Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Tax Measure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Puente council forwards measure to reserve half‑cent sales tax ahead of June 2 special election
Summary
The La Puente City Council voted unanimously to move forward with a resolution and first‑reading ordinance to place a trigger-style half‑cent transactions-and-use tax on the June 2, 2026 special-election ballot so the city can reserve its remaining local taxing capacity amid a competing L.A. County measure; council approved edits (change 'will' to 'may' and allow quarter‑percent increments) and directed counsel to clean up language.
La Puente’s City Council voted unanimously March 4 to advance a resolution and ordinance that would put a trigger-style half‑cent transactions-and-use tax before voters in a June 2 special election, a move council members said is aimed at preserving the city’s remaining local taxing capacity while avoiding an immediate rate increase.
City Attorney Richard, describing the proposed measure, told the council the county had already placed a half‑cent measure on the same June ballot and that only a remaining half‑cent of local capacity is legally available. "This would be a ballot measure that will be placed as a special election measure on the 06/02/2026 ballot," he said, and explained that a trigger or placeholder structure—modeled on an approach used in Beverly Hills—would let the city reserve authority to occupy the half‑cent while giving the council discretion about whether to enact the tax later.
The proposal drew repeated comments that council members do not want to raise taxes now but must protect local revenue. The mayor said her priority was to "protect the financial interest of the city" and stressed that "my goal is not to support a sales tax increase but to ensure that we block the county's proposed sales tax and safeguard the tax for future La Puente use." Councilmember David said the city could win the authority and later decide, noting the measure could yield roughly $3.6 million annually if fully occupied.
Residents were invited to comment; Charlie Chavez urged clearer, simpler ballot wording and asked whether voters would be "double taxed" if both measures pass. Counsel answered that in most designed scenarios the measure as drafted would prevent residents from being charged both the city half‑cent and the county half‑cent at the same time, but he warned that if both measures win and the county does not obtain special legislation there is legal uncertainty that could require an opinion from the attorney general or court adjudication.
Council members discussed drafting changes to reduce that uncertainty and limit immediate fiscal impact: they agreed to replace mandatory language that said the city "will" suspend action with discretionary language ("may"), permit incremental increases in quarter‑percent steps consistent with state rules, and authorize the city attorney to correct grammar and redundancies in the ordinance. Councilmember David moved to forward the ordinance with those amendments and counsel authority; Gabriel seconded. The clerk recorded unanimous yes votes and the motion passed.
Council also discussed ballot‑argument logistics: staff noted a filing deadline on the 12th and the council delegated drafting of a proposed ballot argument to a councilmember (Valerie) to prepare language for review at the next regular meeting. Counsel recommended changing references from "police" to "public safety" in the draft question to reflect that the Sheriff's Department provides law‑enforcement services in the city.
What happens next: the council forwarded the amended draft ordinance and resolution for formal processing and minor edits by legal counsel, and staff will return with the refined language and a proposed ballot‑argument draft for council review ahead of the filing deadline.
