and pyrotechnic special effects in motion pictures, television, theatrical or group entertainment productions as allowed in Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 6 Fireworks reprinted in Section 5608 and Health and Safety

Code Division 11.
(4) The possession, storage, sale, handling and use of specific types of Division 1.4G fireworks, including safe and sane, where allowed by applicable laws, ordinances and regulations, provided such fireworks and facilities comply with NFPA 1124, CPSC 16 CFR Parts 1500 and 1507, and DOTn 49 CFR Parts 100—185, for consumer fireworks and [California] Health and Safety Code Division 11. (LA County Fire Code Section 5601.1.3; Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.010.) The other exceptions to the fireworks ban are inapplicable within the City of Rolling Hills because the City has no manufacturing or commercial zone and is made up of an almost entirely residential zone.

DISCUSSION:

Enforcement Difficulties
Currently, a violation of the Fire Code, including the fireworks ban, is a misdemeanor unless such violation is declared to be an infraction. (See RHMC Section 15.20.050.) Any person convicted of a misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the County jail for a period of time not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (RHMC Section

1.08.020(A).) A person convicted of an infraction is punishable by a fine of $100 for the first violation, $250 for the second violation, and $500 for the third and additional violation within twelve months of the first violation. (RHMC Section 1.08.020(B).)
Enforcement of the fireworks ban within the City is difficult due to the lack of opportunity to identify the actual user or possessor of fireworks within residential backyards and outside of an officer’s presence. (See Penal Code Section 836 allowing arrest without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence.) City staff is recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance making violations of the fireworks ban subject to administrative citation and penalty to assist with enforcement since (1) there is a lower burden of proof in establishing an administrative penalty as opposed to a misdemeanor conviction; (2) code enforcement officers do not need to witness a person in actual possession or discharging fireworks to issue an administrative citation as opposed to a warrantless misdemeanor arrest; and (3) code enforcement officers can cite the property owner where the violation occurs even if that person is not the person holding or discharging fireworks.

The ordinance attached to this staff report does the following:

RHMC Section 15.20.050 (Violations)
The amendment makes violation of fireworks ban subject to administrative citation and penalty.

RHMC Section 1.04.010 (Definitions)
The amendment authorizes an “Enforcement Officer,” defined to mean “any Code Enforcement Officer or other City employee or agent of the City with the authority to enforce any provision of the Municipal Code” to issue an administrative citation to the “Responsible Party,” defined to mean the following:
“Responsible Party” shall mean any person or persons in charge of the premises or location, or the person or persons responsible for the event or incident, and shall include any of the following:

The person or persons who own the property where the violation exists; The person or persons in charge of the premises where the violation exists; The person or persons using or occupying the premises where the violation exists; and If any of those persons are minors, the parent or guardians of such minor(s) shall be the

Responsible Party.

RHMC Section 1.08.030 (Violations – Subject to administrative citation when) The amendment makes a violation of the fireworks ban subject to administrative citation and penalty.

The resolution attached to this staff report does the following:

It establishes penalties associated with administrative citations for violation of the fireworks ban as follows:
$500 for the first violation;
$750 for the second violation of the same code section by the same person within a 12-month period of the first violation; and
$1,000 for the third violation and each subsequent violation of the same code section by the same person within a 12-month period from the second or most recent violation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Enactment of this Ordinance could require a modest level of staff resources for enforcement. Staff expects that enforcing the proposed Ordinance could be accommodated within existing staffing and budget authority.

RECOMMENDATION:

City Staff recommends the City Council consider and approve Ordinance No. 371, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, California, Amending Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections

15.20.050 (Violation—Penalty), 1.04.010 (Definitions), and 1.08.030 (Violation—Subject to Administrative Citation When) to Make Violation of the Prohibition Against Fireworks within the City Subject to Administrative Citation Penalties; and Finding the Action Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution No Fee Schedule FY21-22 Council meeting.docx Fireworks Ordinance.DOCX

Resolution No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1286

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE ROLLING HILLS FEE
RESOLUTION AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1278.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The following fees are established and charged for applications for processing discretionary cases for Planning, Zoning and Subdivisions and shall be paid by the applicant prior to submission for public hearing, pursuant to Title 16 (Subdivision) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:

A. Site Plan Review $ 1,500
B. Conditional Use Permit $ 1,500
C. Variance $ 1,250
D. Variance, Minor $ 750

1. Minor deviation into required yard setback, not exceeding 5’ and attached to main residential structure
E. Multiple discretionary reviews; Most expensive fee for the first review and 1/2 fee for second
review. No cost for third or more
reviews.

F. Lighting Ordinance Modification $ 375
G. Outdoor Lighting Audit $ 150 (initiated by resident) H. Time extension $ 200
I. Zone Change $ 2,000
J. General Plan Amendment $ 2,000
K. Zoning/Subdivision Code Amendment $ 2,000
L Discretionary Approval Modification $ 2/3 of original application fee M. Appeal Fee $ 2/3 of original application fee
N. City Council and Planning $ 375 Fee to be credited if Commission interpretation results in filing of a formal

Resolution No. 2
and miscellaneous reviews application to City Council or Planning Commission
O. Environmental Review fees for
discretionary permits

1. Preparation and Staff Review $ 200
of Initial Study

2. Preparation of Negative $ 50 (plus fee charged by CA Declaration or Mitigated Department of Fish and Wildlife, Negative Declaration applicable, as adjusted annually)
P. Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee plus 10% Q. County Clerk Processing Fee County fee
R. Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,500, plus County fee
S. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map $ 1,500, plus County fee
T. Final Parcel/Tract Map County fee
U. Zoning violation and construction $ 1,500
penalty fee

1. Applications for illegal or “as built” grading or construction or noncompliance with approved plans for projects that require Planning Commission review. Fee is charged in addition to the discretionary application review fee.

V. Stop work order $ 200

1. Fee charged for each additional “stop work order” that is issued beyond the original stop work order for illegal construction and grading activity.

W. Service Request County fee, plus 20%
(For services provided by L.A. County not included in the General Services Agreement)
X. Appeal of Zone Clearance $ 375
Y. Stable Use Permit $ 375
(For stables under 800 sq ft considered by the Planning Commission) Z. Major Remodel Review $ 375
(For remodels of more than 50% demolition)

Resolution No. 3
Section 2. The following fees are established and charged for applications for processing View Impairment, Traffic Commission, and Accessory Dwelling Unit cases:

A. View Impairment

1. Review by Committee on Trees and Views
Processing fee $ 2,000

2. Environmental Review Fees
A. Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study $ 200
B. Preparation of Negative Declaration or $ 50
Mitigated Negative Declaration (plus fee charged by
CA Department of
Fish and Wildlife, if
applicable, as
adjusted annually)
B. Traffic Commission Review

1. New driveways or other traffic $ 300
related items
C. Accessory Dwelling Unit

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit or $ 375
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
Section 3. The following fees are established and charged for General Administration processing:

A. General Plan $ 30
B. Zoning Code $ 25
C. Subdivision Code $ 25
D. Budget $ 30
E. Zoning Map $ 3
F. Xeroxed copies, each page $ 0.25
G. False Alarms

Resolution No. 4
Fee for 1st and 2nd incident involving a false alarm is waived If paid within 30 days If paid after 30 days
3rd false alarm $ 50 $100
4th false alarm $ 100 $300
5th false alarm $ 150 $600
6th false alarm $ 200 $1,000
Section 4. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:

A. 1. BUILDING PERMIT Two and one-quarter
times the amount set forth in the
Building Code for each fee, table
and schedule therein.

2. PARKS AND RECREATION Each new residential dwelling shall pay 2% of the first $ 100,000 of
construction valuation, plus 0.25% of
such valuation over $ 100,000.

B. PLUMBING PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Plumbing Code
for each fee, table and schedule therein.

C. MECHANICAL PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Mechanical
Code for each fee, table and schedule
therein.

D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Electrical Code
for each fee, table and schedule therein.

E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, 0.42% of the valuation of the proposed SITE AND PLAN REVIEW structures; however, minimum fee shall be $ 535.00 and the maximum fee shall
be $ 3,588.00
F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC The amount set forth in the Los SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT Angeles County Building and
EQUIPMENT Electrical Codes for each fee, table and
schedule therein, plus $ 60.11 City
administrative fee.

Resolution No. 5
Section 5. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code for review conducted by the City’s contract building official, other than Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety:

A. BUILDING PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section 4 A.1 of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.

B. PLUMBING PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section 4 B. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.

C. MECHANICAL PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section 4 C. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.

D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section 4 D. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on
Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be charged
for the alternative use of the City’s
contract building official.

E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT,
SITE AND PLAN REVIEW In addition to the provisions of Section 4 E. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fess shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.

F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC In addition to the provision of Section SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT 4 F. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge

Resolution No. 6
EQUIPMENT on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees, plus $60.11
City administrative fee, shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.

Section 6. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit relating to construction and demolition waste:

A. CONSTRUCTION AND $ 150 single project permit, plus
DEMOLITION PERMIT $1,000 deposit refundable upon
submittal of a Certificate of
Compliance.

Section 7. The following fines are established for issuance of administrative citations relating to a violation of Chapter 9.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:

Administrative Penalty for $ 2,500 1st violation
violation of Chapter 9.58 $ 5,000 2nd violation within one year of the 1st violation
$ 7,500 Each additional violation within one
year of the 1st violation
Section 8. The following fines are established for issuance of administrative citations relating to a violation of Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 5601.1.3, which the Rolling Hills Municipal Code adopts by reference at Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.010:

Administrative Penalty for $ 500 1st violation
violation of Section 5601.1.3 $ 750 2nd violation within one year of the 1st violation
$ 1,000 Each additional violation within one
year of the 1st violation

Section 9. The following fees are established and charged for processing landscaping submittals subject to the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Review of landscape submittal $1,500 (portion refunded if not spent; package and verification of compliance additional funds may be collected, if needed to complete the review); plus
$5,000 deposit refundable upon
submittal of a Certificate of
Compliance.

Resolution No. 7
Section 10. The following fees are established and charged for processing utility pole removal reimbursement applications pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 1259.

Review of utility pole removal reimbursement $100
application.

Appeal of utility pole removal reimbursement $300
decision.

Section 11. The following fee is established and charged for processing wireless telecommunication facility applications:

Application fee: $1,000
Section 12. Should the City accept payment of any fee identified in this resolution by means of credit card, an additional 3% surcharge on such fee shall be charged as a convenience fee for processing the payment. When City accepts payment by means of credit card, it shall also accept payment by means of cash or check.

Section 13. The fees set forth do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services.

Section 13. The City Council Resolution No. 1278 is hereby repealed and superseded by this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ___ day of __________, 2021. _________________________________

BEA DEIRINGER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________

CITY CLERK

Resolution No. 8

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1286 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING

HILLS MODIFYING THE ROLLING HILLS FEE RESOLUTION AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1278.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 13TH day of September 2021 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:

Administrative Offices.
__________________________________

CITY CLERK

ORDINANCE NO. 371

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,

CALIFORNIA AMENDING ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS 15.20.050 (VIOLATIONS), 1.04.010
(DEFINITIONS), AND 1.08.030 (VIOLATION—SUBJECT

TO ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION WHEN) TO MAKE

VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST

FIREWORKS WITHIN THE CITY SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PENALTIES; AND

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

RECITALS
A. Fireworks are prohibited within the City of Rolling Hills. (Los Angeles County Fire Code Title 32, Section 5601.1.3; Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.010.) B. Currently, a violation of the City’s Fire Code is a misdemeanor. (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.20.050.)
C. Enforcement of the fireworks prohibition is complex due to the difficulty in identifying the actual user or possessor of fireworks.

D. Given the City’s designation as a very high fire hazard severity zone, as prescribed by the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, City staff desires to increase the enforcement tools available to police and fire personnel thereby further preventing violations of the prohibition against fireworks within the City.

E. Administrative citations and fines are needed to curb the illegal practice and to prevent illegal fireworks from causing devastating harm to the entire community.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 15.20.050 (Violations) of Chapter 15.20 (Fire Code) of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) is amended to read as follows:

15.20.050 Violations
A. Every person violating any provision of the Fire Code or of any permit or license granted hereunder, or any rule, regulation or policy promulgated pursuant hereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor unless such violation is declared to be an infraction.

Each such violation is a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which such violation is committed, continued or permitted, and conviction of any such violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one

thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

B. In addition to any other remedy allowed by law, any person who violates Section 5601.1.3 of the Fire Code is subject to administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.08. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1.08 and in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 12557, an administrative penalty assessed pursuant to Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 5601.1.3 for the possession or seizure of 25 pounds or less of dangerous fireworks, as the term is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 12505, shall provide for cost reimbursement to the Office of the State Fire Marshal and the collection of disposal costs pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 12557, and shall not be subject to Health and Safety Code Section 12706 (Disposition of Fines and Forfeitures).

C. Violations of this Chapter are hereby declared to be a public nuisance.

D. All remedies prescribed under this Chapter are cumulative and the election of one or more remedies does not bar the City from the pursuit of any other remedy to enforce this Chapter.

Section 2. Section 1.04.010 (Definitions) in Chapter 1.04 (General Provisions) of Title 1 (General Provisions) is hereby amended to add the following definition in alphabetical order:
“Enforcement Officer” shall mean any Code Enforcement Officer or other City employee or agent of the City with authority to enforce any provision of the Municipal Code. “Responsible Party” shall mean any person or persons in charge of the premises or location, or the person or persons responsible for the event or incident, and shall include any of the following:
1) The person or persons who own the property where the violation exists; 2) The person or persons in charge of the premises where the violation exists; 3) The person or persons using or occupying the premises where the violation exists; and
4) If any of those persons are minors, the parent or guardians of such minor(s) shall be the Responsible Party.

Section 3. Section 1.08.030 (Violations – Subject to administrative citation when) of Chapter

1.08 (General Penalty) of Title 1 (General Provisions) is hereby amended to read as follows:

1.08.030 Subject to administrative citation when.

Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of Chapter 9.58 and Section 5601.1.3 of the Fire Code, shall be subject to the administrative penalty provisions of this chapter.

Section 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision hereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance despite any partial invalidity.

Section 5. Environmental Review. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The City Council further finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), that this Ordinance is nonetheless exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity exempt from CEQA. It also finds the ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources.

Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937.

Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________ 2021.

BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ELAINE JENG, ACTING CITY
CLERK

Agenda Item No.: 8.A
Mtg. Date: 10/11/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHFORD BALL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REVISED FIREWORKS ORDINANCE.

DATE: October 11, 2021
BACKGROUND:

On Monday July 12, 2021 there was a report made by a resident that on Saturday July 10, 2021, people at 26 Eastfield property launched fireworks at around 9:00PM and the fireworks lasted several minutes.

Multiple residents witnessed the reported fireworks. Concerned for igniting wildfires, the resident that reported the fireworks incident expressed the need to pursue the property owner and hold the owner accountable for a potential catastrophic consequence to the community.

In response, staff contacted the fireworks prohibition enforcement agencies: the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Fire Department. After numerous discussions with the enforcement agencies and the City Attorney’s office, both the Acting Fire Marshall and the Captain of the Sheriff’s Department suggested that the City consider a fireworks ordinance that is more specific to the City as an additional tool to support the enforcement of fireworks prohibition.

The Sheriff’s Department informed the City that they would have a better opportunity to cite for fireworks by adding an administrative citation to the ordinance because this would enable them to cite the property owner if they were able to physically witness fireworks coming from the property.

DISCUSSION:

At the City Council meeting on September 13, 2021, staff presented a draft fireworks ordinance based on input from the Sheriff’s Department, the Fire Department and the City Attorney’s office. During the City Council’s discussion of the draft ordinance, legal counsel advised that the draft ordinance would only need a neighbor to report another neighbor before an administrative citation can be issued. Legal counsel also noted that the draft ordinance replaced the misdemeanor with administrative citations. The City Council discussed the history of residents violating the fireworks prohibition in Rolling Hills. At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Council directed staff to bring back the draft ordinance with the following changes:

1. Add to the existing police power (misdemeanor) with respect to enforcing fireworks prohibition, not reduce.

2. Increase the burden of proof for issuance of an administrative citation beyond the report of one neighbor (witness) reporting the incident.

Before the City Attorney’s office prepared another draft for the City Council’s consideration, legal counsel requested that the City Council discuss if they want to move forward with a fireworks ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Preparation of ordinances is included in the operation budget for FY 2021-2022.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council have a discussion and provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

Item: 13.A.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Discussion and Direction Regarding an Updated City Council Group Photograph Background:

On August 22, 2022, the City Council considered an agenda item regarding its annual group photograph. Historically, the City Council had photographs taken annually to commemorate the governing body (Attachment A). A group photo session was scheduled for September 12, 2022; however, Councilmember Mirsch requested that the City Council reconsider the annual tradition and recommended canceling the session in light of the City’s anticipated budget deficit for that fiscal year.

The City Council voted 4-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Wilson absent, not to proceed with the photographs.

Since that action, funding for new City Council photographs has not been included in subsequent fiscal-year budgets, and no additional photo sessions have been scheduled.

Discussion:

Mayor Dieringer recently inquired about updating the City Council group photograph. This item provides the City Council an opportunity to discuss the matter and provide direction to staff.

With advancements in cellphone-camera technology, staff could take an updated group photograph at City Hall or another City location at no additional cost. The photograph could be used on the City’s website and in other official City materials. Alternatively, the City Council could direct staff to obtain pricing from a professional photographer or provide other direction.

Fiscal Impact:

There would be no additional fiscal impact if the photograph is taken by City staff. Costs may be incurred if the City Council directs staff to retain a professional photographer; staff would return with pricing or identify available funding before proceeding.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council discuss updating the City Council group photograph and provide direction to staff.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A_CC260914_CC_Matters from Council

Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 08/22/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON THE TRADITION OF TAKING CITY COUNCIL

PHOTOS ANNUALLY (MIRSCH)
DATE: August 22, 2022
BACKGROUND:

The City Council has photographs taken annually to memorialize the body. A photo session to capture the make up of the body for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and Fiscal Year 2022-2023 is scheduled for Monday, September 12, 2022. Councilmember Leah Mirsch requested to discuss the tradition of taking City Council photos annually and recommends to cancel the photo session scheduled for September 12, 2022 in light of the city's anticipated deficit budget for the current fiscal year.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 22/23 Budget accounts for an allocation to cover the expense.

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:
1

Item: 13.B.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive and File an Update Regarding the Los Angeles County Measure G Governance Reform Task Force
Background:

In November 2024, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure G, establishing a new County governance structure that includes an elected County Executive beginning in 2028, a Director of Budget and Management, and a nonpartisan County Legislative Analyst. The Los Angeles County Governance Reform Task Force (GRTF) is responsible for developing recommendations to implement these changes and support an orderly transition.

The City Council last considered this matter on August 24, 2026. At that meeting, the City Council received and filed an update regarding the GRTF’s work and authorized Mayor Dieringer to work with staff to prepare, finalize, and transmit a City letter requesting formal and direct engagement with incorporated cities. The City Council also authorized the Mayor to sign a forthcoming joint or regional letter consistent with the City Council’s direction and legislative priorities and directed staff to report back regarding the final letters and subsequent GRTF actions.

Following this authorization, Mayor Dieringer signed the City’s letter, which was transmitted to the GRTF on August 26, 2026, for inclusion as public correspondence (Attachment B).

Discussion:

On September 9, 2026, the GRTF considered recommendations prepared by its Elected Executive Ad Hoc Subcommittee concerning the establishment of the offices of the elected County Executive, Director of Budget and Management, and County Legislative Analyst. The recommendations provide an initial framework for the elected County Executive’s responsibilities and resources, the transfer of budget and financial-management functions, and the phased establishment of the County Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Although Measure G restructures Los Angeles County government, its implementation could directly affect the City of Rolling Hills. As a small contract city with limited staff, Rolling Hills relies extensively on County departments and agencies for essential services, including law enforcement, fire protection, building and safety, public health, emergency management, animal control, and other

regulatory and operational functions.

The proposed restructuring could affect how the City communicates with the County, coordinates during emergencies, resolves service-delivery issues, and participates in regional policy decisions. It could also change where responsibility and accountability reside for County services provided to Rolling Hills residents. The City’s early involvement provides an opportunity to advocate for formal engagement with incorporated cities, clearly defined points of contact, continuity of services, and effective procedures for resolving matters involving multiple County departments.

During its evening meeting on September 9, 2026, the GRTF considered and amended the proposed recommendations but did not take final action. Mayor Dieringer attended the meeting and provided comments on behalf of the City. The GRTF continued its consideration of the item to September 16, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. As of the preparation of this staff report, the amended recommendations had not been published.

Consistent with the City Council’s August 24 direction, staff will continue working with Mayor Dieringer to monitor the GRTF’s deliberations and will report back to the City Council regarding any reportable actions taken by the GRTF.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file an update regarding the Los Angeles County Measure G Governance Reform Task Force and provide direction to staff, as appropriate.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - 20260909_GRTF Staff Report and Attachments

2. Attachment B - CC_COR_260825_MeasureG_Letter

Governance Reform Task Force
Staff Report
Agenda Item: Presentation, Discussion, and Potential Action: Elected County Executive Recommendations
Meeting Date: September 9, 2026
Prepared by: Andre Harmandjian
Purpose
To receive updates from the GRTF Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the Elected Executive regarding their progress, and to consider any potential action items arising from their reports.

Discussion
The Task Force will discuss an initial set of recommendations developed by the Elected County Executive Ad Hoc Subcommittee regarding the elected County Executive governance framework, including the County Legislative Analyst and the Office of Budget and Management.

The Task Force may take action to revise or approve the recommendations and direct their transmittal to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.

Recommendation
Receive and file the presentation and related discussions, receive public comment, and/or provide direction to staff and/or Ad Hoc Subcommittees regarding next steps, as appropriate.

Fiscal Impact
None.

Attachment(s)N
None.

Los Angeles County
Governance Reform Task Force

KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
500 W Temple Street, ROOM 383, LOS ANGELES,
CA 90012
September 4, 2026
TO: Los Angeles County Governance Reform Task Force
FROM: Los Angeles County Governance Reform Task Force Elected Executive Ad Hoc Subcommittee
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

OFFICE OF THE ELECTED COUNTY EXECUTIVE, THE DIRECTOR OF

BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, AND THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE

ANALYST
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In November 2024, the voters of Los Angeles County approved Measure G, establishing a new governance structure for the County that includes the election of a County Executive beginning in 2028, the creation of a nonpartisan County Legislative Analyst, and the establishment of a Director of Budget and Management. These changes represent a significant restructuring of the responsibilities and relationships among the County’s executive and legislative functions and require careful planning to ensure an orderly transition to the new governance structure.

The Governance Reform Task Force (GRTF) established the Elected Executive Ad Hoc Subcommittee (Ad Hoc) to examine key policy, organizational, and transition questions associated with these changes and to develop recommendations to guide their implementation. The Ad Hoc’s work has focused on establishing a foundational framework for the future Office of the Elected County Executive, clarifying the respective roles and responsibilities of the County Executive and Director of Budget and Management, consistent with the County Charter, and developing a pathway for

establishing the County Legislative Analyst’s Office and the analytical capacity necessary to support the Board of Supervisors under the new separation-of-powers structure.

The recommendations contained in this report are the product of an iterative process of research, public discussion, stakeholder engagement, and deliberation. Throughout its work, the Ad Hoc and full GRTF received research and analysis examining governance structures and practices in comparable jurisdictions, providing members with examples of how other large and complex county governments organize executive leadership, budgeting, legislative analysis, departmental oversight, and related functions.

Consistent with the November 26, 2024, Board Directive1, specifically Directive 2(a)(iv), the Ad Hoc studied potential organizational models for the offices of the future Elected County Executive and Director of Budget and Management. These models were presented to the full GRTF on August 17, 2026, to facilitate discussion and solicit feedback. The Ad Hoc intends to continue evaluating and refining these organizational models and is currently conducting outreach to County department heads and other stakeholders to obtain additional input on the proposed allocation and alignment of functions. Following this outreach, the Ad Hoc will return to consider updated organizational and reorganization options and develop additional recommendations for the GRTF’s consideration. Accordingly, this report represents the first round of the Ad Hoc’s recommendations and is intended to establish a foundation for its continuing work on the future structure and organization of the County’s executive branch.

The Ad Hoc also regularly brought its work before the full GRTF for discussion, review and feedback. Presentations were made to the GRTF on June 24, July 8, August 7, August 12, August 17, August 21, and August 26, 2026. At these meetings, the Ad Hoc presented its research, emerging framework, and preliminary recommendations and received feedback from members of the full GRTF, organized stakeholder groups, and members of the public. This iterative process provided stakeholders and the public ample opportunity to consider, discuss, and respond to the Ad Hoc’s preliminary recommendations before they were finalized. Feedback received through these meetings was carefully reviewed and considered by both the full GRTF and the Ad Hoc and was incorporated into subsequent deliberations. The Ad Hoc revisited its proposals in light of that input and refined the recommendations reflected in this report.

At the special meeting on August 17, the GRTF received presentations and written submissions from community organizations and municipal partners. Stakeholders emphasized the need for clear communication around the role of the future County 1 Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County Governance Reform: Implementing the Voter Mandate for a More Representative, Accountable, and Transparent Los Angeles County, Board Directive, November 26, 2024, Directive 2(a)(iv).
2

Executive, transparent public reporting on budgets and service delivery, and continued public engagement, particularly with historically underserved and unincorporated communities.

On the evening of August 21, the GRTF hosted a community roundtable at the Hall of Administration which focused on collecting feedback from residents on their understanding and opinions of the future office. Participants called for plain-language and multilingual information about the future County Executive's role and authority, how responsibilities will be divided among the County Executive, the Board of Supervisors, departments, and cities, and where residents should turn for constituent assistance.

At its regular meeting on August 26th, the GRTF discussed the initial recommendations for the County Legislative Analyst, the nonpartisan office of the Board of Supervisors, established by Measure G. The presentation covered the office's purpose, its distinction from the County's existing legislative advocacy function, a three-phase approach to funding and staffing the office so that it is fully operational when the separation of powers takes effect in December 2028, a national search for the inaugural County Legislative Analyst, and the preparatory work of a scoping consultant, an inventory of existing County analytical resources, and a County Counsel report on the enabling ordinance.

Members discussed the recommendations and requested a series of revisions: placing the distinction between the County Legislative Analyst and the legislative advocacy function at the front of the recommendations; prioritizing the redeployment of existing County positions in every phase; allowing the consultant solicitation to begin ahead of final funding identification; describing how existing positions would move and the anticipated effect on departments; and protecting the office's structure and resources through the enabling ordinance. Each requested revision was made and the County Legislative Analyst recommendations in Section III of this report incorporate those revisions and are presented for the GRTF's consideration.

Recognizing that the transition to the elected County Executive and creation of the County Legislative Analyst will affect communities and governmental partners throughout Los Angeles County, individual meetings, communications and conversations also occurred with community groups, city managers, councils of government and other civic partners. Presentations about Measure G and the future elected County Executive were provided to labor partners, including SEIU Local 721 and the Coalition of County Unions. The GRTF also welcomed input from the County’s 88 cities and its unincorporated communities in the form of dozens of letters and messages submitted into the record as public comment. This engagement has helped 3

inform the Task Force’s understanding of how the new governance structure can strengthen coordination between County government and the communities it serves, particularly in areas such as constituent services, intergovernmental relations, regional coordination, and service delivery.

This report reflects the work completed to date, but it does not conclude the Elected Executive Ad Hoc’s work or the GRTF’s engagement with stakeholders and the public.

The Ad Hoc and GRTF expect to continue engaging County departments and employees, organized stakeholder groups, the County’s 88 cities, unincorporated communities, regional partners, and members of the public in the coming months as additional operating frameworks and transition plans are developed and outstanding governance and implementation questions are addressed.

The recommendations that follow establish an initial framework for the transition to the new governance structure. They seek to provide sufficient clarity regarding the authorities, responsibilities, resources, and institutional capacity necessary to implement Measure G while recognizing that substantial planning and implementation work remains between now and December 2028. The overarching objective is to ensure that Los Angeles County is prepared for an orderly transition and that the inaugural Elected County Executive has the information, analysis, and options necessary to make informed decisions about how to organize and lead the executive branch within the framework established by the County Charter, the Board of Supervisors, and the mandate approved by the voters of Los Angeles County.

The recommendations in this report address three foundational components of the new governance structure. For the Elected County Executive, they establish a framework for executive leadership and management, identify key functions that should transition to the new office, address the resources and flexibility needed to establish the office, and define responsibilities related to department performance, intergovernmental relations, and constituent services. For the Director of Budget and Management, the recommendations identify the core budget, fiscal, and administrative functions that should transition from the current Chief Executive Office and call for detailed transition planning to guide that realignment. For the County Legislative Analyst, the recommendations establish a pathway for creating a nonpartisan office to provide the Board of Supervisors with policy, fiscal, operational, and legislative analysis, including a phased approach to staffing, funding, recruitment, and organizational development in advance of the new separation-of-powers structure taking effect in 2028. With this initial framework established, further development of the County Legislative Analyst and its role in supporting the Board’s future legislative structure will transition to the Board Expansion Ad Hoc Subcommittee.
4

B. RECOMMENDATIONS
I. County Executive
Under Measure G, the elected Los Angeles County Executive will serve as the County’s chief executive, providing leadership and accountability for the administration of County government. The County Executive will be responsible for setting executive priorities, overseeing departments and services, coordinating the work of the executive branch, implementing policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and representing the County in key intergovernmental matters.

Recommendation #1: Consistent with the language adopted in Measure G, the position shall be publicly referred to as the Los Angeles County Executive. 1a. The Board of Supervisors shall amend its Rules to discontinue use of the title “Mayor” by the Chair of the Board of Supervisors and request that County Counsel identify and prepare any conforming amendments to other governing documents necessary to eliminate references to the Board Chair as “Mayor” or “Mayor/Chair”. 1b. The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Chief Executive Officer, through the Office of Countywide Communications, to develop and implement a focused public education and outreach campaign in advance of the inaugural election to familiarize residents and stakeholders with the title, the roles and responsibilities of the office, and how those responsibilities differ from those of the Board of Supervisors, thereby promoting public understanding and informed voter participation.

Recommendation #2: The County Executive shall be responsible for providing policy direction, operational coordination, and strategic management across the executive branch.
2a. Functions currently housed within the Chief Executive Office that are executive in nature and support the administration, coordination, and implementation of County policy shall transition to the Office of the County Executive. These functions shall include, but are not limited to, Administrative Services; Countywide Communications; Legislative Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations; the Office of Emergency Management; Policy Implementation and Alignment; and Strategic Initiatives, along with the associated responsibilities necessary to support these functions.

Recommendation #3: The Board of Supervisors shall provide the inaugural Elected County Executive with the resources and flexibility necessary to 5

establish, organize, and manage the Office of the Elected County Executive and effectively administer the executive branch. Consistent with Directive 1(j)(i)2in the Board of Supervisors’ November 26, 2024, directive, implementation of this recommendation shall prioritize the use and realignment of existing County resources and identify funding sources for any additional resources necessary to support the transition to the new governance structure.
3a. For the initial implementation period between December 2028 and June 2029, the Board shall provide the inaugural Elected County Executive with a transitional operating budget in the form of a discretionary appropriation, subject to standard County fiscal controls. This appropriation shall be in addition to the positions, personnel, resources, and functions that transition from the current Chief Executive Office to the Elected County Executive and shall provide the Executive with the flexibility to recruit and appoint the at-will and unclassified staff necessary to establish the office and effectively administer the executive branch.
3b. Beginning with the FY 2029–30 budget process, the Elected County Executive shall submit a proposed operating budget for the Office of the Elected County Executive as part of the draft County budget submitted to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration and approval.
3c. Within the funding appropriated by the Board of Supervisors, the Elected County Executive shall have discretion to determine the size, composition, staffing, and organizational structure of the Office of the Elected County Executive necessary to carry out its responsibilities. Consistent with Measure G and the Board's budgetary authority, the Elected County Executive shall also have the flexibility to organize and manage executive functions and, through the annual budget process, submit recommendations regarding the creation, consolidation, transfer, or elimination of departments or major functions for consideration and approval by the Board of Supervisors. 3d. Consistent with Section 11.28 of the County Charter, the County Executive shall deliver an annual State of the County Address to the Board of Supervisors in conjunction with the proposed budget to report on the performance and condition of the County government, present executive policy and budget priorities for the coming fiscal year, recommend measures for consideration by the Board, and strengthen transparency, accountability, and public understanding of the County’s strategic direction.

Recommendation #4: Upon assumption of the Office, the Elected County Executive shall have responsibility for the performance management and 2 November 26, 2024 Board Directive, Directive 1 (j)(i) 6

evaluation of executive branch department heads as a core component of the Executive’s management authority. The Elected County Executive shall have the authority to assess the County’s existing performance management practices, including the Management and Appraisal Performance Plan (MAPP) system, and determine whether to retain, modify, or replace those practices to support effective executive leadership, organizational performance, and accountability. 4a. To promote continuous improvement across the executive branch and support implementation of the organizational and governance reforms contemplated by Directive 1(j)(ii)3in the Board of Supervisors’ November 26, 2024, directive, it is recommended that the Elected County Executive establish an annual organizational review process as part of the County’s budget development cycle. The review should draw upon department head performance evaluations, together with relevant operational, fiscal, and performance data, to assess departmental effectiveness, organizational performance, service delivery outcomes, and opportunities to improve efficiency, coordination, accountability, and County governance. The results of the annual organizational review may inform the Elected County Executive’s proposed budget and may serve as the basis for recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the creation, consolidation, transfer, or elimination of departments or major functions.

The Ad Hoc recognizes that the GRTF has an ongoing responsibility to develop recommendations regarding qualitative and quantitative performance measures and accountability mechanisms that should inform this organizational review process.

Accordingly, the Ad Hoc will continue to review existing county performance management systems and relevant best practices, consult with County departments and other stakeholders, and develop more specific recommendations regarding performance measures, evaluation criteria, reporting, and accountability mechanisms for consideration by the GRTF in future reports. These recommendations should establish a framework that the future Elected County Executive can implement and refine as part of the ongoing management of the executive branch. 4b. To implement this recommendation, the Board of Supervisors shall:
● Direct County Counsel to prepare the necessary amendments to the Los Angeles County Administrative Code, County ordinances, or other governing provisions to establish the Elected County Executive’s authority and responsibility for the performance management and evaluation of executive branch department heads and to reflect the Executive’s role in conducting an annual organizational review, consistent with the provisions of Measure G.
3 November 26, 2024 Board Directive, Directive 1 (j)(ii) 7

● Direct the current Chief Executive Officer to prepare a report assessing the County’s existing department head performance management and evaluation process, including the MAPP system and any other relevant practices, policies, roles, and procedures. The report shall document the current process, identify opportunities and considerations for the transition of this responsibility to the Elected County Executive, and be made publicly available sufficiently in advance of the inaugural Elected County Executive taking office to inform the transition and provide a clear baseline for the incoming administration.

Recommendation #5: The Elected County Executive shall serve as the County’s primary executive-branch representative for intergovernmental affairs and legislative advocacy, working in collaboration with the Board of Supervisors to advance the County’s legislative and policy priorities at the local, state, and federal levels. This responsibility shall include leading and coordinating the County’s state and federal legislative advocacy; managing relationships with state and federal elected officials, agencies, and other governmental partners; engaging and coordinating with the County’s 88 cities and unincorporated communities; and strengthening relationships with regional governmental bodies and agencies. 5a. To strengthen intergovernmental collaboration and regional coordination, it is recommended that the Elected County Executive establish a regular and structured engagement program with the elected and appointed leadership of the County’s 88 cities, representatives of unincorporated communities, and relevant regional partners.

This engagement shall provide a forum to identify and understand local priorities; keep local partners informed of County policies and initiatives; strengthen coordination between the County, cities, and unincorporated communities; address shared regional challenges and service delivery issues; and, where interests align, develop coordinated legislative and policy strategies before state and federal policymakers. 5b. To support the transition of these responsibilities and further inform the development of the future intergovernmental affairs and legislative advocacy function, the Board of Supervisors shall direct the current Chief Executive Officer to prepare and make publicly available, within 120 days, a transition report assessing the existing structure, staffing, resources, responsibilities, and operations of the County’s Legislative Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations (LAIR) function. The report shall assess how the current structure supports state and federal legislative advocacy, engagement with the County’s 88 cities and unincorporated communities, and coordination with regional governmental partners, and shall provide recommendations for strengthening these functions under the new governance structure. The report shall be presented to the Ad Hoc and the GRTF to further inform their deliberations and allow for continued refinement of 8

recommendations regarding the structure, responsibilities, and transition of this function before the inaugural Elected County Executive takes office.

Recommendation #6: The Elected County Executive should establish a constituent services and public affairs function that serves as the point of coordination for executive-branch responses to community concerns, service delivery issues, and public engagement. As the government that provides critical safety-net services for residents across Los Angeles County, the County has a particular responsibility to ensure that residents can access services effectively and that departments are coordinated and accountable for responding to community needs. 6a. The constituent services function should strengthen accountability for service delivery, improve coordination across County departments, and promote timely and effective responses to residents, with particular attention to the needs of unincorporated communities, where the County serves as both the provider of regional safety-net services and the primary local government.
6b. The Elected County Executive’s constituent services function should be designed to complement the constituent service role of the Board of Supervisors. Board Offices shall continue to advocate on behalf of their constituents, while the Elected County Executive should focus on coordinating executive-branch action, resolving cross-departmental service issues, tracking implementation and follow-through, and improving the overall responsiveness and accountability of County government. Consistent with the November 26, 2024, Board directive, specifically Directives 1(i) and 1(ii)4, the Elected County Executive should establish quantitative and qualitative performance metrics and accountability mechanisms to regularly evaluate the effectiveness and responsiveness of the constituent services function. Such measures should include, as appropriate, the accessibility and timeliness of constituent services, resolution of service requests, effectiveness of cross-departmental coordination, follow-through on identified issues, and resident experience. The Elected County Executive should use these measures to regularly assess performance, identify opportunities for improvement, and strengthen accountability for the delivery of constituent services across the executive branch. 6c. To support the transition of these responsibilities and further inform the development of the future constituent services function, the Board of Supervisors shall direct the current Chief Executive Officer to prepare and make publicly available, within 120 days, a transition report on the County’s Office of Unincorporated Area Services and the County’s existing and prior approaches to constituent services. Consistent with the Board of Supervisors’ November 26, 2024 directives, specifically Directives 1(j)(i) and 4 November 26, 2024 Board Directive, Directives 1 (j)(i) and 1 (j)(ii) 9

1(j)(iii), the report shall provide the Ad Hoc and the GRTF with the information and analysis necessary to evaluate the future direction of and oversight of municipal services in unincorporated areas under the new county governance structure and opportunities to improve quality, responsiveness, and accountability of services and representation of the unincorporated areas.
● The report shall describe the Office’s current organizational structure, staffing, resources, responsibilities, and services; assess how the Office currently coordinates with County departments and Board Offices to address the needs of unincorporated communities; and identify existing gaps or challenges in service delivery and cross-departmental coordination.
● The report shall also include a summary and assessment of constituent service systems, platforms, and coordination models that have been implemented by the County in the past, including lessons learned regarding their effectiveness, limitations, utilization, and opportunities for improvement. Where available, the assessment shall include relevant performance data and information regarding the resident experience with these systems.
● The report shall provide recommendations regarding how the County can strengthen services to unincorporated communities, improve coordination and accountability across departments, clarify responsibility for resolving cross-departmental service issues, establish effective mechanisms for residents to access and track services, and strengthen the County’s overall approach to constituent services. The report shall be presented to the Ad Hoc and the GRTF to further inform their deliberations and allow for continued refinement of recommendations regarding the structure, responsibilities, and transition of the future County Executive’s constituent services function.

II. Director of Budget & Management
Under Measure G, the Director of Budget and Management will serve as the County’s principal official responsible for budget development, fiscal stewardship, and countywide financial management, as directed by the Elected County Executive. The Director will lead preparation and administration of the County budget, oversee key financial and administrative functions, and help ensure that resources are aligned with County priorities and long-term fiscal sustainability.

Recommendation #1: Upon the installation of the inaugural Elected County Executive in 2028, the County’s core budget and fiscal stewardship functions currently housed within the Chief Executive Office shall transition to the Office of the Director of Budget and Management, consistent with the responsibilities and authorities established by Measure G. The Director of Budget and Management shall report to the County Executive and, under the County Executive’s direction, shall be 10

responsible for providing the professional budget, financial, and administrative infrastructure necessary to develop and manage the County budget, promote long-term fiscal stability, and support effective stewardship of County resources. 1a. As part of the transition planning process, the current Chief Executive Office has identified a set of functions it considers to be core budget and finance operations that shall transition to the Office of the Director of Budget and Management. These include budget development and operations; budget policy and revenue alignment; finance, accounting, and financing districts; capital programs; classification and compensation; employee relations and benefits; risk management; administrative services; and asset management.
1b. The remaining functions currently housed within the Chief Executive Office that are principally executive in nature, including executive leadership, strategic initiatives, policy implementation and alignment, legislative and intergovernmental affairs, countywide communications, emergency management, and other executive management functions, shall transition to the Office of the Elected County Executive or otherwise be appropriately aligned within the executive branch.

Recommendation #2: The Board of Supervisors shall direct the current Chief Executive Officer to continue working with the Ad Hoc to prepare, within 1205 days, a detailed transition plan identifying the positions, personnel, resources, programs, and responsibilities associated with the functions proposed to transition to the Office of the Director of Budget and Management. This recommendation builds on work already underway between the Ad Hoc and the current Chief Executive Officer to evaluate the allocation of existing Chief Executive Office functions, resources, and responsibilities under the future governance structure.

Consistent with Directive 1(j)(i)6in the Board of Supervisors’ November 26, 2024 directive, implementation of this recommendation shall prioritize the use and realignment of existing County resources and identify funding sources for any additional resources necessary to support the transition to the new governance structure. The transition plan shall also identify any functions that require further evaluation because they include both budget and fiscal responsibilities and broader executive or policy responsibilities and provide recommendations regarding their appropriate placement under the new governance structure. The transition plan shall be made publicly available upon completion and presented to the GRTF for its review, providing the GRTF an opportunity to assess the proposed allocation of functions and make 6 November 26, 2024 Board Directive, Directive 1(j)(i)
5 11

additional recommendations, if appropriate, before the new governance structure takes effect.

III. County Legislative Analyst
In the forthcoming Measure G Separation of Powers, the future County Legislative Analyst (CLA) and the existing, but eventually revised County Legislative Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations (LAIR) function, will serve different purposes. The CLA is a nonpartisan office of the Board of Supervisors that analyzes policy, legislation, such as County motions and ordinances, and fiscal matters for the Board. LAIR conducts intergovernmental relations and external legislative advocacy on the County's adopted positions and, consistent with the recommendations related to the elected County Executive, is an executive-branch function that will reside with the elected County Executive and is not part of the CLA's Office.

Recommendation #1: The CLA serves as a nonpartisan office of the Board of Supervisors, providing objective policy, fiscal, operational, and legislative analysis to support the Board's legislative, budgetary, and oversight responsibilities.

Recommendation #2: The Board of Supervisors shall establish and fund a nonpartisan CLA's Office, providing the staffing, resources, and expertise necessary to support the Board of Supervisors and the legislative process, in three phases: preparatory work funded from one-time resources identified by the Chief Executive Officer, an initial cohort of positions in the FY 2027-28 budget, and the build to full operating capacity in the FY 2028-29 budget, so that the office is fully operational when the inaugural elected County Executive takes office in December 2028 and separation of powers goes into effect, including the shift of legislative analysis as a supportive function to the Board of Supervisors. Funding shall support the phased recruitment of expertise in budget and fiscal analysis, public policy, legislative analysis, and program evaluation. Consistent with Recommendation #5, each phase shall prioritize the redeployment of existing County positions and vacant budgeted items before the creation of new positions. It is the GRTF's recommendation that the office be formally operative no later than the seating of the inaugural elected County Executive, and earlier in 2028 if County Counsel confirms the Board's authority under Recommendation #6; the Board shall set the effective date of the enabling ordinance when it adopts the ordinance, informed by County Counsel's report. 2a. The Board shall direct the Chief Executive Officer to identify one-time funding, to fund the preparatory work of establishing the office, beginning with the consultant engagement under Recommendation #4, and to report to the Board on the amount, 12

source, and phasing. The Board shall further direct the Executive Office to initiate the consultant solicitation, through a Request for Information, Request for Statement of Qualifications, or master-agreement work order as appropriate, in advance of final funding identification, so the engagement can begin as soon as funding is available, with any award contingent on identified funding.
2b. In the FY 2027-28 budget, the Board shall fund an initial cohort of CLA positions, including the CLA, deputy CLA leadership for fiscal and budget analysis and for legislative and policy analysis, initial analyst teams in each, and administrative support, carried in the Executive Office's FY 2027-28 budget request and developed with the Chief Executive Office through the FY 2027-28 Recommended Budget process.

Funding may be appropriated to the office's own budget unit or set aside in Provisional Financing Uses with release conditions established by the Board; hiring shall be phased through the fiscal year; and positions could be drawn from existing County resources to the extent the inventory under Recommendation #5 allows. 2c. In the FY 2028-29 budget, the Board shall fund a second cohort bringing the office to appropriate staffing levels so that the office is at necessary operating capacity when the inaugural elected County Executive takes office and the separation of powers occurs, when the CLA needs to begin supporting the Board of Supervisors. In subsequent budgets, the Board shall review the office's size and structure as the Board expands to nine members and adopts any potential new committee structure. 2d. Until the office is established as its own budget unit, the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors shall serve as the office's administrative home for payroll, human resources, procurement, and information technology support, as the Board has done in establishing other Board-reporting offices, with no role in the office's analytical work or products.
2e. For any period in which the office's staff are recruited or employed in advance of the office's formal commencement, the Board shall specify, in the enabling ordinance or by Board order, to whom such staff report; the preparatory work they may perform, including organizational design, analytical methods, data-access and budget-calendar protocols with the Chief Executive Office, and recruitment; and the conditions and schedule for release of any funds set aside for the office. 2f. Each phase shall include sufficient services-and-supplies funding for the office, and contracting authority shall be delegated to the CLA to contract for the professional services and legal expertise required to carry out the office's legislative and analytical 13

mission. This gives the office a mechanism to become operational quickly shall the transfer or hiring of legislative staff be delayed for any reason.

Recommendation #3: The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Department of Human Resources, in coordination with the Executive Office, to procure an executive search firm to conduct a national search for the inaugural CLA and other key senior leadership positions in the future office of the CLA, commencing as soon as funding is identified under Recommendation 2a and informed by the initial scoping under Recommendation #4. Establishing a new nonpartisan office capable of fully supporting the Board by December 2028 will require a significant ramp-up period.

The recruitment process shall be coordinated so that, once selected by the Board of Supervisors, the CLA can be engaged to lead the establishment of the office in advance of its formal commencement and can participate in the selection of the office's senior leadership team.

Recommendation #4: The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Executive Office to procure, through the County's master agreement process, a legislative analyst subject-matter expert to serve as the office's scoping and implementation consultant until the inaugural CLA is seated. The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Executive Office to procure, through the County's master agreement process, a legislative analyst subject-matter expert to serve as the office's scoping and implementation consultant until the inaugural CLA is seated. Deliverables shall include the office's functional scope, roles and responsibilities, and organizational framework; staffing profiles by classification level and division sufficient to identify the positions required and those that could transfer from existing County operations; classification specifications for the CLA and the office's analyst series, developed with the Chief Executive Office's Classification and Compensation Division; the office's FY 2027-28 budget request; information-sharing and budget-calendar protocols with the Chief Executive Office and the future Office of Budget and Management; the office's interface with the Board under the current cluster structure, adaptable to a future committee structure; a first-year work plan; and support for the executive search. The consultant shall not exercise the authority of the CLA.

Recommendation #5: The Board of Supervisors shall direct the Chief Executive Officer, within 90 days, to inventory where legislative, policy, and fiscal analysis work already sits across County government, including departmental legislative units, analytical functions within the Chief Executive Office and the Office of County Counsel, and vacant budgeted analyst items, and to recommend which positions could be redeployed to the CLA's Office in FY 2027-28 and FY 2028-29, so that the office is built, to the extent feasible, from existing budgeted resources rather than new ongoing 14

net County cost. The inventory shall distinguish analytical functions from external legislative advocacy. The inventory shall also describe how positions would move, including the use of transfers and existing vacant, budgeted or ordinanced items, and the anticipated effect on departments and service levels.

Recommendation #6: The Board of Supervisors should direct the Chief Executive Office’s Classification and Compensation Division, in coordination with County Counsel, to report within 120 days on (a) the mechanism for establishing the office and its positions in advance of the effective date of Charter Section 10.28; (b) whether the office's positions shall be classified or unclassified, and the implications of each for recruitment and transfer of existing County employees; (c) the enabling ordinance prescribing the CLA's duties, as Section 10.28 requires; and (d) the permissible and recommended effective date of that ordinance, including what the Charter's provision that the office begins in 2028 permits and requires, and the options for commencing formal operations at points in 2028 before the seating of the inaugural elected County Executive; and (e) how the enabling ordinance can establish and protect the office's staffing structure and resources over time, including the security of future budget allocations, recognizing that Charter Section 10.28 names only the CLA, while preserving the Board's authority to organize and manage the office.

C. Next Steps
The recommendations in this report establish an initial framework for implementing the governance changes approved by voters through Measure G. They are not the end of the GRTF’s work on the elected County Executive. Over the next two years, the Task Force, its Ad Hoc Subcommittees, County staff, and the Board of Supervisors will need to continue developing the policies, operating frameworks, transition plans, and implementation actions necessary to prepare for the new governance structure.

The GRTF recommends this work be guided by a clear goal: The County should be prepared for the transition by December 2028, and the inaugural Elected County Executive should have the information, analysis, and options needed to make informed decisions about how to organize and lead the new executive branch.

Building on the foundational recommendations in this report, the 2027 phase of work should focus on developing the operating frameworks, resolving outstanding governance questions, and conducting the analysis necessary to prepare for implementation. Priorities should include:
15

1. Supporting public understanding of the new governance structure, including the respective roles and responsibilities of the Elected County Executive and the Board of Supervisors.

2. Developing operating frameworks for key executive functions, including Constituent Services, Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and Labor Relations.

3. Clarifying areas of shared or intersecting executive and legislative authority, including contracting, constituent services, and other functions where clear roles, protocols, and working relationships will be important under the new separation-of-powers structure.

4. Continued reviewing County departments, strategic initiatives, and other functions requiring alignment within the future governance structure, including functions that may warrant transfer, consolidation, or further evaluation.

5. Continued engagement with internal and external stakeholders to gather input on the future operation of the executive branch and identify transition issues that require additional analysis or resolution.

6. Working with County staff and the Board of Supervisors to finalize the transitional budget framework for the inaugural Elected County Executive, including the resources and flexibility necessary to establish the new office.

In 2028, the work should shift from policy development and organizational analysis toward transition readiness. Priorities could include:

1. Finalizing transition plans for December 2028, including the transfer of functions, personnel, resources, authorities, and responsibilities to the Elected County Executive and Director of Budget and Management.

2. Continuing and expanding public education and engagement so that residents, stakeholders, County employees, candidates, and other partners understand the new governance structure and the respective responsibilities of the Elected County Executive and Board of Supervisors.

3. Preparing information, analysis, and organizational options for the incoming Elected County Executive to inform decisions about executive-branch organization, staffing, management systems, and priorities while preserving the incoming Executive’s ability to shape the administration consistent with the voter-approved Charter.

By December 2028, this work should position Los Angeles County for an orderly transition and establish a strong foundation for the new governance structure. The GRTF’s role is to ensure that the authorities, responsibilities, operating frameworks, and transition plans necessary to implement Measure G are clearly established, while preserving appropriate flexibility for the inaugural Elected County Executive to organize 16

and manage the executive branch within the parameters established by the County Charter, the Board of Supervisors, and the mandate approved by the voters of Los Angeles County.
17

Recommended Roadmap to 2028
Elected Executive Ad Hoc
Governance Reform Task Force
September 9, 2026
1

2 2028: Prepare &
Hand Off
A. Finalize transition plans for
December 2028
B. Support public understanding of
the new governance structure
C. Prepare information and options for
the incoming Executive to make
organizational and staffing decisions
D. Assemble briefing documents
regarding functions, staffing,
budgets, authorities, operations, key
decisions, and outstanding choices
E. Identify and report on longer-term
governance reforms for future
consideration, including
ranked-choice voting, County
Executive term limits, and other
potential structural reforms.
2026: Design
A. Establish foundational structure and
transitional budget for the Elected
Executive
B. Establish framework for DBM and CLA
C. Determine initial placement of major
executive functions and departments
D. Launch specialized work on
Commissions and Labor Relations
E. Transition legislative/CLA matters to
Board Expansion Ad Hoc
2027: Develop
A. Support public understanding of the new
governance structure
B. Develop organizational chart options for
the office of the County Executive and
operating frameworks for key executive
functions, such as Constituent Services,
Unincorporated Community Services,
Emergency Management,
Intergovernmental Relations, and Labor
Relations
C. Clarify shared executive/legislative
authorities, such as contracting,
constituent services, and land use
D. Continue review of departments, strategic
initiatives, performance management
practices and other functions requiring
alignment with Measure G
E. Further engagement with internal and
external stakeholders to gather input on
Executive Branch operations
F. Work with county staff and Board of
Supervisors to finalize transitional budget
for inaugural Elected County Executive
RECOMMENDED GOAL: By December 2028, the County should be prepared for the transition and the inaugural Elected County Executive should have the information, analysis, and options needed to make informed decisions about how to organize and lead the new executive branch. Achieving this goal could include:

City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
August 25, 2026
Measure G Task Force – County of Los Angeles
500 West Temple Street, Room 383
Los Angeles, California 90012
Email – [email protected]
Re: Engagement of Incorporated Cities in the Development of County Executive Officer Recommendations
Dear Chair and Members of the Measure G Task Force:

On behalf of the City of Rolling Hills, thank you for your service regarding Measure G. The Task Force has been entrusted with developing recommendations that will shape one of the most significant changes to the governance and operational structure of Los Angeles County in decades.

Because these recommendations will define the role, authority, and responsibilities of the new County Executive Officer (CEO), we respectfully request that the Task Force formally engage Los Angeles County's 88 incorporated cities before submitting its final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Given the CEO's broad operational responsibilities and the direct impact this position will have on municipal governments, meaningful input from cities will strengthen the Task Force's recommendations and help ensure that the new governance structure appropriately and expeditiously provides the needed delivery of services to residents throughout the diverse communities within Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County is unlike any other county in the nation. Its 88 incorporated cities are home to approximately 8.7 million of the County's nearly 9.8 million residents. The County’s Board of Supervisor representatives and its cities work in close partnership every day to provide essential services, respond to emergencies, implement regional initiatives, and address issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. This relationship is especially significant for the County's 42 contract cities, which rely on the County to provide essential municipal services such as law enforcement and fire protection. As the County Executive Officer assumes responsibility for overseeing County departments and operations, the effectiveness of that office will depend in part on its ability to coordinate with municipal governments throughout the County.

The Task Force has identified legislative affairs as one of the operational areas under consideration. We encourage the Task Force to recognize, however, that the relationship between Los Angeles County and its incorporated cities extends well beyond traditional

Engagement of Incorporated Cities in the Development of County Executive Officer Recommendations

-2-
legislative or intergovernmental affairs. Unlike the County's interactions with the state or federal government, the County and its cities are operational partners with shared responsibilities that require continuous coordination to serve residents effectively. It is imperative that before any written recommendations or policies are developed by the Task Force in response to Measure G, the Task Force should formally request and consider input from Los Angeles County cities. These cities have developed strategies based on their years of experience that should be incorporated into any recommendations regarding the responsibilities of and the issues to be considered by the CEO and each supervisor in the County in expeditiously responding to issues that arise within the County.

Under the current system, each city has an established relationship with their County supervisorial representatives, who are familiar with each city’s specific needs and the solutions that have provided the maximum benefit to meet those needs. It is important that this institutionalized knowledge not be lost and that the ability to address needs specific to an individual city, particularly urgent needs, be executed expeditiously without the need for some delayed approval from the CEO or other layer of County government, when the resolution does not affect an established policy requiring a county-wide need for uniformity. The division of responsibility between the CEO and each supervisor who represents cities within his/her supervisorial district needs to be structured in such a way to eliminate any unnecessary bureaucratic delay in responding to the needs of County residents. To eliminate such delay, the relationship between the CEO and each supervisor needs to be structured in such a way that supervisorial offices can still quickly address the specialized needs of residents within their district without the need for approval from the CEO, unless the issue relates to one that requires a uniform county-wide remedy that is already addressed in a written policy that specifies the response to be followed for such issue.

Accordingly, we encourage the Task Force to consider how its recommendations can reflect the CEO's role in fostering and establishing collaboration with incorporated cities across the full range of County operations. This collaboration needs to include formal coordination measures regarding public safety, fire protection, public works, regional planning, homelessness services, public health, emergency management, and other regional functions where County and municipal governments must work together to properly meet the needs of County residents.

Providing greater clarity regarding the CEO's responsibility to engage with cities on these shared operational issues would strengthen the governance framework envisioned by Measure G.

The perspectives of incorporated cities are an important and necessary part of this discussion. As the democratically elected governments representing approximately 8.7 million Los Angeles County residents, cities offer practical experience and local insight that can help inform recommendations affecting service delivery, regional coordination, and governance throughout the County. Each city council within the County is charged with the responsibility of meeting the unique needs of its community members and has developed institutional knowledge that is valuable not only in addressing issues that arise within its own community but also within other similarly situated communities in the County as well.

Engagement of Incorporated Cities in the Development of County Executive Officer Recommendations

-3-
Accordingly, we respectfully urge the Task Force to conduct a formal and structured engagement process with incorporated cities before presenting its final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Direct municipal input will help ensure the Task Force's recommendations are informed by the governments that will work most closely with the new CEO and will strengthen long-term coordination between the County and its cities.

Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to strengthening governance throughout Los Angeles County. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to continued collaboration.

Sincerely,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
City of Rolling Hills
cc:

City of Rolling Hills City Council

Item: 13.C.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of a Letter Requesting the Governor’s Veto of Assembly Bill 1383 (McKinnor) Regarding Public Employee Retirement Benefits Background:

On August 10, 2026, the City Council authorized the Mayor to submit a letter opposing Assembly Bill 1383 (McKinnor), which proposes significant changes to public employee retirement benefits under the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). The City’s opposition letter expressed concern that the measure would increase pension costs and liabilities for public agencies while reversing important reforms intended to promote the long-term sustainability of California’s public retirement systems (Attachment B).

The City’s letter emphasized the potential effect of increased pension obligations on small local agencies such as Rolling Hills. The City operates with an annual budget of approximately $3 million, has no commercial tax base, and relies on a staff of approximately seven employees to provide municipal services. Consequently, even modest increases in employer retirement costs can place additional pressure on the City’s limited General Fund resources.

Discussion:

Since the City Council took its position, the Legislature has passed AB 1383 and transmitted the bill to the Governor for consideration. Governor Newsom has until September 30, 2026, to sign or veto the measure.

AB 1383 would make several changes to PEPRA. Among other provisions, the bill would permit enhanced retirement formulas for public safety employees, including lowering the applicable retirement age from 57 to 55. Certain provisions, including an increase to the pensionable compensation cap, would apply more broadly to PEPRA employees and would not be limited to public safety personnel.

Cal Cities continues to oppose AB 1383 because of its potential to increase long-term pension costs for state and local public employers and to roll back provisions of PEPRA. Now that the bill has passed the Legislature, Cal Cities is asking cities to contact the Governor and request that he veto the measure. Other cities, including Palos Verdes Estates and Newport Beach, have submitted letters

requesting the Governor’s veto (Attachment C).

The proposed letter, included as Attachment A, updates the City’s previously stated opposition and requests that Governor Newsom veto AB 1383. The letter reiterates the City’s concerns regarding increased pension liabilities, the effect of additional costs on small agencies, and the importance of preserving the fiscal safeguards established through PEPRA.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with transmitting the proposed letter, other than nominal staff time. If AB 1383 is signed into law, the City could experience increased retirement costs in the future. The extent and timing of any potential fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Reaffirm its opposition to Assembly Bill 1383 (McKinnor); and

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit a letter requesting that Governor Gavin Newsom veto Assembly Bill 1383.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - 20260909_DRAFT LETTER AB 1383 (McKinnor) – REQUEST FOR VETO

2. Attachment B - CC_COR_260731_AB1383_Opposition Letter_F_E

3. Attachment C - AB 1383 McKinnor_Sample Letters

City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
September 14, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1383 (McKinnor) – Public Employees’ Retirement Benefits – REQUEST FOR VETO Dear Governor Newsom:

On behalf of the City of Rolling Hills, I respectfully request that you veto Assembly Bill 1383 (McKinnor), which would make significant changes to public employee retirement benefits and reverse important provisions of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013.

The City Council previously opposed AB 1383 because of its potential to increase pension costs and long-term liabilities for public agencies.

Although the measure has been presented as a tool to assist with the recruitment and retention of public safety employees, certain costly provisions—including an increase to the pensionable compensation cap—would apply more broadly to PEPRA employees. Rolling Hills is a small residential city with an annual budget of approximately $3 million, no commercial tax base, and a staff of seven employees.

The City must carefully manage its limited resources while maintaining essential municipal services and meeting its existing pension obligations. State-mandated benefit expansions that increase employer costs can have a disproportionate effect on small agencies such as ours.

PEPRA established important safeguards intended to improve the sustainability of California’s public retirement systems and protect taxpayers from escalating pension liabilities. Those reforms should not be substantially weakened without a comprehensive evaluation of the longterm costs and a reliable funding mechanism.

REQUEST FOR VETO - AB 1383 (McKinnor) – Public Employees’ Retirement Benefits

-2-
For these reasons, the City of Rolling Hills respectfully requests that you veto AB 1383.

Sincerely,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
City of Rolling Hills
cc:

City of Rolling Hills City Council
The Honorable Tina McKinnor, California State Assembly
The Honorable Ben Allen, California State Senate
The Honorable Al Muratsuchi, California State Assembly
Jeff Kiernan, Regional Public Affairs Manager, LA County Division, League of California Cities

City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
July 31, 2026
The Honorable Sabrina Cervantes
Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Suite 412
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: LETTER OF OPPOSITION FOR AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’ retirement benefits. (As Amended July 1, 2026)
Dear Chair Cervantes,
On behalf of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, I am writing to express our strong opposition to Assembly Bill 1383. As further explained below, this bill would present a “Hobson’s choice” for our city, requiring us to choose between adherence to this law and the fulfillment of our obligations to serve the needs of our residents.

AB 1383 would undermine the fiscal reforms established by the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) and shift significant long-term financial burdens onto local governments.

While the City of Rolling Hills values and supports its employees, this legislation would impose costs that our small city cannot absorb without sacrificing the essential services upon which our residents depend.

Rolling Hills is one of California's smallest cities, operating with a staff of only seven employees.

Unlike many municipalities, we have no commercial or industrial tax base to generate additional revenue. Our General Fund relies primarily on property tax revenue, leaving us with limited financial flexibility to absorb new, ongoing pension obligations imposed by the State. With an annual operating budget of approximately $3 million, the City of Rolling Hills does not have the financial capacity to absorb additional pension obligations, such as those imposed by this bill, without adversely affecting our city’s ability to provide the public services that our residents need.

The City is already managing substantial CalPERS unfunded accrued liability payments that continue to increase each year. Those obligations consume a growing portion of our budget and reduce the resources available to provide core municipal services. AB 1383 would further exacerbate this challenge by increasing future pension costs and eroding the fiscal certainty that PEPRA was designed to provide.

For a city our size, there is no ability to simply "absorb" these costs. Every increase in city retirement costs comes at the expense of the services that our residents require, expect and

Office of the Mayor

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3004 | 949 644-3039 FAX
newportbeachca.gov
Mayor
Lauren Kleiman
Mayor Pro Tem
Noah Blom
Council Members
Michelle Barto
Robyn Grant
Joe Stapleton
Sara J. Weber
Erik Kenneth Weigand
September 2, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public Employees' Retirement Benefits:

Safety Members
Request for Veto – City of Newport Beach
Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of the City of Newport Beach, we respectfully urge you to veto AB 1383 (McKinnor), which would make significant changes to public employees' retirement benefits and substantially increase pension liabilities for state and local governments.

The Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) was enacted to address longstanding challenges facing public pension systems and has played an important role in helping local governments manage their long-term pension obligations. AB 1383 would roll back key elements of these reforms and undermine the progress California has made since 2013 toward greater fiscal sustainability.

The City's concerns are reinforced by the Department of Finance's fiscal analysis, which concludes that AB 1383 would significantly increase pension costs for public agencies. According to the analysis, even without considering the bill's proposed fourth-tier retirement formula, CalPERS estimates the bill would increase the present value of future benefits by $4.8 billion, increase annual normal-cost contributions by $282 million, and increase accrued liability by $233 million across the CalPERS system. If the fourth-tier formula is implemented, it would add another $353 million in annual normal-cost contributions and $3.4 billion in present value of future benefits.

These costs would not be limited to the state. They would also affect local governments that participate in CalPERS and county retirement systems. The Department of Finance notes that a single medium-sized county could see more than $700 million in additional present value of

Office of the Mayor
RE: AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public Employees'
Retirement Benefits: Safety Members
Request for Veto – City of Newport Beach
September 2, 2026

benefits over 30 years, or approximately $20 million in additional employer contributions each year. Several counties have indicated that they would be unable to absorb the additional costs if AB 1383 is enacted.

The City recognizes and appreciates the intent of AB 1383 to support the recruitment and retention of public safety professionals. However, increasing pension benefits without providing a corresponding funding source would place significant additional financial pressure on cities and other public agencies. Local governments are already facing rising service demands, increasing operational costs, and financial uncertainty. Adding new long-term pension obligations would further limit their ability to maintain essential services and respond to changing community needs.

The fiscal concerns are particularly significant because pension obligations are long-term commitments. The Department of Finance notes that pension benefits are difficult to reduce once accrued, meaning that if costs are underestimated, the financial burden is ultimately borne by employers, employees, service recipients, and taxpayers. Finance also warns that the bill's increased accrued liability could expose retirement plans to greater investment risk and contribution-rate volatility, particularly if investment returns fall below expectations or members retire earlier than anticipated.

For Newport Beach, every additional dollar directed toward pension obligations is a dollar that cannot be used for other important community priorities. Increased retirement costs could affect public safety staffing, transportation, parks, housing initiatives, infrastructure, and other essential services. Over time, these costs could force cities to make difficult budget decisions and reduce their flexibility to address the needs of their communities.

AB 1383 also represents an unfunded mandate on local governments.

Cities would be responsible for absorbing the increased costs associated with the bill without corresponding state funding to offset those expenses. While providing competitive benefits to public safety employees is important, those benefits must be balanced with the responsibility to maintain the long-term fiscal health of the public agencies that employ them.

The Department of Finance has also raised concerns that AB 1383 could create equity issues between safety and non-safety employees and could lead to additional demands for benefit enhancements from other employee classifications. Finance further notes that the increased compensation cap and normal costs could result in lowerPage 144 of 238 Office of the Mayor
RE: AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public Employees'
Retirement Benefits: Safety Members
Request for Veto – City of Newport Beach
September 2, 2026

compensated employees within the same bargaining unit effectively subsidizing enhanced benefits accruing to higher-compensated employees.

California's local governments need predictable and sustainable finances to continue providing the services their residents depend on.

Increasing pension obligations without a dedicated funding source places that stability at risk and ultimately leaves local taxpayers responsible for costs imposed by the state. Sustainable pension policy should ensure that benefits remain fair and competitive while also protecting the financial health of public agencies and their communities.

For these reasons, and consistent with the City's longstanding interest in protecting predictable and sustainable local government finances, the City of Newport Beach respectfully requests that you veto AB 1383.

We appreciate your consideration of the City's concerns and your commitment to protecting the long-term fiscal stability of California's cities and the essential services they provide.

Sincerely,
Lauren Kleiman
Mayor
City of Newport Beach
Cc: Newport Beach City Council

Item: 13.D.

Meeting Date: 9/14/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of Support for Assembly Bill 1546 (Schultz) Regarding Repeat Driving Under the Influence Offenses
Background:

Assembly Bill 1546 (AB 1546), authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, would strengthen criminal penalties for repeat driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenses (Attachment B). The California Contract Cities Association (CCCA), of which the City of Rolling Hills is a member, supports AB 1546 and has submitted a letter in support of the measure.

AB 1546 has passed both houses of the Legislature and was enrolled and presented to the Governor for consideration on September 4, 2026. The measure passed the Senate by a vote of 39–0 and the Assembly by a vote of 79–0.

Discussion:

Under existing law, a person convicted of a third DUI offense within 10 years is generally subject to imprisonment in county jail for a period of not less than 120 days and not more than one year, as well as a fine.

AB 1546 would authorize a third DUI offense within 10 years to be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If prosecuted as a felony, the offense would be punishable by imprisonment for 16 months, two years, or three years, in addition to a fine. The bill would also require a fifth or subsequent DUI offense within 10 years to be prosecuted as a felony.

The legislation establishes a graduated penalty structure that recognizes the increased public-safety risk presented by individuals who repeatedly drive under the influence. By allowing stronger consequences for repeat offenders, AB 1546 would provide prosecutors and courts with additional tools to hold dangerous drivers accountable and help deter continued violations.

Although the bill would not create a direct operational responsibility for the City because the City contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services, the measure is consistent with the City’s commitment to protecting residents and promoting roadway safety. Supporting AB 1546 would also align the City with CCCA’s advocacy on behalf of contract

cities and their public-safety priorities (Attachment C).

A draft letter urging the Governor to sign AB 1546 is included as Attachment A.

Fiscal Impact:

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Support Assembly Bill 1546 (Schultz); and

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter requesting that the Governor approve the bill.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - 20260914_Draft Letter Assembly Bill 1546 (Schultz) – REQUEST FOR

SIGNATURE

2. Attachment B - 20260914_California-2025-AB1546-Amended

3. Attachment C - CCA_Letter of Support

City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
September 14, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Assembly Bill 1546 (Schultz) – REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE Dear Governor Newsom:

The City of Rolling Hills respectfully writes to express its support for Assembly Bill 1546 and to urge you to sign this important public-safety measure into law. AB 1546 would strengthen criminal penalties for driving under the influence, particularly for repeat offenders who continue to place the public at risk.

Over the past decade, tens of thousands of Californians have lost their lives in roadway collisions, many involving impaired drivers. Repeat DUI offenders have already demonstrated a pattern of dangerous conduct, yet existing penalties do not always adequately reflect the escalating risk created by continued violations.

AB 1546 would establish a thoughtful, graduated penalty structure by allowing a third DUI offense within 10 years to be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony and requiring a fifth or subsequent DUI offense within 10 years to be prosecuted as a felony. These provisions would provide prosecutors and courts with stronger tools to hold the most dangerous repeat offenders accountable while recognizing the seriousness of repeated impaired-driving violations.

Although the City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services, the City remains directly committed to protecting its residents and supporting policies that improve roadway safety throughout California. AB 1546 advances these objectives by strengthening accountability, promoting deterrence, and helping prevent avoidable injuries and deaths.

The Legislature’s unanimous approval of AB 1546 reflects broad, bipartisan recognition that California must take meaningful action to address repeat impaired driving. We applaud Assemblymember Schultz for his leadership on this critical public-safety issue and join the California Contract Cities Association in supporting the measure.

REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE - Assembly Bill 1546 (Schultz)

-2-
For these reasons, the City of Rolling Hills respectfully requests that you sign AB 1546 into law.

Sincerely,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
City of Rolling Hills
cc:

City of Rolling Hills, City Council
The Honorable Nick Schultz, California State Assembly
Marcel Rodarte, Executive Director, California Contract Cities Association Jeff Kiernan, Regional Public Affairs Manager, LA County Division, League of California Cities

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1546
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 28, 2026
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Assembly Member Schultz
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Mark González and Wilson) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Alanis and Petrie-Norris)
January 05, 2026
An act to amend Sections 11836, 11837, 11837.1, and 11837.4 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Section 1861.025 of the Insurance Code, to amend Sections 191.5 and 1203.44 of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 13350, 13352, 14601.2, 14601.3, 23103.5, 23546, 23550, 23550.5, 23572, 23575.3, 23577, 23580, 23597, 23598, 23655, and 23665 of, and to add Sections 23550.1 and 23552.1 to, and 23572 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1546, as amended, Schultz. Vehicles: driving under the influence. 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 1/49

Under existing law, if a person is convicted of either driving under the influence (DUI) of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug or driving while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person’s blood within 10 years of 2 separate violations of specified DUI offenses, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person has committed an offense punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine, as specified.

This bill would, instead, make the above DUI conviction punishable as a wobbler by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine, as specified, or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years and a fine, as specified. By increasing the punishment of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Under existing law, if a person is convicted of DUI and the offense occurred within 10 years of 3 or more separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions, that person has committed an offense punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, and the person shall have their privilege to drive revoked for a period of 4 years, as specified. felony.

This bill would, instead, make the above DUI conviction punishable as a wobbler if the offense occurred within 10 years of 3 separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions, and punishable as a felony by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years and a fine, as specified, if the offense occurred within 10 years of 4 or more separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions. By increasing the punishment of a crime, this bill would impose a statemandated local program. The bill would revoke the person’s privilege to drive for a period of 4 years if the offense occurred within 10 years of 3 separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions, and for 5 years if the offense occurred within 10 years of 4 or more separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions.

Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires a person, upon a criminal conviction for driving under the influence with a prior conviction for DUI, to install a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) for a specified period of time. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of DUI within 10 years of 3 or more specified prior DUI violations, the person is required to install the IID for a mandatory term of 36 months.

This bill would require the person to install the IID for a mandatory term of 36 months if the conviction occurred within 10 years of 3 specified prior DUI violations. If the conviction occurred within 10 years of 4 or more specified prior DUI violations, the bill would require the person to install the IID for a mandatory term of 48 months.

This bill would make conforming changes.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 23546, 23550, and 23550.5 of the Vehicle Code proposed by AB 1830 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1830 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Digest Key
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes Bill Text
9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 2/49

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
11836.(a)The department shall have the sole authority to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke the license of a drivingunder-the-influence program. As used in this chapter, “program” means any firm, partnership, association, corporation, local governmental entity, agency, or place that has been initially recommended by the county board of supervisors, subject to any limitation imposed pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d), and that is subsequently licensed by the department to provide alcohol or drug recovery services in that county to any of the following:
(1)A person whose license to drive has been administratively suspended or revoked for, or who is convicted of, a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and admitted to a program pursuant to Section 13352, 13352.1, 23538, 23542, 23548, 23552, 23552.1, 23556, 23562, or 23568 of the Vehicle Code. (2)A person who is convicted of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, or of Section 655.4 of that code, and admitted to the program pursuant to Section 668 of that code.
(3)A person who has pled guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of a violation of Section 23103 of the Vehicle Code, under the conditions set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 23103.5 of the Vehicle Code, and who has been admitted to the program under subdivision (e) or (f) of Section 23103.5 of the Vehicle Code. (4)A person whose license has been suspended, revoked, or delayed due to a violation of Section 23140, and who has been admitted to a program under Article 2 (commencing with Section 23502) of Chapter 1 of Division

11.5 of the Vehicle Code.
(b)If a firm, partnership, corporation, association, local government entity, agency, or place has, or is applying for, more than one license, the department shall treat each licensed program, or each program seeking licensure, as belonging to a separate firm, partnership, corporation, association, local government entity, agency, or place for the purposes of this chapter.
(c)For purposes of providing recommendations to the department pursuant to subdivision (a), a county board of supervisors may limit its recommendations to those programs that provide services for persons convicted of a first driving-under-the-influence offense, or services to those persons convicted of a second or subsequent driving-under-the-influence offense, or both services. If a county board of supervisors fails to provide recommendations, the department shall determine the program or programs to be licensed in that county. (d)After determining a need, a county board of supervisors may also place one or more limitations on the services to be provided by a driving-under-the-influence program or the area the program may operate within the county, when it initially recommends a program to the department pursuant to subdivision (a). (1)For purposes of this subdivision, a board of supervisors may restrict a program for those convicted of a first driving-under-the-influence offense to providing only a three-month program, or may restrict a program to those convicted of a second or subsequent driving-under-the-influence offense to providing only an 18-month program, as a condition of its recommendation.
(2)A board of supervisors may not place restrictions on a program that would violate a statute or regulation. (3)When recommending a program, if a board of supervisors fails to place any limitation on a program pursuant to this subdivision, the department may license that program to provide any driving-under-the-influence program services that are allowed by law within that county.
9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 3/49

(4)This subdivision is intended to apply only to the initial recommendation to the department for licensure of a program by the county. It is not intended to affect a license that has been previously issued by the department or the renewal of a license for a driving-under-the-influence program. In counties where a contract or other written agreement is currently in effect between the county and a licensed driving-under-the-influence program operating in that county, this subdivision is not intended to alter the terms of that relationship or the renewal of that relationship.
(e)(1)Notwithstanding Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and Section 11835, the department, without taking any further regulatory action, shall implement, interpret, or make specific this section for the purpose of alcohol or drug recovery services provided in virtual settings by means of all-county letters, plan letters, information notices, or similar instructions, until regulations are promulgated or amended in accordance with paragraph (2). (2)On or before January 1, 2026, the department shall promulgate regulations, in accordance with Section 11835, governing the provision of alcohol or drug recovery services pursuant to this section in virtual settings.

SEC. 2.Section 11837 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
11837.(a)Pursuant to the provisions of law relating to suspension of a person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction for driving while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and any drug, as set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 of the Vehicle Code, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall restrict the driving privilege pursuant to Section 13352.5 of the Vehicle Code, if the person convicted of that offense participates for at least 18 months in a driving-under-the-influence program that is licensed pursuant to this chapter. (b)In determining whether to refer a person, who is ordered to participate in a program pursuant to Section 668 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, in a licensed alcohol and other drug education and counseling services program pursuant to Section 23538 of the Vehicle Code, or, pursuant to Section 23542, 23548, 23552, 23552.1, 23556, 23562, or 23568 of the Vehicle Code, in a licensed 18-month or 30-month program, the court may consider any relevant information about the person made available pursuant to a presentence investigation, that is permitted but not required under Section 23655 of the Vehicle Code, or other screening procedure. That information shall not be furnished, however, by any person who also provides services in a privately operated, licensed program or who has any direct interest in a privately operated, licensed program. In addition, the court shall obtain from the Department of Motor Vehicles a copy of the person’s driving record to determine whether the person is eligible to participate in a licensed 18-month or 30-month program pursuant to this chapter. When preparing a presentence report for the court, the probation department may consider the suitability of placing the defendant in a treatment program that includes the administration of nonscheduled nonaddicting medications to ameliorate an alcohol or controlled substance problem. If the probation department recommends that this type of program is a suitable option for the defendant, the defendant who would like the court to consider this option shall obtain from the defendant’s physician a prescription for the medication, and a finding that the treatment is medically suitable for the defendant, prior to consideration of this alternative by the court. (c)(1)The court shall, as a condition of probation pursuant to Section 23538 or 23556 of the Vehicle Code, refer a first offender whose concentration of alcohol in their blood was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate for at least three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in this chapter.
(2)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in granting probation to a first offender described in this subdivision whose concentration of alcohol in the person’s blood was 0.20 percent or more, by weight, or the person refused to take a chemical test, the court shall order the person to participate, for at least nine months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in this chapter. (d)(1)The State Department of Health Care Services may specify in regulations the activities required to be 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 4/49

provided in the treatment of participants receiving nine months of licensed program services under Section 23538 or 23556 of the Vehicle Code.
(2)Any program licensed pursuant to this chapter may provide treatment services to participants receiving at least six months of licensed program services under Section 23538 or 23556 of the Vehicle Code. (e)The court may, subject to Section 11837.2, and as a condition of probation, refer a person to a licensed program, even though the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle is restricted, suspended, or revoked. An 18-month program described in Section 23542 or 23562 of the Vehicle Code or a 30-month program described in Section 23548, 23552, 23552.1, or 23568 of the Vehicle Code may include treatment of family members and significant other persons related to the convicted person with the consent of those family members and others as described in this chapter, if there is no increase in the costs of the program to the convicted person. (f)The clerk of the court shall indicate the duration of the program in which the judge has ordered the person to participate in the abstract of the record of the court that is forwarded to the department.

SEC. 3.Section 11837.1 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
11837.1.(a)In utilizing any program described in Section 11837, the court may require periodic reports concerning the performance of each person referred to and participating in a program. The program shall provide the court, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the person participating in a program with an immediate report of any failure of the person to comply with the program’s rules and policies. (b)If, at any time after entry into or while participating in a program, a participant who is referred to an 18- month program described in Section 23542 of the Vehicle Code or a 30-month program described in Section 23548, 23552, 23552.1, or 23568 of the Vehicle Code, fails to comply with the rules and policies of the program, and that fact is reported, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall suspend the privilege of that person to operate a motor vehicle for the period prescribed by law in accordance with Section 13352.5 of the Vehicle Code, except as otherwise provided in this section. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall notify the person of its action. (c)If the department withdraws the license of a program, the department shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of those persons who do not commence participation in a licensed program within 21 days from the date of the withdrawal of the license of the program in which the persons were previously participating.

The Department of Motor Vehicles shall suspend or revoke, for the period prescribed by law, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle of each of those persons referred to an 18-month program pursuant to Section 23542 or 23562 of the Vehicle Code or to a 30-month program pursuant to Section 23548, 23552, 23552.1, or 23568 of the Vehicle Code.

SEC. 4.Section 11837.4 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
11837.4.(a)No program, regardless of how it is funded, may be licensed unless all of the requirements of this chapter and of the regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter have been met. (b)Each licensed program shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1)For the alcohol or drug education and counseling services programs specified in subdivision (b) of Section 11837, each program shall provide for close and regular face-to-face interviews. For the 18-month programs specified in subdivision (a) of Section 11837, each program shall provide for close and regular supervision of the person, including face-to-face interviews at least once every other calendar week, regarding the person’s progress in the program for the first 12 months of the program and shall provide only community reentry supervision during the final six months of the program. In the last six months of the 18-month program, the provider shall monitor the participant’s community reentry activity with self-help groups, employment, family, and other areas of self-improvement. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the provider’s monitoring services are limited to not more than six hours. For the 30-month programs specified in subdivision (b) of Section 23548, subdivision (b) of Section 23552, subdivision (b) of Section 23552.1, and subdivision (b) of Section 23568 of the Vehicle Code, each program shall provide for close and regular supervision of the person, including regular, 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 5/49

scheduled face-to-face interviews over the course of 30 months regarding the person’s progress in the program and recovery from problem drinking, alcoholism, chemical dependency, or polydrug abuse, as prescribed by regulations of the department. The interviews in any of those programs shall be conducted individually with each person being supervised and shall occur at times other than when the person is participating in any group or other activities of the program. No program activity in which the person is participating shall be interrupted in order to conduct the individual interviews.
(2)(A)The department shall approve all fee schedules for the programs and shall require that each program be self-supporting from the participants’ fees and that each program provide for the payment of the costs of the program by participants at times and in amounts commensurate with their ability to pay in order to enable these persons to participate. Each program shall make provisions for persons who can successfully document current inability to pay the fees. Only the department may establish the criteria and procedures for determining a participant’s ability to pay. The department shall ensure that the fees are set at amounts that will enable programs to provide adequately for the immediate and long-term continuation of services required pursuant to this chapter.

The fees shall be used only for the purposes set forth in this chapter, except that any profit or surplus that does not exceed the maximum level established by the department may be utilized for any purposes allowable under any other provisions of law. In its regulations, the department shall define, for the purposes of this paragraph, taking into account prudent accounting, management, and business practices and procedures, the terms “profits” and “surplus.” The department shall fairly construe these provisions so as not to jeopardize fiscal integrity of the programs. The department may not license any program if the department finds that any element of the administration of the program does not assure the fiscal integrity of the program. (B)Each program licensed by the department under this section may request an increase in the fees. The request for an increase shall initially be sent to the county alcohol and drug program administrator. The county alcohol and drug program administrator shall, within 30 days of receiving the request, forward it to the department with the administrator’s recommendation that the fee increase be approved or disapproved. (C)The administrator’s recommendation shall, among other things, take into account the rationale that the program has provided to the administrator for the increase and whether that increase would exceed the profit or surplus limit established by the department.
(D)If the county alcohol and drug program administrator fails to forward the request to the department within the 30 days, the program may send the request directly to the department. In this instance, the department may act without the administrator’s recommendation.
(E)The department shall, within 30 days of receiving the request pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (D) approve or disapprove the request. In making its decision, the department shall consider the matters described in subparagraph (C).
(3)The licensed programs described in paragraph (1) shall include a variety of treatment services for problem drinkers, alcoholics, chemical dependents, and polydrug abusers or shall have the capability of referring the persons to, and regularly and closely supervising the persons while in, any appropriate medical, hospital, or licensed residential treatment services or self-help groups for their problem drinking, alcoholism, chemical dependency, or polydrug abuse problem. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1), the department shall prescribe in its regulations what other services the program shall provide, at a minimum, in the treatment of participants, which services may include lectures, classes, group discussions, group counseling, or individual counseling in addition to the interviews required by paragraph (1), or any combination thereof. However, any group discussion or counseling activity, other than classes or lectures, shall be regularly scheduled to consist of not more than 15 persons, except that they may, on an emergency basis, exceed 15, but not more than 17, persons, at any one meeting. At no time shall there be more than 17 persons in attendance at any one meeting.

For the 30-month programs specified in subdivision (b) of Section 23548, subdivision (b) of Section 23552, subdivision (b) of Section 23552.1, and subdivision (b) of Section 23568 of the Vehicle Code, each licensed program shall include a method by which each participant shall maintain a compendium of probative evidence, as prescribed in the regulations of the department, on a trimonthly basis demonstrating a performance of voluntary community service by the participant, including, but not limited to, the prevention of drinking and 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 6/49

driving, the promotion of safe driving, and responsible attitudes toward the use of chemicals of any kind, for not less than 120 hours and not more than 300 hours, as determined by the court, with one-half of that time to be served during the initial 18 months of program participation and one-half of that time to be served in the final 12 months. In determining whether or not the participant has met the objectives of the program, the compendium of evidence shall also include, and the court shall consider, the participant’s demonstration of significant improvement in any of the following areas of personal achievement:
(A)Significant improvement in occupational performance, including efforts to obtain gainful employment. (B)Significant improvement in physical and mental health. (C)Significant improvement in family relations, including financial obligations. (D)Significant improvement in financial affairs and economic stability.

The compendium of evidence shall be maintained by the participant for review by the program, court, probation officer, or other appropriate governmental agency. The program officials, unless prohibited by the referring court, shall make provisions for a participant to voluntarily enter, using the participant’s own resources, a licensed chemical dependency recovery hospital or residential treatment program which has a valid license issued by the State of California to provide alcohol or drug services, and to receive three weeks of program participation credit for each week of that treatment, not to exceed 12 weeks of program participation credit, but only if the treatment is at least two weeks in duration. The program shall document probative evidence of this hospital or residential care treatment in the participant’s program file. (4)In order to assure program effectiveness, the department shall require, whenever appropriate, that the licensed program provides services to ethnic minorities, women, youth, or any other group that has particular needs relating to the program.
(5)The goal of each program shall be to assist persons participating in the program to recognize their chemical dependency and to assist them in their recovery.
(6)Each program shall establish a method by which the court, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the person are notified in a timely manner of the person’s failure to comply with the program’s rules and regulations. (c)No program may be licensed unless the county complies with the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 11812. The provider of a program that offers an alcohol or drug education and counseling services program, an 18-month program, or a 30-month program or any or all of those programs described in this section shall be required to obtain only one license. The department’s regulations shall specify the requirements for the establishment of each program. The license issued by the department shall identify the program or programs licensed to operate.
(d)(1)Departmental approval for the establishment of a 30-month program by a licensed 18-month program is contingent upon approval by the county alcohol and drug program administrator, based upon confirmation that the program applicant is capable of providing the service and that the fiscal integrity of the program applicant will not be jeopardized by the operation of the program. (2)The court shall refer a person to a 30-month treatment program only if a 30-month program exists or is provided for in the jurisdiction of the court.
(e)A county or program shall not prescribe additional program requirements unless the requirements are specifically approved by the department.
(f)The department may license a program on a provisional basis.

SEC. 5.SECTION 1. Section 1861.025 of the Insurance Code is amended to read:
9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 7/49

1861.025. A person is qualified to purchase a Good Driver Discount policy if the person meets all of the following criteria:
(a) The person has been licensed to drive a motor vehicle for the previous three years. (b) During the previous three years, the person has not done any of the following:
(1) Had more than one violation point count determined as provided by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), or (j) of, or paragraph (1) of subdivision (i) of, Section 12810 of the Vehicle Code, but subject to the following modifications:
(A) For the purposes of this section, the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident for which the driver was principally at fault that resulted only in damage to property shall receive one violation point count, in addition to any other violation points that may be imposed for this accident. (B) If, under Section 488 or 488.5, an insurer is prohibited from increasing the premium on a policy on account of a violation, that violation shall not be included in determining the point count of the person. (C) If a violation is required to be reported under Section 1816 of the Vehicle Code, or under Section 784 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or any other provision requiring the reporting of a violation by a minor, the violation shall be included for the purposes of this section in determining the point count in the same manner as is applicable to adult violations.
(2) Had more than one dismissal pursuant to Section 1803.5 of the Vehicle Code that was not made confidential pursuant to Section 1808.7 of the Vehicle Code, in the 36-month period for violations that would have resulted in the imposition of more than one violation point count under paragraph (1) if the complaint had not been dismissed.
(3) Was the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident that resulted in bodily injury or in the death of any person and was principally at fault. The commissioner shall adopt regulations setting guidelines to be used by insurers for the determination of fault for the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (1). (c) During the period commencing on January 1, 1999, or the date 10 years prior to the date of application for the issuance or renewal of the Good Driver Discount policy, whichever is later, and ending on the date of the application for the issuance or renewal of the Good Driver Discount policy, the person has not been convicted of a violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, a felony violation of Section 23546, 23550, 23550.1, or 23566, or former Section 23175 or, as those sections read on January 1, 1999, of the Vehicle Code, or a violation of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code. (d) Any person who claims that the person meets the criteria of subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) based entirely or partially on a driver’s license and driving experience acquired anywhere other than in the United States or Canada is rebuttably presumed to be qualified to purchase a Good Driver Discount policy if the person has been licensed to drive in the United States or Canada for at least the previous 18 months and meets the criteria of subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) for that period.

SEC. 6.Section 191.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
191.5.(a)Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence. (b)Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 8/49

amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence. (c)(1)Except as provided in subdivision (d), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 4, 6, or 10 years. (2)Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of subdivision (b) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months or two or four years.
(d)A person convicted of violating subdivision (a) who has one or more prior convictions of this section or of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 192.5 of this code, or of violating Section 23152 punishable under Sections 23540, 23542, 23546, 23548, 23550, 23550.1, 23552, or 23552.1 of, or convicted of Section 23153 of, the Vehicle Code, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall apply to reduce the term imposed pursuant to this subdivision. (e)Notwithstanding Section 1203.1 or 1203a, if a person is convicted of a violation of this section and is granted probation, the period of probation shall be not less than three nor more than five years. (f)This section shall not be construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon facts showing malice consistent with the holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290.
(g)This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle or the operation of a vessel punishable which is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner. (h)For the penalties in subdivision (d) to apply, the existence of any fact required under subdivision (d) shall be alleged in the information or indictment and either admitted by the defendant in open court or found to be true by the trier of fact.

SEC. 7.Section 1203.44 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
1203.44.(a)The Counties of Sacramento and Yolo may offer a voluntary secured residential treatment pilot program, known as “Hope California,” consistent with this section for individuals suffering from substance use disorders (SUDs) who have been convicted of drug-motivated felony crimes that qualify pursuant to the criteria and conditions described in subdivisions (b) and (c). If offered, the pilot programs shall align with the resolutions adopted by the counties in recognition of the goal of ensuring that people with behavioral health conditions receive treatment out of custody wherever possible. The counties may offer the pilot program to eligible individuals if the program meets all of the following conditions:
(1)The program facility is licensed by the State Department of Health Care Services as an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 11834.01) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)(A)The program facility is a clinical setting managed and staffed by the county’s health and human services agency (HHSA) with oversight provided by the county’s probation department. (B)The program facility shall not be a jail, prison, or other correctional setting. (C)The program facility shall be secured but shall not include a lockdown setting. (3)The individual, upon a judge pronouncing a sentence to be served in a county jail or state prison, shall choose and consent to participate in the voluntary program in lieu of incarceration. 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 9/49

(4)The program is limited to one facility site per county. (5)The State Department of Health Care Services monitors the program facility to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of program participants.
(6)The State Department of Health Care Services has authority to access the program facility to investigate complaints by program participants and to ensure the facility complies with applicable statutes and regulations.
(7)The program facility ensures that participants have visitation rights, including through the use of a telephone.
(8)The county develops and staffs the program in partnership with relevant community-based organizations and drug treatment service providers to provide support services, including, but not limited to, employment skill assessments, money management, technology education, tutoring, career planning, developing resumes and cover letters, and searching and applying for employment. (9)HHSA ensures that a risk, needs, and biopsychosocial assessment, utilizing the Multidimensional Assessment of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), as part of the ASAM Criteria, be performed for each individual identified as a candidate for the program. (10)The participant’s treatment, in terms of length and intensity, within the program is based on the findings of the risk, needs, and biopsychosocial assessment and the recommendations of treatment providers that may include an addiction medicine physician.
(11)The program adopts the Treatment Criteria of ASAM. The program may take into consideration evolving best practices in the SUD treatment community.
(12)The program has a comprehensive written curriculum that informs the operations of the program and outlines the treatment and intervention modalities.
(13)The program provides an individualized, medically assisted treatment plan for each resident, including, but not limited to, medically assisted treatment options and counseling based on the recommendations of a substance use disorder specialist, which may include a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy specializing in addiction medicine.
(14)A judge determines the length of the treatment program after being informed by, and based on, the risk, needs, and biopsychosocial assessment and recommendations of treatment providers. After leaving the secured residential treatment facility, the participant continues outpatient treatment for a period of time and may also be referred to a “step-down” residential treatment facility, subject to the time limit described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c).
(15)A judge shall also determine that the program will be carried out in lieu of a jail or prison sentence after making a finding that the defendant’s decision to choose the alternative treatment program is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
(16)The program provides, for each participant successfully leaving the program, a comprehensive continuum of care plan that includes recommendations for outpatient care, counseling, housing recommendations, and other vital components of successful recovery.
(17)To the extent permitted under federal and state law, treatment provided to a participant during the program is reimbursable under the Medi-Cal program, if the participant is a Medi-Cal beneficiary and the treatment is a covered benefit under the Medi-Cal program. If treatment services provided to a participant during the program are not reimbursable under the Medi-Cal program or through the participant’s personal health care coverage, funds allocated to the state from the 2021 Multistate Opioid Settlement Agreement, subject to an 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 10/49

appropriation by the Legislature, may be used to reimburse those treatment services to the extent consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Judgment (People v. McKinsey & Co. (Alameda County Superior Court, No. RG21087649, Feb. 4, 2021)).
(18)(A)An outcomes assessment of the secured residential treatment pilot program is completed by an independent evaluator and submitted to the Assembly Committee on Health, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, the Senate Committee on Health, the Senate Committee on Public Safety, and the Legislature by October 1, 2028.
(B)The outcomes assessment shall include pilot program data, including overall data and data by county, and shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(i)A summary of the pertinent data collected under paragraphs (19) and (20) over the course of the pilot program.
(ii)The clinical efficacy of the secured residential treatment pilot program based on the data collected under paragraphs (19) and (20).
(iii)The effects of the secured residential treatment pilot program on participant recidivism and sustainable recovery.
(iv)A recommendation for the continuation and expansion of the secured residential treatment pilot project model beyond the pilot program.
(C)The outcomes assessment shall not be performed or managed by the State Department of Health Care Services but may be performed by a postsecondary institution. (D)The independent evaluator may be provided with criminal offender record information, if necessary for the completion of the outcomes assessment, as provided in Section 13202. (19)The county collects and monitors all of the following data for participants in the program:
(A)The participant’s demographic information, including age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, familial status, and employment status.
(B)The participant’s criminal history.
(C)The participant’s risk level, as determined by the risk, needs, and biopsychosocial assessment. (D)The treatment provided to the participant during the program, and if the participant completed that treatment.
(E)The participant’s outcome at the time of program completion, six months after completion, and one year after completion, including subsequent arrests and convictions. (20)The county reports all of the following information annually to the State Department of Health Care Services and, in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, to the Legislature, excluding any personally identifiable information of participants:
(A)The risk, needs, and biopsychosocial assessment tool used for the program. (B)The curriculum used by each program.
9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 11/49

(C)The number of participants with a program length other than one year and the alternative program lengths used.
(D)Individual data on the number of participants participating in the program. (E)Individual data for the items described in paragraph (19). (F)A one- and three-year evaluation of the number of subsequent arrests and convictions of the participants.
(b)(1)Eligible drug-motivated crimes shall include any felony crime other than the following:
(A)Sex crimes listed in subdivision (c) of Section 290. (B)A “serious felony” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 or in Section 1192.8. (C)A “violent felony” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5. (D)“Domestic violence” as defined in the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code).
(E)Driving under the influence in violation of Section 191.5 of this code or Section 23152, 23153, 23550, 23550.1, or 23550.5 of the Vehicle Code.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a “nonviolent drug possession offense” specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1210 may not be diverted pursuant to this program. (c)(1)At the time of sentencing or pronouncement of judgment in which sentencing is imposed, the judge shall offer the defendant voluntary participation in the pilot program, as an alternative to a jail or prison sentence that the judge would otherwise impose, consistent with the other provisions of this section and if all of the following conditions are met:
(A)The defendant’s crime was caused in whole or in part by the defendant’s SUD. (B)The defendant’s crime meets the criteria described in subdivision (b). (C)The judge makes their determination based on the recommendations of the treatment providers who conducted the assessment, on a finding by HHSA that the defendant’s participation in the program would be appropriate, and on the report described in subdivision (d). (2)The amount of time in the secured residential treatment facility shall be determined by the recommendations of the treatment providers who conducted the assessment. The amount of time, combined with any outpatient treatment or “step-down” residential treatment pursuant to the program, shall not exceed the term of imprisonment to which the defendant would otherwise be sentenced, not including any additional term of imprisonment for enhancements, for the drug-motivated crime. The court shall not place the defendant on probation for the underlying offense. The defendant shall be eligible to receive credits pursuant to Section 4019.
(3)During the period that an individual is participating in the pilot program, the individual shall be on supervision with the probation department.
(d)To assist the court in making the determination as to whether to offer the defendant placement in the secured residential treatment program pursuant to subdivision (c), a report shall be prepared with input from any of the interested parties, including the district attorney, the attorney for the participant, the probation department, HHSA, and any contracted drug treatment program provider. 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 12/49

(e)If, at any time during the individual’s participation in the program, it is determined by the treatment providers or program administrators that continued participation in the program would not be in the best interests of the individual, other participants, or the program itself, the treatment providers or program administrators may recommend to the court that the individual’s participation be terminated and that the individual be transferred out of the secured residential treatment program.
(f)If the court, based on the recommendations of the treatment providers or program administrators, determines that the participant should be transferred out of the secured residential treatment phase of the program prior to the end of the original order, the court shall make that subsequent order, and the participant shall complete the remainder of the original sentence imposed prior to their consent to enter the program. (g)If, at any time during the individual’s participation in the program, the individual determines that they no longer wish to participate in the program, the individual may make a request to the court for termination of their participation and be transferred out of the secured residential treatment program to complete the remainder of their originally imposed sentence after accounting for any credits to which the individual is entitled pursuant to Section 4019.
(h)If the treatment providers make a recommendation to the court that the participant should be released prior to the end of the original order based on the treatment providers’ assessment that the participant no longer needs to be in the secured residential treatment program, the court shall make that subsequent order, and paragraph (16) of subdivision (a) shall apply.
(i)If the participant successfully completes the court-ordered drug treatment pursuant to this program, the conviction shall be set aside, and the court shall dismiss the accusation or information against the participant.

The court shall also have discretion to set aside the conviction and to dismiss the accusation or information of any previous drug possession or drug use crimes on the participant’s record, including those offenses listed in Sections 11350, 11364, 11377, and 11550 of the Health and Safety Code. A participant’s successful completion of treatment shall be defined and determined by the treatment providers and not by the court, district attorney’s office, or probation department and does not require the participant to complete the duration of the treatment originally ordered by the court.
(j)The court shall ensure that the rights of any victim pursuant to Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution (Marsy’s Law) are honored before setting aside the conviction and dismissing the accusation or information.
(k)This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2029, and as of that date is repealed unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before July 1, 2029, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 8.Section 13350 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13350.(a)The department immediately shall revoke the privilege of a person to drive a motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of any of the following crimes or offenses:
(1)Failure of the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to a person to stop or otherwise comply with Section 20001.
(2)A felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used, except as provided in Section 13351, 13352, or 13357.
(3)Reckless driving causing bodily injury.
(b)If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23546, 23550, 23550.1, or 23550.5, or a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section 23550.5 or 23566, including a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code as provided in Section 193.7 of that code, the court shall, at the time of surrender of the driver’s license or temporary permit, require the defendant to sign an affidavit in a 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 13/49

form provided by the department acknowledging their understanding of the revocation required by paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, and an acknowledgment of their designation as a habitual traffic offender. A copy of this affidavit shall be transmitted, with the license or temporary permit, to the department within the prescribed 10 days.
(c)The department shall not reinstate the privilege revoked under subdivision (a) until the expiration of one year after the date of revocation and until the person whose privilege was revoked gives proof of financial responsibility as defined in Section 16430.

SEC. 9.Section 13352 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 689 of the Statutes of 2025, is amended to read:
13352.(a)The department shall immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, subdivision (a) of Section 23109, or Section 23109.1, or upon the receipt of a report of a judge of the juvenile court, a juvenile traffic hearing officer, or a referee of a juvenile court showing that the person has been found to have committed a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, subdivision (a) of Section 23109, or Section 23109.1. If an offense specified in this section occurs in a vehicle defined in Section 15210, the suspension or revocation specified in this subdivision applies also to the noncommercial driving privilege. The commercial driving privilege shall be disqualified as specified in Sections 15300 to 15302, inclusive. For the purposes of this section, suspension or revocation shall be as follows:
(1)(A)Except as provided in this subparagraph, or as required under Section 13352.1 or 13352.4, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23536, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of six months. The privilege shall not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a drivingunder-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538 of this code. If the court, as authorized under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person to enroll in, participate in, and complete either program described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department shall require that program in lieu of the program described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. Except when the court has ordered installation of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device pursuant to Section 23575.3, the department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)The underlying conviction was not only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation.
(ii)The person satisfactorily provides to the department, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, enrollment in, or completion of, a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538 of this code.
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 14/49

(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (i).
(v)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vi)The person pays all reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department. (vii)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restrictions described in this paragraph shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e).
(2)(A)Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section 23554, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of one year. The privilege shall not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23556 of this code. If the court, as authorized under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person to enroll in, participate in, and complete either program described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department shall require that program in lieu of the program described in Section 23556. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)The underlying conviction was not only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation.
(ii)The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the following:
(I)Proof of enrollment in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23556 of this code. (II)Proof of enrollment in a program described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542, if the court has ordered the person to enroll in, participate in, and complete either program described in that section, in which case the person shall not be required to provide the proof described in subclause (I).
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person complies with Section 23575.3.
(v)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (i).
(vi)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vii)The person pays all reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department. 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 15/49

(viii)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e). (3)(A)Except as provided in this paragraph or in Section 13352.5, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23540, the privilege shall be suspended for two years. The privilege shall not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542 of this code. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)Completion of 12 months of the suspension period if the underlying conviction was only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation. (ii)The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the following:
(I)Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment.
(II)Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment.
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person complies with Section 23575.3, if the underlying conviction involved the use of alcohol.
(v)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (i).
(vi)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vii)The person pays all reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department. (viii)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e). (4)(A)Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section 23560, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years. The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility, and the person gives proof satisfactory 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 16/49

to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23562 of this code. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)Completion of 12 months of the suspension period if the underlying conviction was only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation. (ii)The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the following:
(I)Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment.
(II)Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment.
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person complies with Section 23575.3, if the underlying conviction involved the use of alcohol.
(v)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (i).
(vi)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vii)The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department.
(viii)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e). (5)(A)Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23546, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years. The privilege shall not be reinstated until the person files proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 23548 of this code, if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment, or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 17/49

program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)Completion of 12 months of the suspension period if the underlying conviction was only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation. (ii)The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the following:
(I)Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment.
(II)Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment.
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person complies with Section 23575.3, if the underlying conviction involved the use of alcohol.
(v)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under Section 23575.3, if applicable.
(vi)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vii)An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23546 may also, at any time after sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the court shall order the referral.
(viii)The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department.
(ix)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e). (6)(A)Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section 23550.5 or 23566, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of five years. The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23568 of this code, or if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month driving-under-theinfluence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 18/49

in Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)Completion of 12 months of the suspension period if the underlying conviction was only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation. (ii)The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the following:
(I)Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment.
(II)Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment.
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person complies with Section 23575.3, if the underlying conviction involved alcohol. (v)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (i).
(vi)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vii)An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section 23566 may also, at any time after sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the court shall order the referral.
(viii)The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department.
(ix)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e). (7)(A)Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23550 or 23550.5, or of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section 23550.5, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of four years. The privilege shall not be reinstated until the person files proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 19/49

employment, or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month drivingunder-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)Completion of 12 months of the suspension period if the underlying conviction was only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation. (ii)The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the following:
(I)Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment.
(II)Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment.
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person complies with Section 23575.3, if the underlying conviction involved alcohol. (v)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (i).
(vi)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vii)An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23550 may also, at any time after sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the court shall order the referral.
(viii)The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department.
(ix)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e). (8)(A)Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23550.1, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of five years. The privilege shall not be reinstated until the person files proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 20/49

to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment, or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30- month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person that they may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s license if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(i)Completion of 12 months of the suspension period if the underlying conviction was only for the use of drugs, as defined in Section 312, at the time of the violation. (ii)The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the following:
(I)Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment.
(II)Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment.
(iii)The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation in the program described in clause (ii).
(iv)The person complies with Section 23575.3, if the underlying conviction involved alcohol. (v)The person does both of the following:
(I)Submits the “Verification of Installation” form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(II)Agrees to maintain the functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (i).
(vi)The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430. (vii)An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23550.1 may also, at any time after sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month driving-under-theinfluence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the court shall order the referral.
(viii)The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department.
(ix)The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of administering the requirements of this paragraph, as determined by the department. (B)The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required in subdivision (e). (9)(A)Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (e) of that section or Section 23109.1, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of 90 days to 9/10/26, 9:58 AM California-2025-AB1546-Amended
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1546/id/3457266/California-2025-AB1546-Amended.html 21/49