City of LA Measure PRT — Port, Airport and DWP Charter Changes
Current as of · voting-clarity.org
November 3, 2026 City of Los Angeles ballot. AI-generated analysis. Your sample ballot and official voter guide are the official documents; the links below let you check each claim. This page explains what is on the ballot; it is not legal advice.
Voting Clarity's research is done by Claude, an AI made by Anthropic. Anthropic gave no money to either side of this measure [34].
Summary
Charter Amendment PRT makes four separate changes to the City's three "proprietary" departments. These are the Port (Harbor Department), Los Angeles World Airports, and the Department of Water and Power. These departments run on their own revenue.[1]
Longer deals for Airports and Water and Power. With Council approval, Airports and Water and Power could sign leases and similar agreements for up to 66 years, instead of 50. The Port already has 66 years.[2] (details below)
More neighborhood seats on the Airport Commission. At least three of the seven commissioners would have to live near Los Angeles International Airport. At least two would have to live near Van Nuys Airport. Today it is at least one each.[2] (details below)
Port waterfront fund. Each year, the Harbor Commission would have to set aside "a portion" of Port operating income for waterfront public access projects. The Commission alone would decide the amount.[2] (details below)
Port job-impact reports. Some applicants would have to file a report on job impacts, called a workforce impact disclosure. This covers anyone seeking a Port lease, lease extension, or lease amendment. It also covers a development that needs a Coastal Development Permit.[2] (details below)
What it's trying to accomplish: Supporters say it gives airport neighbors a stronger voice and writes existing Port commitments into the Charter. They also say it gives Airports and Water and Power "greater flexibility for responsible long-term investments."[3] No argument against was filed.[4]
Your Vote:
YES — All four changes take effect together.
NO — Airports and Water and Power keep their 50-year limit. The Airport Commission keeps one seat for the area near Los Angeles International Airport and one for the Van Nuys area. The Port fund and job reports stay out of the Charter.
No double negative. It is a Charter amendment placed on the ballot by the City Council. It passes with "a majority of the votes cast" on it; City of Los Angeles voters vote on it.[5] The four parts cannot be voted on separately. The PRT text does not refer to any other measure on this ballot.[2]
In the law, but not in the official summary
This box lists parts of the measure's legal text that change what a Yes or No vote does but are not described in the official ballot summary or the official analysis. It does not say why they were left out.
None found.
What's in place now
Deal length (Sec. 607(a)). Leases and similar agreements are capped at 30 years. With a finding that longer is in the City's interest, a two-thirds Council vote (subject to Mayoral veto) can approve up to 50 years for Airports and the Department of Water and Power (DWP) and 66 years for the Harbor Department, or less if federal or state law requires it.[6] PRT strikes the "50 years" clause and adds Airports and DWP to the 66-year clause. The 30-year default and the two-thirds Council vote stay.[7]
Airport Commission (Sec. 630). Seven members are appointed and removed under Section 502, with "at least one" living near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and "at least one" near Van Nuys.[8]
Port waterfront spending. The Port started its Public Access Investment Plan in 2015. It reinvests 10% of operating income in Wilmington and San Pedro and has spent more than $400 million over ten years.[9] The City Administrative Officer (CAO) puts the historical yearly amount at about $28.6 million.[10] Section 651 currently has no such requirement.[8]
Port job reviews. In March 2026 Councilmember Tim McOsker proposed workforce impact reports for Port decisions. He cited automation and safeguards against public money subsidizing job losses.[11]
Who is affected, and who is not
Affected:
Companies leasing or holding agreements with Airports or DWP, which could get terms up to 66 years.[12]
Port tenants and developers, who must prepare and pay for the job-impact disclosure.[10]
Whoever appoints Airport commissioners under Section 502, whose choices would be limited by where nominees live.[13]
Harbor-area residents in Wilmington and San Pedro, who benefit from the waterfront fund.[9]
Not affected:
DWP rates. PRT does not amend Section 676, which governs how water and power rates are set.[2][14]
DWP transfers to the General Fund. PRT does not amend Section 344 or the transfer clause in Section 679.[15][16] The CAO lists no General Fund effect.[10]
The DWP and Harbor commissions' makeup. Only the Airport Commission's residency rule changes.[17]
Port Police pensions. A proposal to let outside-hired Port Wardens join a City pension plan was removed before the vote and deferred to 2028.[18]
Key Questions Answered
Does the label match the substance? Partly. The label says "leases." Section 607 actually governs "franchises, concessions, permits, licenses and leases," so the 66-year limit reaches all of these for Airports and DWP.[6][12] The label also says the Port must "allocate funds," but the text sets no minimum amount.[19]
Is the vote straightforward? Yes. Yes adopts all four changes; no keeps current rules.[20]
Does it bundle unrelated things? Yes. Deal length for Airports and DWP, Airport Commission residency, a Port spending fund and Port job disclosures are four separate policies. They share one ballot question because they all concern proprietary departments.[21]
What guardrails exist? Some.
Longer deals still need a Council finding and a two-thirds Council vote, subject to Mayoral veto.[12]
The waterfront fund has no floor. The Harbor Commission has "sole authority" to set the amount each year, within its state tidelands-trust duties.[19] The CAO calls the change a codification of the 10% practice.[10] The 10% figure does not appear in the text.
Job disclosures must be "considered," again within the Board's trust duties. The text sets no consequence for what a disclosure shows. Small businesses and nonprofits can be excused only from the economic impact part.[22]
Nothing sunsets. Future changes take another vote of City of Los Angeles voters, though the Council can redraw the airport residency subareas by ordinance.[23][13]
Who benefits, and who pays? Airport-area neighborhoods gain commission seats. Airport and DWP tenants and partners can get longer terms, which supporters say helps long-term investment.[3] The CAO rates three parts "cost-neutral." Port applicants pay for their own disclosures.[10] The proprietary departments told the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) that 66-year terms would have a "positive fiscal impact"; no source reviewed puts a number on it.[24]
Supporters, opponents, and funding
Supporters
Ballot argument signers: Councilmembers Tim McOsker, Traci Park and Imelda Padilla; Paula Gerez, president of the Westchester/Playa Neighborhood Council; Wilmington community advocate Gina Martinez; and Van Nuys community advocate David Yanowitz.[25]
The City Council placed it on the ballot on June 30, 2026. The council file vote record shows 13–0 with two absent.[26] The signed action form lists 12 yes votes and three absent (Hutt, Price, Rodriguez). The Mayor approved it July 9, 2026.[27]
Opponents
No ballot argument against was submitted.[4] Earlier, on a Council motion (McOsker–Soto-Martinez, Council File (CF) 25-0118) to require a Port Public Access Investment Plan and Workforce Impact Reports, the Chief Legislative Analyst's tally listed opposition from business groups including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Pacific Maritime Association, the Harbor Trucking Association and the Los Angeles County Taxpayers Association.[28] Whether those groups oppose PRT itself could not be verified from available sources.
Funding: As of October 19, 2026, no committee has formed to support or oppose PRT. The only reported spending is $379.96 in independent expenditures in support by AAPI (Asian American and Pacific Islander) Equity Alliance (last reported 10/16/26).[29]
Details
Exact changes, section by section
| Charter section | Now | Under PRT |
|---|---|---|
| 607(a) | Up to 50 yrs (Airports, DWP); 66 yrs (Harbor) | Up to 66 yrs for all three |
| 630 | ≥1 LAX-area, ≥1 Van Nuys-area commissioner | ≥3 LAX-area, ≥2 Van Nuys-area; Council may set subareas |
| 651(d) | None | Annual Public Access Investment Plan allocation; amount at Board's sole discretion |
| 652(g) | None | Workforce impact disclosure for leases, extensions, amendments, and Coastal Permit projects |
Changed late
The City Attorney's June 26 draft described an exemption from disclosure for month-to-month revocable permits.[30] On June 30 the Council substituted McOsker's version, which has no such exemption, and dropped the Port Warden pension change.[31][18]
Why 66 years?
The Chief Legislative Analyst wrote that the change "would provide lease length parity across the proprietary departments" and advised wording that keeps state or federal limits in force, which the final text does.[32][12] The City Attorney described it as giving Airports and DWP "the same power as the Harbor Department to enter into 66-year leases".[21] The Council approved it 15–0 on June 17.[33] The sources reviewed give no reason beyond parity with the Harbor Department, and none addresses why the existing 50-year option, available with a two-thirds Council vote, is not enough.[6]
Airport Commission seats
The Chief Legislative Analyst warned that the residency change puts a residency rule on five of the Airport Commission's seven seats (71 percent), compared with two of five (40 percent) on the Harbor Commission. Without adding seats, "multiple members currently serving" would need to be replaced. The CLA suggested the Council consider enlarging the board; the final text keeps seven members.[24][13]
Sources
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, impartial summary, pp. 64–65
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRT legal text
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, argument in favor, p. 66
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, p. 67
City Charter Sec. 607 (current through June 30, 2026)
Measure PRT ballot-material proof — used to check struck and underlined text
City Charter Art. VI (current through June 30, 2026)
Port of Los Angeles, Public Access Investment Plan (PAIP) 10-year release (Apr. 24, 2025)
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Financial Impact Statement, p. 65
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRT legal text, Sec. 607(a)
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRT legal text, Sec. 630
City Charter Art. VI, Sec. 676 (current through June 30, 2026)
City Charter Art. III, Sec. 344 (current through June 30, 2026)
City Charter Art. VI, Sec. 679(c)(9) (current through June 30, 2026)
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRT legal text, Secs. 1–4
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRT legal text, Sec. 651(d)
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, p. 8
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, Measure PRT legal text, Sec. 652(g)
Cal. Const., Art. XI, Sec. 3 (California Legislative Information)
Chief Legislative Analyst report on Charter reform, June 10, 2026
City of LA Voter Information Pamphlet 101, Nov. 3, 2026, ballot argument, pp. 66–67
Chief Legislative Analyst report on Charter reform, June 10, 2026, Attachment B
LA City Ethics Commission, election totals — viewed Oct. 14, 2026
Chief Legislative Analyst report on Charter reform, June 10, 2026, Table 1, Charter Reform Commission (CRC) 65
City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, campaign contributions and independent expenditures search, contributor "Anthropic", https://ethics.lacity.gov/data/campaigns/contributions/, searched Oct. 16, 2026; and Cal-Access, Anthropic PBC (filer 1491817), https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1491817, as of Oct. 16, 2026.
Reviewed in the original: Voter pamphlet pp. 8 and 64–69; Measure PRT proof (7 pages, with struck and underlined text checked visually); revised ballot resolution and text; Charter Secs. 344, 607, 630, 651, 652, 676 and 679; Amending Motions 96A and 96B; Council action form; Council file page; City Attorney report (11 pages); the Chief Legislative Analyst report (body, pp. 1–92, and the Attachment B rows for CF 25-0118); the June 17 vote recap; Ethics Commission totals page; Cal. Const., Art. XI, Sec. 3; the Port of Los Angeles and CD15 news releases.
Could not be reviewed: The Charter Reform Commission report was not read end to end, so it is not cited. Justia's copy of the California Constitution showed a human-verification check; the official California Legislative Information site was used instead.