Los Angeles council adopts 2% transient-occupancy tax increase, preserves option to lower rate later
Loading...
Summary
The City Council adopted item 37 B on Feb. 11, 2026, approving a 2% transient-occupancy-tax increase tied to upcoming major events, with authority to reduce the rate later; a competing larger-increase motion failed. Council recorded votes and debated hotel competitiveness and uses of revenue.
The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 11, 2026 adopted a modified increase to the city's transient-occupancy tax, approving option B — a 2 percentage-point increase — while reserving authority to reduce the rate in the future.
Council members opened debate on item 37 after a presentation from the budget committee describing several options. Supporters said option B balanced revenue needs tied to large upcoming events while preserving the ability to lower the tax later if market conditions changed. Opponents warned that raising the TOT risked making Los Angeles less competitive for conventions and overnight visitors and could harm hotels and tourism businesses already facing lower occupancy.
During discussion councilmembers repeatedly framed the vote as a choice among competing options rather than a final permanent rate. One sponsor and seconder advanced a motion to adopt option B; the council then held separate votes on the competing proposals. The motion for option B passed by a recorded margin reported in the meeting as 13 in favor and 2 opposed. A competing motion (referred to in the meeting as 37 A) failed with a 7–8 tally. Council members said the adopted motion included language allowing the city to reduce the rate in the future without returning to the same procedural constraints used to raise it.
Hotel-industry speakers during the public-comment period urged the council to reject any TOT increase, arguing that higher per‑night fees would reduce Los Angeles' competitiveness for conventions and visitors. Council supporters of the adopted measure repeatedly cited the possible revenue needed to address homelessness and other city priorities tied to the broader budget process, while critics pressed for stronger accountability for existing program spending before approving new taxes.
The council closed debate by confirming the votes and moving on to related agenda items. The measure as adopted included specific directions for implementation and retained the council's ability to revisit the rate.
The council proceeded to other business following the vote; the meeting record shows the item as the principal substantive decision of the afternoon session.
