Election 2026 · City of Los Angeles
Charter Amendment LA: Budget, infrastructure and contracting changes
Charter Amendment LA would move the City from a one-year to a two-year budget, require a long-term plan for infrastructure, and let the City Council change or eliminate the Board of Public Works. It would also drop the Charter's ban on the City mortgaging its property or running businesses, and change some contracting rules.
Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: City Clerk's voter information pamphlet.
At a glance
| Charter Amendment LA | |
|---|---|
| Charter sections changed | 26 sections amended, 1 added (Sec. 323), 2 subsections of Sec. 104 repealed |
| Budget | One-year budget becomes two-year. Mayor's proposal due April 1 instead of April 20 |
| Board of Public Works | Council could change or eliminate it by ordinance (two-thirds vote). Director of Public Works gains powers |
| Cost | $4 million to $6 million one-time (City estimate). Other parts not estimated |
| Council vote to place it | 13-0 (Price, Rodriguez absent), June 30, 2026. Public Works items passed 9-6 on June 17 |
| Ballot arguments | For: Mejia, Yaroslavsky, Blumenfield and others. Against: Rodriguez |
| Money raised | No committee for or against reported, as of Sept. 30, 2026 |
| Latest public poll | None found |
What does a yes vote on Charter Amendment LA mean?
The Mayor would propose a two-year budget by April 1 and the Council would act by June 1. The City would have to adopt a capital infrastructure plan by ordinance. The Director of Public Works would take over some of the Board of Public Works' duties, and the Council could restructure or eliminate the Board by a two-thirds vote. The Charter bans on mortgaging City property and running businesses would end.
What does a no vote on Charter Amendment LA mean?
The City keeps its one-year budget, the Board of Public Works stays as it is, and the Charter's limits on mortgaging City property and running businesses stay in place.
What would Charter Amendment LA cost?
The City Administrative Officer estimates $4 million to $6 million in one-time General Fund costs for systems, training and consultants to set up the two-year budget and the infrastructure plan. The CAO says the effects of the contracting, mortgage and business changes cannot be estimated yet.
The details
| Official title | City Infrastructure, Budget, Finance, and Contracting |
|---|---|
| Type | Charter amendment placed on the ballot by the City Council |
| Votes needed to pass | Simple majority (more than 50% yes) |
| Council file | 26-1100-S11 |
The question on your ballot
Shall the City Charter be amended to: establish a capital infrastructure plan and two-year budget cycle for the City; increase the authority of the Director of Public Works and allow for the elimination of or changes to the Board of Public Works; remove restrictions prohibiting the City from engaging in business enterprises and mortgaging City-owned property; and change certain contracting rules and procedures?
What would change
| Today | If LA passes | |
|---|---|---|
| Budget cycle | One fiscal year at a time (impartial summary) | Two fiscal years at a time, unless an ordinance sets a different cycle. The Council still sets each year’s appropriation by resolution by June 1, subject to Mayoral veto (Sec. 310) |
| Mayor’s proposed budget | Due April 20 each year | Due April 1 before each budget cycle. The Council must act by June 1 (Secs. 312-313) |
| Capital infrastructure plan | Not required by the Charter. The Administrative Code requires a yearly capital spending program with the Mayor’s budget (CLA report, p. 45) | Required. An ordinance sets its governance, scope, timeframe, funding and reporting (new Sec. 323) |
| Board of Public Works | Full-time board sets policy for and manages the department (Sec. 581) | Keeps most duties, including approving contract awards, but the Council can change its makeup or powers, or abolish it, by an ordinance passed by two-thirds (three-fourths to override a veto). Its full-time requirement can be changed by ordinance (Sec. 581) |
| Director of Public Works | Has specific duties “instead of” the powers of other general managers | Has those general-manager powers “in addition to” new duties: eminent domain (with Council approval), buying and leasing property for projects, accepting finished projects, supporting citywide capital planning, and sending the department budget to the Mayor and Council (Sec. 582) |
| Mortgaging City property | Banned (Sec. 104(a)) | Charter ban repealed. The City Attorney says the State Constitution would still require two-thirds voter approval for mortgage debt (City Attorney report, p. 4) |
| City businesses | “Purely commercial or industrial” businesses allowed only with a majority vote of the people, with some exceptions (Sec. 104(g)) | Restriction repealed |
| Competitive bidding | Exceptions include equipment repairs and parts from the manufacturer (Sec. 371(e)) | Adds software service and maintenance from the maker, and contracts with qualified vendors for “critical infrastructure,” with standards set by ordinance (Sec. 371(e)(7), (11)) |
| Errors on bidders’ ethics forms | Not in the Charter | Minor technical errors can be waived or fixed. Substantive errors cannot be waived but can be fixed before bids are scored, as set by ordinance (Sec. 470(c)(12)(H)) |
Every Charter section that changes
From the pamphlet’s full text, where added words are underlined and deleted words are struck out (full text, pp. 23-35):
| Charter section | Subject | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 104(a) | Mortgaging property | Repealed |
| 104(g) | Business enterprises | Repealed |
| 231(g), 291(b) | Mayor’s and CAO’s budget duties | “Annual” budget becomes “budget” |
| 310 | Fiscal year | Adds the two-year budget cycle and the yearly appropriation resolution |
| 311 | Budget estimates and priorities | Department estimates due Jan. 1, Mayor’s priorities Feb. 1 and Controller’s statement March 1, each before a budget cycle |
| 312 | Mayor’s proposed budget | Deadline moves from April 20 to April 1; covers the whole cycle |
| 313, 315, 320 | Council action, veto, spending programs | “Fiscal year” becomes “budget cycle” |
| 323 (new) | Capital Infrastructure Plan | Plan required, details by ordinance |
| 341, 343(a)-(b) | Reserve Fund transfers, budget transfers | Drops “annual” |
| 371(e) | Bidding exceptions | Adds software from the maker and critical-infrastructure contracts |
| 470(c)(12)(H) | Bidders’ ethics forms | Allows waiver or correction of errors |
| 507 | Chief administrative officers | Removes the named Public Works bureaus (Contract Administration, Engineering, Sanitation, Street Lighting, Street Services) |
| 509(e), 510(g), 511(b) | General managers’ and boards’ budgets | Budgets per cycle instead of per year |
| 572(d), 574(e) | Police Commission and Police Chief budgets | Budgets per cycle |
| 581 | Board of Public Works | Council may change or abolish it by ordinance; eminent domain, property and project acceptance move to the Director; specifications approved “in consultation with” the Director |
| 582 | Director of Public Works | New powers listed above; budget goes to the Mayor and Council instead of the Board |
| 610 | Proprietary departments’ debt and capital plans | Submitted with each budget instead of every two years |
| 683(c) | Office of Public Accountability budget | Per cycle |
| 684 | DWP preliminary budget | Per cycle; deletes an obsolete 2011 start date |
| 1001(a) | Civil service exemptions | Refers to “any” Public Works bureau instead of naming five |
| 1160(a), 1210(a)-(b) | City employee and Fire and Police pension budgets | Per cycle instead of yearly |
Source: pamphlet full text, summarized by CityHallPass.
How it got on the ballot
The City Council placed LA on the ballot. It grew out of the Charter Reform Commission.
- June 2024: The Council created the 13-member Charter Reform Commission in response to the leaked City Hall recording scandal, according to the commission’s report (Charter Reform Commission report, p. 20). LAist also reported it was formed after the 2022 tapes (LAist).
- June 2025 to March 2026: The commission held 52 public meetings and town halls in all 15 districts and says it received more than 14,000 survey responses (Charter Reform Commission report, pp. 19-20).
- April 2, 2026: The commission sent its final recommendations to the Council (Charter Reform Commission report).
- June 10, 2026: The Chief Legislative Analyst reviewed each recommendation for the Rules committee (CLA report).
- June 17, 2026: The Council voted item by item. The two-year budget, capital plan, business enterprise, mortgage and contracting items each passed 15-0. The three Public Works items passed 9-6, with Heather Hutt, Adrin Nazarian, Imelda Padilla, Traci Park, Monica Rodriguez and Hugo Soto-Martinez voting no (Rules committee recap of Council votes).
- June 26, 2026: The City Attorney grouped the approved changes into seven City measures and two LAUSD measures and drafted the text (City Attorney report R26-0380).
- June 30, 2026: The Council adopted the ballot resolution and election ordinance 13-0, with Curren Price and Monica Rodriguez absent. An amendment by Katy Yaroslavsky and Eunisses Hernandez asked that the Mayor’s budget deadline move to April 1, which is in the final text (Council action; Amending Motion 91A). Mayor Bass approved it July 9, and the election ordinance took effect July 14 (Ordinance 188980).
- Aug. 4, 2026: Nine people and groups asked to write the argument for LA, and two asked to write the argument against: Rodriguez and the Construction Industry Force Account Council. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson named Blumenfield, Yaroslavsky and Controller Kenneth Mejia for the argument in favor and Rodriguez against. The Rules committee approved 4-0 (City Clerk list of applicants; committee memo).
What the Council left off. The commission also proposed expanding the Council to 25 districts and ranked-choice voting (Charter Reform Commission report, p. 10). LAist reported that the Council “controversially opted to forgo” Council expansion and LAPD oversight changes this year (LAist). A new Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Review is still considering other proposals (Council File 26-0489).
Related measures on this ballot. The same commission process produced Charter Amendments PL, EE, PRK, PRT and SC (City Attorney report R26-0380).
What each side says
In the City pamphlet. Ballot arguments are the authors’ opinions. No City agency checks them for accuracy (City pamphlet).
Argument for, signed by Controller Kenneth Mejia, Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Bob Blumenfield, former Controller Ron Galperin, Jessica Meaney of Investing in Place, David Levitus of LA Forward and Michael Schneider of Streets For All (argument in favor; signers):
- Planning: the City cannot tackle “billions of dollars in needed infrastructure repairs” without a plan for what gets done, what it costs and who delivers it.
- Budgeting: a two-year budget makes leaders “consider tomorrow’s costs when making decisions today.”
- Limits: “Measure LA will not fix every pothole overnight.”
Argument against, signed by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez (argument against):
- The Board of Public Works gives “independent review of City contracting” in public meetings. Letting the Council eliminate it and “consolidate its powers under a single individual” would weaken accountability “over billions of tax payer dollars.”
- A Capital Improvement Plan “can be implemented without amending the Charter.”
The supporters’ rebuttal says responsibility for infrastructure is now “spread across multiple officials, commissions, agencies, and bureaus,” and that the Director would report to the Mayor and Council and remain subject to the Controller’s oversight (rebuttal). No rebuttal to the argument in favor was printed.
Outside the pamphlet.
- Councilmember Bob Blumenfield wrote that the business change “could allow us to generate revenue from things like the sale of asphalt from a plant we already own and operate,” and that the contracting change lets the City weigh quality “rather than simply going with the lowest bidder” (CD3 update).
- Daily News columnist Susan Shelley recommended no, writing that LA “makes structural changes that reduce accountability” and that removing the mortgage ban “won’t end well” (Daily News, Sept. 29, 2026).
Checking the main factual claims against official records.
| Claim | Who makes it | What official records show |
|---|---|---|
| LA lets the Council eliminate the Board of Public Works | Rodriguez; Shelley | Yes. The Council can change or abolish the Board by an ordinance passed by two-thirds, subject to Mayoral veto (Sec. 581). LA itself does not abolish it. |
| The Board provides public review of contracts | Rodriguez | Under LA the Board keeps the power to “approve the award of contracts” unless the Council changes it by ordinance (Sec. 581(c)). |
| A capital plan can be done without a Charter change | Rodriguez | The Administrative Code already requires a yearly capital spending program with the budget, the Chief Legislative Analyst wrote (CLA report, p. 45). Controller Mejia, who signed the argument for LA, told the Council in May that “the City is in the process of creating a capital infrastructure plan” (Controller letter, p. 10). |
| LA lets the City mortgage its property | Shelley | The Charter ban is repealed, but the City Attorney says mortgage debt would still need two-thirds approval of voters at an election under the State Constitution (City Attorney report, p. 4). |
| The Director would answer to the Mayor, Council and Controller | Yes rebuttal | The Director is appointed and removed under Sec. 508 and would recommend the department budget to the Mayor and Council (Sec. 582). |
Who supports and opposes it
Supporters
- Signers of the argument in favor: Controller Kenneth Mejia, Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Bob Blumenfield, former Controller Ron Galperin, Jessica Meaney (Investing in Place), David Levitus (LA Forward) and Michael Schneider (Streets For All). A signer’s title is for identification only (signers).
- Also asked to write the argument for: the Los Angeles Business Council, LA Forward Institute, Investing in Place, Charter Reform Commission chair Raymond Meza, Justi Sexton and Chad Hamilton Shields (City Clerk list of applicants; commission roster).
Opponents
- Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, author of the argument against (argument against).
- The Construction Industry Force Account Council asked to write the argument against (City Clerk list of applicants).
Editorial boards and columnists. We found no LA Times or Daily News editorial board position on LA as of Sept. 30, 2026. Susan Shelley recommended no in her Daily News column (Daily News).
Parties and other groups. We found no published position from the Los Angeles County Democratic or Republican parties, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce or the League of Women Voters as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Money for and against
No committee has formed to support or oppose LA. The City Ethics Commission’s election totals show $0 raised, $0 spent and no independent spending for or against it (City Ethics election totals). The City’s list of campaign statements filed through the Sept. 19, 2026 reporting period includes no committee named for LA (City campaign statements filed). We checked both on Sept. 30, 2026.
Independent analysis
The City’s official analyses are the Chief Legislative Analyst’s impartial summary (City pamphlet) and the City Administrative Officer’s financial impact statement (City pamphlet). The Controller co-wrote the argument in favor, so we do not treat his office as independent on this measure.
Public Works. In its June 10 review, the Chief Legislative Analyst wrote that the commission’s reports “do not fully explain the range of issues that the reforms seek to address.” It questioned how having one Director over “all 5,000 employees of the current Board of Public Works and five Bureaus” would be more effective, and recommended further study before changing the department’s governance. It supported removing the bureau names from Sec. 507 (CLA report, pp. 43-45). The Council put the broader Public Works changes on the ballot, 9-6 (Council votes).
Director of Public Works. LAist reported that the Director post was created in the 1999 Charter with limited duties, and that in 2005 the Council merged it with the head of the Board’s executive office, so it has not existed as a separate job since (LAist).
Capital plan. The CLA wrote that capital planning is now run by the CAO through the yearly Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program, and that several departments besides Public Works deliver capital projects. It recommended that any Charter language require a plan and leave the details to an ordinance, which is what Sec. 323 does (CLA report, pp. 45-46).
Business enterprises. The CLA wrote that removing Sec. 104(g) “would assist with the establishment of a public bank” and let departments sell goods they produce, such as asphalt and mulch (CLA report, p. 7).
Two-year budget. The commission’s plan uses two one-year spending plans, with a mid-term review before the second year. The CLA recommended keeping those details out of the Charter (CLA report, pp. 77-78). LAist reported that Riverside, Oakland and San Luis Obispo budget on two-year cycles (LAist).
If it passes
- Two-year budget. The first two-year budget would start with the Mayor’s proposal due April 1 before a cycle. The text does not name the first cycle, and an ordinance can set a different cycle (Secs. 310, 312).
- Capital plan. The Council directed the City Attorney to prepare the plan ordinance after voter approval (Council votes, item 5).
- Public Works. The Board and its current duties stay until the Council passes an ordinance changing them. The Director’s new powers apply once the amendment takes effect (Secs. 581-582).
- Contracting. The critical-infrastructure exception and the ethics-form cure process need implementing ordinances (Secs. 371, 470).
- Costs. $4 million to $6 million one-time from the General Fund, subject to budget approval (CAO statement).
- Legal challenges. We found no announced challenge. If one part is struck down, the rest stays in force (Sec. 31).
Key moments
We found no debate or forum focused on LA in news coverage or City records as of Sept. 30, 2026.
- Commission report (April 2, 2026). The package included Council expansion, ranked-choice voting and the infrastructure changes (Charter Reform Commission report, p. 10).
- Council splits on Public Works (June 17, 2026). 9-6 on the three Public Works items, 15-0 on the rest of what became LA (Council votes).
- Final placement (June 30, 2026). 13-0. Rodriguez, who later wrote the argument against, was absent (Council action).
Polls
We found no public poll on LA as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Read the official text
- Ballot question and impartial summary (by the Chief Legislative Analyst)
- Financial impact statement (by the City Administrative Officer)
- Arguments for and against
- Full text of the measure
Official voter information in other languages: Español · Հայերեն · 中文 · فارسی · हिन्दी · 日本語 · ខ្មែរ · 한국어 · Русский · Tagalog · ไทย · Tiếng Việt