Guide to LA’s 6 City Charter Amendments on November Ballot | City-charter

LOS ANGELES — LA will be voting on changes to the city’s ‘constitution’ during November’s election, weighing in on amendments that would affect everything from the City’s budget cycle to how often the City Council meets.

Under the six proposed changes, Angelenos will get to weigh in on changes to recreation budgets, oversight of major agencies, and more.

Many amendments are grouped together to cover multiple changes in legislation. Angelenos cannot vote yes on changing the City’s budget cycle without also approving the City to run businesses, for example.

Here’s everything you need to know about the six proposed changes to LA’s governing policies.

Charter Amendment LA: Should the City change Public Works oversight and move to a two-year budget cycle?

Amendment LA would change how the city manages its budget, moving the city from a one-year budget cycle to a two-year one. It would also change some project oversight and planning requirements.

Currently, the City is not required to have a plan for reporting requirements and funding for construction or improvement projects. Amendment LA would require the City to make a Capital Infrastructure Plan, or a long-term plan outlining infrastructure funding. 

The City is currently required to go through a competitive bidding process, awarding contracts to businesses for the lowest cost possible. Amendment LA would allow the City to make an exception to this rule for infrastructure that is needed for public health and security. Software contracts would also be exempt from the bidding process. 

Measure LA also aims to give more oversight of Public Works to the City Council and the Director of Public Works. Currently, the Board of Public Works is overseen by the Director of Public Works. Amendment LA would increase the Director’s duties and authority, including allowing them to lease or purchase property, oversee contracts, grant street permits, and recommend budgets.

Currently, the City is prohibited from mortgaging City-owned property. The City is also prohibited from operating purely commercial or industrial businesses. Measure LA hopes to change this in order to let the city generate revenue from existing resources, such as making gift shops at city property, by allowing the City to engage in commercial or industrial businesses.

A no on Amendment LA means the City will stay in its current one-year budget cycle, and the City wouldn’t have to adopt a long-term infrastructure funding plan. Other rules that the Amendment seeks to modify would remain the same. 

Transitioning to the two-year budget cycle and establishing the Capital Infrastructure Plan would require an estimated $4 million to $6 million in one-time payments from the General Fund.

Argument in favor: Proponents of Measure LA say that a yes vote means City Hall is able to fix infrastructure faster and deliver basic services more efficiently. They say establishing a long-term infrastructure plan would help address maintenance needs, with the two-year budget cycle requiring City leaders to plan ahead more effectively.

Argument in opposition: The argument against Measure LA says the measure would eliminate independent oversight, giving City Council the authority to eliminate the Board of Public Works altogether. They say removing the direct oversight the Board of Public Works currently has would weaken accountability.

Charter Amendment SC: Should the City clarify campaign finance rules for Board of Education elections?

Amendment SC relates to campaign finance rules for the LA Board of Education. Currently, the LA Municipal Code outlines campaign finance rules for Mayor, which are similar to those for Board of Education candidates, but they are contained in different parts of the Charter and Municipal Code. Amendment SC would remove repetitive language and require Board of Education candidates to follow the same rules as candidates for Mayor.

A yes on Amendment SC means candidates for the Board of Education would have campaign contributions restricted at $1,000 for any individual office. Candidates would have time limits on contributions and spending for their campaigns, including windows for fundraising. Both candidates would see the same financial accountability requirements, including filing and public disclosure. 

Argument in favor: Supporters argue that Board of Education candidates should follow the same campaign finance rules as other elected officials. The argument says the rules governing these candidates are established in a separate section of the Charter, and Amendment SC would simplify campaign finance rules.

Argument in opposition: No argument was submitted in opposition. 

Charter Amendment PL: Should projects be automatically approved if council fails to schedule a vote, and should height restrictions depend on location?

Amendment PL would change oversight and appeals processes for local construction projects, as well as change height restrictions.

Currently, seven Area Planning Commissions, each with five members, weigh small local projects and appeals. Amendment PL seeks to replace those commissions with one, unified Neighborhood Appeals Commission (NAC) of seven members, aiming to reduce the time and resources needed.

A yes on Amendment PL also means amendments would automatically be approved instead of declined if the City Council doesn’t set up this vote in time.

Amendment PL would also change the Floor Area Restriction, or the calculation used to determine how high a building can reach. Currently, the restriction is set at 13 times the site’s buildable area.

A yes on Amendment PL would also mean City Council could change this maximum height, allowing denser development depending on an individual area’s ordinances. 

Amendment PL would give the new NAC the power to oversee and review appeals related to local construction projects and appeals.

The amendment would also create a 30-day limit for the City Planning Commission or NAC to agree or disagree with decisions made by the City Council in order to streamline decision-making processes as projects move between agencies. 

Currently, the City Council needs to schedule a vote on a proposed amendment to a plan within 75 days, or the amendment is automatically denied.

Annual administrative costs associated with Area Planning Commissions boards would be reduced from $1.1 million to $740,000. 

Argument in favor: Supporters argue that Measure PL would establish clearer rules and more consistent protocol for the city’s planning systems. They argue creating a NAC would make a more consistent citywide process for managing planning appeals, and giving more authority to  Planning Department staff would help create more oversight and streamline planning decisions.

Argument in opposition: No argument in opposition was submitted to the ballot. 

Charter Amendment PRK: Should the City double the budget for the Department of Recreation and Parks over ten years?

Amendment PRK would double the minimum budget for the Department of Recreation and Parks in gradual increases over the next ten years.

The City Charter sets the minimum budget for the Department of Recreation and Parks, drawing from the General Fund, the state’s account used to fund most public services with general tax revenue. Currently, the minimum budget is equal to 0.0325% of the value of taxable property in Los Angeles. 

Amendment PRK would gradually increase the Department’s budget to 0.065% of the City’s property tax revenue.

Increasing the budget wouldn’t create a new tax, but it would use a larger portion of existing General Fund revenue. The City would be allowed to suspend the budget increase during a fiscal emergency, like current years.

Argument in favor: Supporters say that Amendment PRK would help maintain and improve parks, waters, recreation centers, and senior centers. Funding has not increased since 1937, and direct funds have been reduced since 2009. The argument notes that the City’s parks assessment found LA’s park funds amount to two-thirds less than other comparable cities. 

Argument in opposition: No argument was submitted in opposition to the amendment. However, the City Administrative Officer recommended against it, arguing that without raising additional revenue, the amendment could add to the city’s budget deficit.

Charter Amendment EE: Should the City change accountability protocol and only require City Council to meet once a week?

Amendment EE would make an array of changes to citizen-led votes, penalties for campaign violations, oversight of the police and fire department, and the Ethics Commission.

On top of allowing the cCity Council to cut its schedule down to one meeting per week, Amendment EE would change some City Hall policies like raising penalties for financial misconduct and change, as well as some protocols for investigating wrongdoing and raising referendums. 

In an effort to impose harsher consequences on financial misconduct, Amendment EE would increase maximum penalties for campaign finance violations from $2,000 to $15,000, or three times the amount of improperly reported or used money.

It would also make it harder to get referendums, or citizen-led votes to overturn a law, on the ballot. Currently, a referendum needs support from 10% of the total votes cast in the last mayoral election, and Amendment EE would increase this number to 15%.

Amendment EE would also change the independent oversight of the City’s police and fire departments. Both the police and fire departments have either an Inspector General or an Independent Assessor, who is responsible for investigating misconduct and conducting investigations or audits. Amendment EE would make the Police Department Inspector General more independent by removing the Board of Police Commissioners’ ability to direct the Inspector General on whether or not to continue an investigation.

Similarly, a yes on Amendment EE means the Board of Fire Commissioners would be unable to direct the Fire Department Independent Assessor on whether or not to continue an investigation. 

Amendment EE would also change some rules surrounding the Ethics Commission, a seven-member board that enforces ethical rules and penalties in local governments across the City. Currently, commissioners, or members of the Ethics Commission, can’t participate in any City campaigns while serving, but they can immediately after their five-year term ends. Amendment EE would extend this restriction, barring commissioners from running for City Council or the Board of Education offices for five years after leaving their positions.

Argument in favor: Supporters argue that the measure would strengthen accountability and crack down on ineffective governance at City Hall. They say that stronger independent oversight is necessary for the City’s fire and police departments, and City Council being required to meet once a week would allow more time for them to work directly with constituents. 

Argument in opposition: Opponents say that the amendment’s main goal is to reduce the number of public meetings, limiting the public’s opportunities to give comments and oversee proceedings. The ballot argument says reducing the number of meetings would lead to less transparency, not more.

Charter Amendment PRT: Should the City make changes to airports, water and power, and harbor oversight?

Amendment PRT would make changes to the Los Angeles World Airports agency, the Department of Water and Power (DWP), and the Harbor Department.

Currently, the Harbor Department annually allocated 10% of its income to the Public Access Investment Plan, a program by the Port of Los Angeles that dedicates funds to community programs. Amendment PRT would mandate that the Harbor Department continues to allocate funds annually. 

A yes on Amendment PRT would also mean that two members of the Board of Airport Commissioners would be required to live in the area surrounding Van Nuys airport, and three would have to live in the area surrounding LAX. City Council would still need to establish exactly what qualifies as a surrounding area.

It would also mean the City Council could approve longer leases for the Airports agency and DWP, hoping to offer more long-term space for the agencies to generate revenue. This includes leases for terminals or commercial spaces for airports, and construction operations for DWP.

The maximum lease terms would change from 50 to 66 years. It would also require anyone seeking a lease or a lease extension to provide an assessment of employment and economic impacts associated with the project. 

Argument in favor: Supports say that the amendment would help make sure neighborhoods most affected by the airport’s operations have a say in local decisions. They say it makes sure the Harbor Department continues to allocate 10% of its income to help fund public areas like parks and waterfronts.

Argument in opposition: No argument was submitted in opposition, but the LA Area Chamber of Commerce opposes the measure. The Chamber argues that the additional requirements outlined in the measure could deter investment and wouldn’t help keep LA economically competitive, according to LAist.

You can read full voter information guides here and here. Learn more about where to cast your ballot here.