Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City analysts and county assessor give mixed findings on ULA's effect on transactions, revenue and housing production
Summary
CAO consultants, the chief legislative analyst and the county assessor presented modeling and transaction data showing possible revenue and production impacts from proposed ULA exemptions; presenters cautioned results are tentative and confounded by macroeconomic trends such as mortgage rates.
City and county analysts told the Measure ULA ad hoc committee that data suggest changes in property transfers and transfer-related revenues since ULA’s implementation, but that attribution to the measure is uncertain.
Thomas Gonzales of Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) told the committee his team used a $502 million baseline revenue estimate for fiscal year 2026–27 and modeled four amendment scenarios: exemptions for newly constructed multifamily (two variants), a three-year exemption for single-family homes damaged by disaster (Palisades), and an exemption for properties sold at a loss. EPS projected modest increases in market-rate housing in some exemption scenarios (up to roughly an 11% annual increase by year five in one scenario) and estimated lost ULA revenue and therefore fewer affordable units under larger exemptions.
Henry Flatt of the Chief Legislative Analyst’s office said the CLA and county data team have compiled property-transaction records from 2018 to the present and that documentary transfer tax collections pre-ULA averaged about $22 million per month for the City of Los Angeles and roughly $13 million per month after implementation; the CLA cautioned that reductions in transfers across the county point to broader economic headwinds that complicate causal claims.
Assistant Assessor Scott Thornberry said the assessor’s office sees a decline in LA City’s share of property-tax revenue growth post-ULA and estimated about $130 million less growth from qualifying transfers when comparing three years before to three years after ULA’s effective date. Thornberry emphasized Prop 13 reassessment rules and mortgage-rate spikes as major factors that make simple attribution to ULA unreliable.
Committee members pressed analysts on whether ULA alone drove observed declines and asked about likely impacts on city services if trends persist. Analysts and the assessor uniformly urged caution and recommended further data-driven study; the committee ordered targeted follow-up reports on bonding feasibility, annual metrics, staffing and additional analysis to reduce uncertainty.
