The union representing Los Angeles city firefighters is set to begin a signature-gathering campaign Thursday to place a half-cent sales tax on the November ballot to address what its officials say is “decades of under-investment” in the department.
Members of United Firefighters of Los Angeles and city elected officials are scheduled to gather at Fire Station 58, at 1556 S. Robertson Blvd., to urge registered voters to sign the petition to qualify the ballot initiative. It requires a minimum of 154,000 valid signatures.
Revenue from the half-cent sales tax would allow the Los Angeles Fire Department to hire more firefighters and civilian staff, purchase new fire trucks, engines, ambulances and other equipment, as well as build new fire stations and repair existing ones, proponents say.
According to the proposal, the tax revenue would go into a special fund, for use by the fire department only.
The measure would also mandate a so-called “maintenance of effort” provision that would require the city to maintain general fund support for the LAFD. In essence, that provision would prevent existing funding from being replaced by revenue from the sales tax.
The proposal would also require annual audits that would be presented to the public, and would establish a citizens oversight committee to track all spending from the tax.
Proponents estimate the tax would generate at least $345 million in the first year.
The sales tax in the city of Los Angeles stands at 9.75%. If approved by the voters, the ballot initiative would increase it to 10.25%, which would be less than the cities of Alhambra, Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach, San Fernando, West Hollywood and Pasadena with a 10.5% sales tax, proponents pointed out. It would also be lower than Culver City and Santa Monica, which have a 10.75% sales tax.
Mayor Karen Bass, who faces a re-election campaign this year, stopped short of endorsing the tax proposal — but in response to a query on the matter, her office said in an email, “Mayor Karen Bass is supportive of new revenue sources for LAFD and is exploring all options to deliver critical city services and keep Angelenos safe.”
In past years, LAFD officials have advocated for more funding for their department, pointing to strained personnel and resources.
Proponents noted these data points in support of the proposed new tax:
— The population of Los Angeles in 1960 was 2.4 million, and the LAFD responded to 100,985 emergency calls. By 1965, the department had 3,379 authorized firefighter positions with 112 fire stations;
— in 2024, the population of the city had increased to nearly 3.9 million. Los Angeles lost six fire stations, with 53 stations more than 50 years old, and four stations more than 80 years old, according to the LAFD.
— meanwhile, in 2024, the department reported sworn firefighters stood at 3,412 who responded to five times more emergency calls for service.
LAFD officials say more funding is needed to meet requirements set by the International Association of Fire Fighters. The organization conducted a review of the department that found LAFD needs 62 new fire stations, 4,000 additional firefighters, dozens of new dispatchers, seven new battalions, and emergency management service substations.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association criticized the proposed tax initiative, noting that voters placed taxpayer protections in the state constitution with Proposition 13 in 1978 and Proposition 218 in 1996. These require local taxes for a special purpose be approved by two-thirds of voters.
Beginning in 2017, state courts carved a loophole that said the constitution does not apply to “citizen initiative tax increases,” according to the association.
“Voters should ask, `What is in the city budget that is a higher priority than adequately funding the fire department?’ It is totally unacceptable that the City Council and Mayor have underfunded the fire department and essentially told the firefighters’ union to go out and get their own tax increase,” the association said in a statement.
“Sales taxes are already very high in Los Angeles, and they hit hardest on people who can least afford to pay more.”