Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arcadia council adopts resolution opposing LA County half‑cent general sales tax and AB 1768
Summary
The Arcadia City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 7,676 opposing the Los Angeles County half‑cent general sales tax measure (the Essential Services Restoration Act) and authorized the mayor to send a letter opposing Assembly Bill 1768, citing low direct benefit to Arcadia and lack of spending safeguards.
Arcadia’s City Council on March 17 adopted Resolution 7,676 opposing the Essential Services Restoration Act, a countywide half‑cent general sales tax measure that would appear on the June ballot, and authorized the mayor to send a letter opposing Assembly Bill 1768, the companion legislation that would allow the county to exceed the statutory local tax limit.
Staff summarized the measure as a half‑cent increase expected to generate about $1,000,000,000 annually for Los Angeles County and said about 40% of the revenue was intended by proponents to support the county Department of Health Services. Staff warned that because the measure is a general sales tax, revenues would go to the county general fund and the Board of Supervisors would have discretion on spending without explicit protections or an early sunset tied to federal funding changes.
The presentation noted local impacts: the county increase would raise Arcadia’s sales and use tax from about 10.5% to 11%, and staff estimated Arcadia taxpayers would contribute about $6.5 million annually under the measure while receiving limited direct benefit because Arcadia does not host county hospitals or county clinics.
Councilmember Dr. Michael Kao framed the concern as one of accountability: "This measure gives them a blank check," he said, arguing a special tax restricted to health care would better ensure funds are used for the stated purpose. He and other council members noted the League of California Cities (Los Angeles Division) and several neighboring cities had expressed opposition for similar reasons. The council moved and voted to adopt the resolution and authorize the mayor’s letter; the motion passed by roll call (recorded as unanimous, 5–0).
The adopted resolution directs the mayor to send correspondence to state legislators and records the city’s formal opposition to both the county measure and AB 1768. Staff said the council’s action mirrors other municipal opposition based on concerns about accountability, the temporary nature of the measure and the local fiscal impact.
