A Flock Safety camera in use. [Shutterstock]

County Public Works presents on the license plate reader network as the council weighs letters on federal relief, wildfire smoke standards and construction hours

The Altadena Town Council meets at 7 p.m. Tuesday to consider a range of important issues.

The Council will hear a presentation on the Flock license plate cameras installed across the community and to vote on three letters.

The cameras reach the council at a moment when automated license plate readers are under sustained scrutiny across Los Angeles County, and after residents in Altadena organized against the devices installed there following the Eaton Fire. The meeting is at the Altadena Community Center, 730 E. Altadena Drive, directly west of the Altadena Sheriff’s Station.

Dominic Osmena of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and Anton Anderson, who represents Census Tract 4610 on the council, are scheduled to give the Flock presentation. It is one of two special presentations on the agenda, alongside a legislative update from Chair Nic Arnzen and Treasurer Darlene Greene.

Three action items come before that. The council will vote on a Department of Angels federal relief letter, a letter from Eaton Fire Residents United urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign Assembly Bills 1642 and 1795, and a letter on construction hours.

AB 1642, by Assemblymember John Harabedian of Pasadena, would set testing and remediation standards for when a home is safe to reoccupy after a wildfire. Its companion, AB 1795 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, would require insurers to follow them. Neither takes effect without the other. AB 1642 directs the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to pursue standards for detecting and removing lead and asbestos by the end of 2028, and standards for other contamination, including beryllium, by the end of 2029, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The governor has until Sept. 30 to act on both bills, LAist reported. Neither appeared on the list of legislation the governor announced he had signed on Sept. 14.

The Flock presentation lands against a long local record. In neighboring Pasadena, police operate 61 fixed Flock cameras and have asked for 11 more, and the program dates to a contract the City Council approved July 17, 2023, with Flock Group Inc. for cameras at 17 intersections. Senate Bill 1013, which would have tightened how California police collect and share automated license plate reader data, died in the Assembly without a floor vote.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department uses Flock cameras at selected entry, exit and roadway locations in the communities it serves. The system does not use facial recognition and does not identify drivers or passengers, according to the City of La Cañada Flintridge, which contracts with the department for the same technology.

Residents in Altadena have pushed back. Altadena resident Shawna Dawson Beer said residents “want a say in whether this technology is deployed” in their community, L.A. TACO reported in August.

Public safety reports are scheduled from Capt. Ethan Marquez of the Altadena Sheriff’s Station, California Highway Patrol Officer Jeremy Keller and Maria Grycan of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Library District Director Nikki Winslow and Altagether Executive Director John Mayo will deliver community reports. Six committees report, and the meeting closes with public comment on agenda items and a Census Tract 4610 report.

Two other items of business reach the community this week. Candidate applications for Town Council seats open Sept. 15, the council said in a community update; the council holds annual elections for one seat from each census tract, and residents displaced by the Eaton Fire remain eligible to run.

Revised street-sweeping parking restrictions also take hold. A three-week grace period runs from Aug. 31 through Sept. 18, and full enforcement begins Sept. 21. The council’s community update identified portions of Casitas, Hanning, Stonehurst, Alberta, Canyada, Crosby and Spaulding as affected.

Los Angeles County Planning has scheduled three Altadena listening sessions at The Collaboratory, 540 W. Woodbury Road, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.: economic development on Sept. 19, land use and zoning on Oct. 17, and infrastructure on Dec. 12.

Need to know: The meeting begins at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 15, at the Altadena Community Center, 730 E. Altadena Drive. To speak, submit a comment card to a council member before the general comment period; comments are limited to two minutes. The meeting streams live on Pasadena Media’s YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WlwYX2Kt2I

Voting ballots stacked in crates in the Fresno County Elections Warehouse in Fresno on Nov. 5, 2025. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Ballots are going out in less than a month, and California remains locked in a legal battle with the Trump administration over the president’s push to rein in universal mail-in voting.

The back-and-forth has some California voters likely wondering whether they’ll be able to vote by mail in this upcoming election. And if so, should they?

In short — yes, mail-in voting will still be an option this year. And yes, it’s still safe and generally reliable, although county election officials are urging voters to send in their ballots as early as possible ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

In case you missed it, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling that will determine, at least for now, whether President Donald Trump can force the U.S. Postal Service to restrict vote-by-mail ballots in time for the midterm election. Trump wants to create a federal database of registered voters that the postal service would then cross reference to ensure mail-in ballots are only delivered to eligible voters – in other words, U.S. citizens. His plan would have the postal service refuse to deliver ballots in states that withhold the data.

The dizzying, monthslong legal saga has baffled voters and even some election officials, which some voting rights advocates argue is probably the point.

But California election officials say the state is well-equipped to administer the election, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules. Although county registrars are monitoring the court rulings, they’re also preparing to mail ballots as usual by the state’s Oct. 5 deadline. Local and state officials are urging voters to make a plan to vote early and to use the state’s various non-mail voting options, such as drop-boxes and in-person voting sites, if they’re worried about the postal service.

“Like we do for all of our elections, we have contingency plans or disaster plans put into place,” said Tricia Webber, clerk and registrar of voters for Santa Cruz County and president of the California Association of County Election Officials.

Some counties, including Santa Cruz and Los Angeles, are exploring options for pop-up stations where voters could request and submit ballots. In Santa Cruz County, Webber said her team is strategizing how to deploy their votemobile around the county to add yet another option for voters.

“Until there’s an answer,” Webber said, speaking of the pending court ruling, “California counties are doing business as usual.”

What does Trump want USPS to do?

Trump issued an executive order in March that sought to give the federal government control over who receives mail-in ballots. Almost immediately, more than 20 Democratic attorneys general, including California’s Rob Bonta, sued the Trump administration on the grounds that the Constitution allows only Congress and state governments to administer elections.

Federal district and appellate courts sided with the Democratic states and upheld a temporary injunction preventing the postal service from implementing any part of its plan while litigation continues.

The central questions in the case remain unresolved. The Supreme Court last month allowed the Trump administration to continue planning for how it would implement the president’s order. Democratic states promptly sued again to contest the postal service’s plans.

The postal service’s proposal, the final version of which was published in August, would create a system to track each voter’s ballot with a unique barcode and cross-reference it with a database of eligible registered voters.

While some states fear they’ll need to reprint envelopes if the postal service’s rule is upheld, the vast majority of California counties already use compliant ballot envelopes, Webber said.

The federal government does not have a comprehensive list of every eligible registered voter and would need to rely on states to submit voter information to a “federal ballot mail portal” that does not yet exist.

It seems unlikely that the postal service’s portal would even be functional in time for the 2026 midterm elections. A postal service whistleblower asserted that the process to develop and deploy the portal was “rushed,” “risky and haphazard” due to the “impossible timeframe,” according to Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s office, which received the whistleblower complaint.

“In an effort to meet impossible deadlines, USPS has eliminated standard and needed testing, thereby creating substantial risk of a ‘catastrophic failure’ of the system that could ‘derail the midterm elections,’” wrote Blumenthal, of Connecticut, in a late August letter to Postmaster General David Steiner.

The postmaster in June told a congressional committee that the postal service would withhold ballots in states that refuse share basic voter information, including name, address and the unique ballot barcode.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, California’s chief elections administrator, has not said whether California would comply with the proposed voter information requirement.

“California’s elections officials will continue to do everything within our power to ensure that every eligible California voter has the right to cast a mail ballot and have that vote count.”

Last year, the U.S. Justice Department sued Weber and five other Democratic secretaries of state for refusing to turn over their unredacted voter files, which contain far more sensitive personal information than the postal service rule would require. A federal judge in Southern California dismissed that case in January.

Uncertainty could fuel more early voting

Ironically, concerns about the postal service’s reliability could facilitate what election officials and voting advocates have struggled to do for years — get people to vote earlier.

Unlike the lead-up to the June primary, where nervous Democrats urged fellow voters to wait until the last minute to pick a candidate for governor, social media is now awash with posts urging people to vote early and use ballot drop boxes rather than rely on the mail.

“This whole play may backfire,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. “What you’re seeing now on social media in response to this court drama and this confusion are lots of people urging their friends to vote early — and that’s exactly what we’ve been saying.”

Voting earlier helps county election officials tabulate results more quickly on election night, which helps race callers like The Associated Press declare winners faster. And since ballots in envelopes take the longest to process, dropping them off several days before the deadline is the best way to help election officials count faster, since they can remove ballots from envelopes and prepare them for counting before Election Day.

“Fortunately, we give voters lots of options, and that’s really going to work to California’s benefit,” Alexander said. “Other states do not have the kind of robust process that creates lots of redundancies and avenues for voters to vote.”

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

From left, 4th District Supervisor Janice Hahn, 1st District Supervisor Hilda L. Solis, 3rd District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, 5th District Supervisor Kathryn Barger and 2nd District Supervisor Holly Mitchell. [David Franco / Board of Supervisors]

The board is asked to give up a sewer easement near Loma Alta Drive and to extend the emergency contracting authority used for Eaton Fire recovery

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider two items affecting unincorporated Altadena when it meets Tuesday, Sept. 15, at 9:30 a.m. in the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration.

Item 34 asks the board to vacate a sanitary sewer easement south of Loma Alta Drive and east of Dabney Street. The easement covers about 2,562 square feet and has been determined to be excess and no longer needed for public use, according to a board letter from Public Works Director Mark Pestrella.

The vacation was requested by Feng Wang on behalf of the affected underlying property owners to remove the encumbrance on properties impacted by the Eaton Fire and allow for their redevelopment, the board letter states. Public Works reports no impact to the County General Fund. The item falls in the Fifth Supervisorial District and is recommended for adoption under Section 5400 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 8333(c) and 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

Items 30 and 33 are the biweekly emergency contracts reports for the January 2025 Windstorm and Critical Fire Events. Each asks the board to find that the emergency continues and to keep delegated contracting authority in place, bypassing formal competitive bidding. Both require four votes.

Item 30 comes from the Internal Services Department. Director Michael Owh reports that no new contracts have been issued since the Sept. 1 report and that the department’s rough order magnitude estimate for repairs and replacement is $372,162,000. The department completed repairs at the Altadena Community Center on Dec. 8, 2025, including hazardous materials testing, roof leak testing and carpet replacement.

Item 33 comes from Public Works, which the board authorized to award emergency contracts totaling up to $1.25 billion. Pestrella reports that a $9,991,675 contract with Sully-Miller Contracting Co. is removing 190,000 cubic yards of sediment from Eaton Wash Dam and Reservoir, with completion expected in November.

The fires burned more than 47,000 acres and destroyed or damaged more than 16,000 structures, the reports state.

A supplemental item, 70-A, brings a McChrystal Group report on its after action review of recovery and repopulation efforts for the Eaton and Palisades fires.

Altadena residents may comment remotely by registering at publiccomment.lacounty.gov beginning at 9 a.m. and calling (213) 444-2600. The board has not acted on any of the items.

Tuesday, Sept. 15, 9:30 a.m. Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles. (213) 974-1411. bos.lacounty.gov.

[photo credit: Los Angeles County]

The letters would put the volunteer advisory body on record on federal relief work, on state legislation the governor must act on by Sept. 30, and on the construction hours that govern rebuilding across Altadena.

Ramon Bañuelos of the Los Hermanos Bañuelos Charro Team will lead the flag salute, followed by roll call and a vote to approve the agenda. Three action items are scheduled under Corresponding Secretary Kim Yu: a Department of Angels federal relief letter, a letter from Eaton Fire Residents United urging Newsom to sign AB 1642 and AB 1795, and a construction hours letter.

AB 1642, by Assemblymember John Harabedian of Pasadena, would set testing and remediation standards for when a home is safe to reoccupy after a wildfire. Its companion, AB 1795 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, would require insurers to follow them. Neither takes effect without the other.

Capt. Ethan Marquez of the Altadena Sheriff’s Station, CHP Officer Jeremy Keller and Maria Grycan of L.A. County Fire will give public safety reports. Library District Director Nikki Winslow and Altagether Executive Director John Mayo will deliver community reports.

Dominic Osmena of L.A. County Public Works and Anton Anderson are scheduled to present on Flock cameras. Chair Nic Arnzen and Treasurer Darlene Greene follow with a legislation update. Six committees report, and the meeting closes with public comment and a Census Tract 4610 report.

Need to know: The meeting begins at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 15, at the Altadena Community Center, 730 E. Altadena Drive, directly west of the Altadena Sheriff’s Station. To speak, submit a comment card to a council member before the general comment period; comments are limited to two minutes. Watch live at youtube.com/c/PasadenaMediaCA. For more, visit altadenatowncouncil.org.

From left, 4th District Supervisor Janice Hahn, 1st District Supervisor Hilda L. Solis, 3rd District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, 5th District Supervisor Kathryn Barger and 2nd District Supervisor Holly Mitchell. [David Franco / Board of Supervisors]

The Board’s Sept. 15 agenda also carries a $20 million malpractice settlement, a motion to name deputy gangs in the Sheriff’s Department and a plan to implement the Hug Act in juvenile facilities

Los Angeles County supervisors meet Tuesday, Sept. 15, with an Altadena sewer easement vacation and renewals of Eaton Fire emergency contracting authority on the posted agenda, and the county’s new recovery review set for discussion.

The 9:30 a.m. meeting in Board Hearing Room 381B at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple St., is the Board’s first since its Sept. 8 session was cancelled, and the agenda posted Sept. 9 runs from a $20 million medical malpractice settlement to a motion to name deputy gangs inside the Sheriff’s Department.

Additions were posted on a supplemental agenda, which the Board’s Executive Office announced Friday, are taken up under a separate item.

The Altadena item, from the Department of Public Works, asks the Board to adopt a resolution vacating a sanitary sewer easement south of Loma Alta Drive and east of Dabney Street in the unincorporated community, after finding the easement is excess, no longer needed for public use and free of other public facilities. It is listed for adoption in Supervisorial District 5.

Two items ask the Board to find that the January 2025 windstorm and fire events, including the Eaton Fire, still constitute an emergency under Public Contract Code Section 22050 and to keep the Internal Services and Public Works directors’ delegated authority to award, extend and supplement contracts for response and recovery without competitive bids. Each requires four votes. The Board is also asked to continue its local emergency declarations, including the fire emergency proclaimed Jan. 7, 2025 and ratified Jan. 14, 2025.

The county said in a news release Friday that its second independent after-action review of the Eaton and Palisades fires, a McChrystal Group study of recovery and repopulation with 26 findings and 25 recommendations, is scheduled for discussion at the meeting. The supplemental agenda lists it as a report and presentation by the firm.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell’s motion on the Sheriff’s Department would ask the Sheriff, with County Counsel, the interim Inspector General and the Civilian Oversight Commission’s executive director, to develop within 120 days a framework for identifying and naming deputy gangs, cliques and secret subgroups, to publicly identify them without requiring criminal charges or convictions, and to build a public online reporting system. It would direct the Inspector General to inspect stations, custody facilities and specialized units and inventory any unofficial insignia within 90 days, and it asks for reports on bargaining obligations, liability and options if the department does not comply.

A motion by Supervisors Janice Hahn and Mitchell would implement Assembly Bill 1646, the Hug Act, by instructing the Chief Probation Officer to eliminate the requirement that contact visits at juvenile facilities receive prior approval, with the new policy in place by Jan. 1, 2027, to ramp up in-person contact visits through the rest of this calendar year, and to report back in 60 days and then in two six-month reports.

An 11 a.m. set matter brings a report on implementation of the new Department of Homeless Services and Housing, listed to receive and file, though Supervisor Hilda Solis has asked on the supplemental agenda that it be continued one week to Sept. 22.

Among administrative matters, County Counsel recommends a $20 million settlement of Tyler Amezquita Aispuro, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, a medical malpractice case over injury to a newborn during delivery at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. A Probation Department contract with Securus for electronic monitoring, estimated at $35 million over five years beginning Nov. 1, 2026, returns after being continued from Aug. 4, Aug. 11 and Sept. 1. The Board is asked to approve 2027 medical, dental, life and disability rates for county-sponsored employee plans. The Chief Executive Officer asks that the State of Black Los Angeles County report be continued to Oct. 20, and the Chief Probation Officer asks that the Probation status report be continued to Oct. 20.

The appointments item includes several seats on the Measure ER Citizens’ Oversight Advisory Committee. In closed session, County Counsel asks that four existing cases be continued to Oct. 20 and that two anticipated-litigation matters be continued, one to Sept. 22 and one to Oct. 20; the Board also meets with its labor negotiators on talks with the Coalition of County Unions, SEIU Local 721 and other employee organizations.

Residents who want to address the Board can register at publiccomment.lacounty.gov beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday and call (213) 444-2600, or submit written comment at publiccomment.bos.lacounty.gov. The meeting streams at bos.lacounty.gov and is televised Wednesday, Sept. 16, at 11 p.m. on KLCS.

Tuesday, Sept. 15, 9:30 a.m. Board Hearing Room 381B, Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles. The meeting is open to the public. For more call (213) 974-1411 or visit bos.lacounty.gov.

H.R. 5366, signed Friday, applies to payments received in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025

Local residents who receive compensation for Eaton Fire losses, including qualifying payments from Southern California Edison, may exclude those amounts from their federal taxable income under a law President Donald Trump signed Friday.

The measure, H.R. 5366, is titled the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act. 

The exclusion is not unlimited. Under the law, a qualifying payment must be received by or on behalf of an individual, must compensate covered losses, expenses or damages resulting from a qualifying wildfire disaster, and is excluded only to the extent that insurance or another source did not already compensate the same loss. 

The new provision, added to the Internal Revenue Code by Section 3 of the act as Section 139M, applies to payments received in taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025. The underlying fire must be a federally declared disaster resulting from a forest or range fire, declared after Dec. 31, 2014, and before Jan. 1, 2027. 

The Eaton Fire falls inside that window. FEMA records show the incident period for the Los Angeles County wildfires and straight-line winds began Jan. 7, 2025, and that the president issued California major-disaster declaration DR-4856 on Jan. 8, 2025. FEMA designated Los Angeles County, which includes Altadena, for Individual Assistance under that declaration. 

What the law covers 

Section 139M lists the categories of compensation that may be excluded from federal gross income: additional living expenses; qualifying lost wages, except wages paid by the employer that otherwise would have paid them; personal injury; death; and emotional distress. 

The law also contains an anti-double-benefit rule. A taxpayer may not claim a deduction or credit for an expenditure to the extent the related payment is excluded under Section 139M, and an excluded payment cannot increase the basis or adjusted basis of related property. 

A second part of the law changes how disaster casualty losses are deducted. Section 2 of the act amends Internal Revenue Code Sections 165(h) and 63(b), adding a special rule for “qualified net disaster losses.” A qualified disaster area under that section must be covered by a presidential major-disaster declaration issued under Section 401 of the Stafford Act, and the disaster’s incident period must have begun on or after Dec. 28, 2019, and before Jan. 1, 2027. 

According to House Report 119-605 and the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, qualified disaster-related personal casualty losses are subject to a $500-per-casualty floor and are not reduced by the usual 10% of adjusted gross income threshold. The deduction is available to eligible taxpayers who do not itemize. Those casualty-loss changes apply to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024, and supersede specified earlier casualty-loss provisions for the same period.

The Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2023 became Public Law 118-148 on Dec. 12, 2024, and excluded qualifying wildfire relief payments received in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2019, and before Jan. 1, 2026. The Internal Revenue Service summarized that earlier window as payments received from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2025, for qualifying fires declared federal disasters in 2015 or later. 

Public Law 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, further extended special casualty-loss treatment, but those rules still carried timing limitations. H.R. 5366 replaced those post-2024 casualty provisions with the simpler incident-period test. 

Local application and open questions 

Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., whose district includes Altadena and Pasadena, is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and supported the measure. In a statement issued by her office after House passage, Chu said,”Survivors deserve the full amount of their settlements so they can rebuild their homes, restore their lives, and recover from the devastation they have endured.” 

Chu’s office said Sept. 12 that the law covers qualifying Eaton Fire settlement payments regardless of when they are received, subject to the statute’s post-2025 effective date and all eligibility language. 

Committee explanatory material uses the same “regardless of when received” phrasing. The operative effective-date clause in the enacted text, however, begins with payments received in taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025. For otherwise qualifying payments received in those years, the enacted text sets no later receipt deadline. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who cosponsored the Senate companion bill, said in a September 2025 announcement about that original measure that relief would extend to payments through 2030; the Ways and Means substitute adopted in March 2026 removed the receipt-date limit. 

During House floor debate, Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., described the bill as excluding recovery payments “through 2032.” That figure does not match the enacted text, which is keyed to payments in tax years after 2025 and to disasters declared before 2027 rather than to a 2032 payment cutoff. 

Several questions remain unresolved for Altadena claimants. 

The statute’s use of the word “individual” leaves open how claims submitted by businesses, partnerships, corporations, estates or certain trusts will be treated. 

The enacted text does not specifically resolve the treatment of attorney fees, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, business-entity claims, trust characterization or mixed settlement allocations. Records allocating settlement components and documenting insurance or other reimbursements will be material. 

The act governs federal income tax. California conformity to the new provisions has not been established, and the federal exclusion does not itself establish California income-tax treatment.

Existing Internal Revenue Service guidance is also out of date. The IRS wildfire relief payments and casualty losses frequently asked questions, published Nov. 3, 2025, describes the earlier law’s Dec. 31, 2025, payment cutoff and predates the September 2026 enactment by more than 10 months. 

Legislative path 

Rep. W. Gregory Steube, R-Fla., introduced H.R. 5366 on Sept. 15, 2025, under the short title Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2025. The three original cosponsors were Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif.; Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.; and Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif. Congress.gov’s cosponsor record lists 14 current cosponsors. 

Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the Ways and Means chairman, offered the substitute amendment in committee and later moved House passage under suspension of the rules. The substitute renamed the measure for LaMalfa, who died in January 2026 at age 65. 

The committee adopted the substitute by voice vote on March 25, 2026, and ordered the amended bill favorably reported 43-0. House Report 119-605 was filed April 9, 2026. 

The House passed the bill April 27, 2026, under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The 43-0 tally was the committee vote, not the floor vote. The Senate discharged the Finance Committee and passed the bill without amendment by unanimous consent on Aug. 7, 2026, with no individual roll-call vote. The Senate companion, S. 2744, introduced by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., on Sept. 9, 2025, remained at the introduced stage; H.R. 5366 was the vehicle enacted. 

During House debate, Smith said the measure “appropriately extends an existing provision within the law that allows taxpayers to deduct personal casualty losses stemming from a natural disaster while also excluding wildfire disaster relief payments from taxable income.” 

Steube said the legislation “provides certainty to disaster victims by extending and codifying commonsense tax relief for Americans impacted by federally declared disasters.” Thompson said, “People who lost everything should not have to come to Washington, D.C., to fight for relief.” 

Panetta, describing the second principal component of the bill, said it “would exempt fire settlements from taxation to avoid devastating tax bills on wildfire victims.” 

Fong said,”After these disasters strike in our community, survivors shouldn’t have to worry about burdensome Federal taxes as they work to recover and rebuild.” 

Rep. Jill Tokuda, D-Hawaii, said during the same debate,”Doug believed recovery should not come with a tax bill, and the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act makes sure of that.”

After the Senate vote, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who requested the unanimous consent to discharge the Finance Committee and pass the bill, said that when a person loses a home in a wildfire,”the last thing you ought to be worried about is being hit by a massive tax bill.” 

Cost and claims data 

The Congressional Budget Office, incorporating the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue estimate, projected the measure would reduce federal revenues by $408 million over fiscal years 2026 through 2036 — $77 million attributable to the casualty-loss provisions and $331 million to the wildfire-payment exclusion. CBO estimated no direct-spending outlays and less than $500,000 in IRS administrative costs over fiscal 2026 through 2031, subject to appropriations. CBO noted uncertainty over how many taxpayers would claim the deductions or exclusions and in what amounts. 

That estimate, dated April 21, 2026, assumed enactment by April 30, 2026. Enactment occurred Sept. 11. The figures are projected federal revenue reductions, not projected payments to Eaton Fire survivors. 

The exclusion reaches qualifying payments received in 2026 and later, while Southern California Edison’s direct compensation program is operating and consolidated civil litigation over the fire moves toward trial.

Southern California Edison operates a voluntary Eaton Fire Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. In a news release dated Aug. 28, 2026, the utility reported it had received more than 4,450 claims covering more than 13,600 individuals, trusts and legal entities; had extended more than 2,500 offers to nearly 6,300 claimants totaling more than $860 million; and had paid more than 3,100 claimants more than $460 million. The company said its program deadline was Nov. 30, 2026, and that participation before acceptance of an offer does not itself waive a claimant’s rights, though acceptance ultimately requires settlement conditions. 

Those claim, offer and payment figures are the company’s own reported program data. Independent confirmation would require audit or discovery. 

The company’s count of individuals, trusts and legal entities does not establish the population eligible for the federal exclusion, which applies to amounts received by or on behalf of an individual. 

SCE media relations can be reached at 626-302-2255 or news@sce.com. Chu’s Pasadena office is at 527 S. Lake Ave., Suite 250, and can be reached at 626-304-0110.

[photo credit: Supervisor Kathryn Barger]

The McChrystal Group study covers the county’s recovery and repopulation work in Altadena from Jan. 7 through March 31, 2025, and carries 25 recommendations. It leaves the fire’s cause, its behavior and the initial suppression effort to other reviews

Los Angeles County on Friday, Sept. 11, released its second independent after-action review of the Eaton and Palisades fires, a McChrystal Group study of recovery and repopulation after the Altadena disaster, with 26 findings and 25 recommendations.

The review covers Jan. 7 through March 31, 2025, and the county says it focuses on short-term recovery and repopulation rather than the fire’s cause and ignition, its behavior or the initial suppression effort. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the findings and recommendations at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 15, and the full report, a findings and recommendations document and a set of frequently asked questions are posted at lacounty.gov/aar.

The findings are grouped into six areas, according to the county’s announcement: communications; volunteer and donations management; recovery; repopulation; shelter, housing and people at higher risk; and public health and access and functional needs. The county describes the 25 recommendations as actionable steps to strengthen its systems, plans and readiness for future disasters.

The county has said the second study would examine coordination of services, debris removal, strategic communications, repopulation notification and procedures, and best practices for recovery and repopulation, on a projected nine-month timeline. The Board of Supervisors ordered it on March 18, 2025, approving a motion by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who was board chair at the time and whose district includes Altadena, to hire an outside expert for the work.

“Disaster readiness is rooted in learning from past emergencies and acting on those lessons,” Barger said when the motion passed.

The county gathered resident input for the review through a public survey that ran from March 11 to April 24 and was open to people who evacuated, lost property, used shelters, sought debris removal or recovery services, have access and functional needs, sought information about someone in county custody, were unhoused when the fires began or tried to volunteer or donate. The Eaton Fire burned 14,021 acres and destroyed 9,414 structures in Altadena and surrounding communities, including parts of Pasadena; the Palisades Fire burned 23,448 acres and destroyed 6,837 more. Eighteen of the 19 deaths confirmed in the Eaton Fire occurred west of Lake Avenue, in the part of Altadena that did not receive evacuation orders until after 3 a.m. on Jan. 8, 2025, according to the county’s first after-action review.

The firm’s first review, released Sept. 25, 2025, examined alert notification systems and evacuation policies. It found no “single point of failure” but a series of weaknesses it described as “outdated policies, inconsistent practices and communications vulnerabilities,” the county said; the McChrystal Group interviewed 147 participants and held six community listening sessions to produce it. The county said at the time that the January 2025 fires claimed 31 lives and destroyed 16,251 properties in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, along with parts of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Sierra Madre and Malibu.

“Survivors of the Eaton Fire deserve answers, and today’s report is an important step toward delivering them,” Barger said when the first review was released.

That review drew sharp criticism. Rep. Judy Chu, whose district includes Pasadena and the Eaton Fire area, called it “disturbing, raising more questions than it answers.” The group Altadena for Accountability called on the state attorney general to investigate the county’s response, and survivor Shawna Dawson Beer called the report “PR spin,” NBC Los Angeles reported. When supervisors took up the first review on Sept. 30, 2025, they voted to act on the county’s Office of Emergency Management, which the report said had a staff of 37 and no operating budget, compared with 43 in San Diego County and more than 200 in New York City, LAist reported.

The county’s contract with the McChrystal Group for the first report was about $1.9 million, according to County Counsel, which declined to release draft versions of the report, citing attorney-client and work-product privilege. Separately, a Fire Department-commissioned investigation by Citygate Associates, released May 18, examined evacuation decisions in West Altadena between 9 p.m. Jan. 7 and 6 a.m. Jan. 8, 2025, and concluded that Unified Command acted appropriately amid conditions that grounded aircraft. The county has posted two implementation updates on the first review’s recommendations, dated Dec. 15, 2025 and Aug. 3.

The Sept. 15 Board of Supervisors meeting can be streamed at bos.lacounty.gov.

Pasadena Assemblymember John Harabedian

Union president Dave Regan denies the assault allegation detailed in union-commissioned investigations; his union calls the reports a politically motivated attack on Proposition 40

Pasadena’s Assemblymember John Harabedian said Friday, Sept. 11, that the “substantiated allegations” that Dave Regan, the labor leader behind California’s billionaire tax, harassed and intimidated women are “abhorrent,” after the Associated Press reported on a union-commissioned investigation.

The statement puts the Democrat, a former Sierra Madre mayor whose 41st Assembly District includes Pasadena, on record against the president of the Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West. It comes less than two months before Proposition 40 — the one-time, 5% tax on the state’s billionaires that Regan’s union is backing — goes before voters in November. Regan has denied the physical assault allegation, and his union has called the reports a “misinformation campaign,” the Associated Press and Politico reported.

The allegations against Regan are detailed in an investigative report commissioned by SEIU California and obtained Sept. 11 by the Associated Press. The report includes interviews with several current and former SEIU members and others who say Regan tried to intimidate union leaders into supporting the billionaires’ tax, the AP reported. The Los Angeles Times was first to report the allegations.

“The substantiated allegations against Dave Regan are abhorrent,” Harabedian said in the statement issued by his office. “It is clear that we have a new generation of labor leaders who do not tolerate workplace harassment. I’m thankful to the SEIU California State Council for responding against the harassment and doing so quickly. Labor leaders who purport to protect their own workers from harassment and retaliation need to live by those standards. Anyone who doesn’t shouldn’t be in leadership.”

SEIU California executive director Tia Orr told investigators that Regan told her in December that the union needed to support the tax measure by Jan. 1 or “I’m coming for you,” the AP reported, citing the report. Orr later told members that she felt unsafe.

The report also includes allegations that Regan physically assaulted an SEIU leader more than 15 years ago amid a political dispute and that more recently he engaged in harassing behavior toward other women who work for the organization, the AP reported. The report alleges Regan acted aggressively toward Courtni Pugh, the union’s former executive director, before she resigned in 2009; Pugh told investigators he yelled at her, kicked in her office door and backed her up against a bookcase.

SEIU California has filed charges against Regan with the SEIU International Union alleging a pattern of bullying, extortion and threats, the AP reported.

A law firm’s probe substantiated claims made in a February complaint that Regan sought to intimidate other labor leaders into endorsing the proposed wealth tax, and it found that a labor leader “reasonably” felt threatened, Politico reported after obtaining the report. The firm did not substantiate a second set of charges alleging that the allegations against Regan were an attempt to derail the tax and retaliate against him. The investigation took place between April and July 2026 and was conducted by the New York labor law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon. The firm partially substantiated the allegations, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Regan acknowledged using curse words with union leaders but denied the physical assault allegation, the AP reported. “I will own up to and take responsibility for anything that I’ve said and anything that I’ve done,” Regan said at a news conference. “But I absolutely am not going to stand by and … be expected to accept flat out lies.”

Regan’s union alleged that opponents of the measure worked to make the report, which was labeled as completed in June, public in order to hurt the initiative’s chances of passing, the AP reported. “Unrelated verbal interactions spanning nearly two decades are being stitched together and stripped of context to manufacture a false narrative about the union’s leadership,” the union said in a statement. The union called Pugh’s allegations a “trumped-up claim from 17 years ago” and noted that the political firm she works for has worked for groups opposing Proposition 40. Pugh, in a statement, called Regan’s response “offensive to the women and people who have had to endure his threatening behavior.”

SEIU California said it took action in response to the allegations to uphold values of respect, fairness and equity in the workplace, the AP reported. “We ask members every day to stand up to power and speak out against abuses. We are inspired by their courage, and our leaders, too, are saying, ‘Enough!'” the group said in a statement.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time, 5% tax on billionaires living in the state to help backfill federal funding cuts to healthcare for low-income people, the AP reported. The proposal has caused a rift within the Democratic Party and among labor unions that are typically aligned, and while Regan’s union supports it, the larger SEIU California has not taken a position.

Regan’s union is a familiar name in Pasadena. As its president, he led the union in 2023 when health care workers at Kaiser Permanente, whose Southern California region is headquartered in Pasadena, went on strike over what the union called a short-staffing crisis. Harabedian, a former Sierra Madre councilmember and mayor, represents a district that also includes Sierra Madre, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia and Claremont.

The office’s September newsletter repeats that decline-in-value reviews are open through Nov. 30 and pushes its free Homeowner Alert against deed fraud

October property tax bills will rest on assessed values that may sit below market value, the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office told Pasadena and Altadena owners Friday, drawing a records lesson from last year’s wildfires.

Under Proposition 13, a property’s assessed value is generally the lower of its factored base-year value, set when it last changed hands and raised by no more than 2 percent a year, or its market value as of Jan. 1, the office said in its monthly newsletter, which is why a long-held Pasadena home can carry an assessed value well under what it would sell for. The bills are mailed each October by the Treasurer and Tax Collector.

When a property is purchased, the office determines its market value as of the change in ownership, and in many cases the purchase price becomes the Proposition 13 base-year value, the newsletter says. Larger changes in assessed value typically come only with a change in ownership, new construction or a temporary decline-in-value assessment under Proposition 8, which lowers the assessed value when market value as of Jan. 1 has fallen below the factored base-year value and restores it, but no higher than that base-year figure, as the market recovers.

Owners who believe their property’s market value as of Jan. 1, 2026 was lower than its factored base-year value may request a Decline-in-Value Review, the office said. Applications are accepted each year from July 2 through Nov. 30 on Form RP-87, which can be completed and submitted online through the Assessor’s decline-in-value webpage. The reduction is temporary and reviewed annually, and a loss of home equity or a drop from the purchase price does not by itself qualify: the market value on Jan. 1 must be below the Proposition 13 value. The office announced the forms’ availability when the window opened July 2.

The newsletter says one of the important lessons of last year’s wildfires was the importance of keeping ownership records current. Some fire-affected residents had inherited homes but never updated title and Assessor records, it says, and when disaster struck, the outdated information made it more difficult to identify the owner and determine eligibility for certain forms of disaster relief. “Accurate property records matter,” the office wrote.

Assessor Jeff Prang made the same point to Pasadena officials after the Eaton Fire. “If your name is not on the deed, you don’t own the property,” he said, noting that occupants were given six months to correct deed issues, after which they could face up to eight years of back taxes, and that he was pursuing legislation with Sen. Sasha Pérez to extend the period. The Assessor’s office said in a November update that Senate Bill 293 by Pérez extends the deadline to resolve fire-related ownership documentation issues from six months to three years after a reassessment notice, and that Assembly Bill 245 extends the rebuilding window from five to eight years.

Owners can review the square footage, room count and other characteristics on file for their property through the Assessor’s online Property Search Tool, the newsletter says, and request corrections with a Property Data Change Request, form ASSR-129, which holders of an Assessor E-Service account may file online. The same tool shows whether the Homeowners’ Exemption, which reduces taxable value by $7,000 and saves about $70 a year, has been applied; the claim can be filed electronically through an E-Service account.

The office is also promoting its free Homeowner Alert, which emails a registered owner within 48 hours whenever a document such as a grant deed, loan, lien, foreclosure or transfer of title is recorded against the property with the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, a tool it describes as a way to catch fraudulent deeds and other unauthorized recordings quickly.

The guidance arrives after a year in which the Assessor’s Office wrote more than $9 billion in taxable value off the rolls for owners whose homes burned in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, processing 18,000 assessment adjustments in the first 90 days, even as the 2026 roll closed at a record $2.272 trillion, up $96 billion, or 4.42 percent, with the Proposition 13 inflation factor adding $43 billion at the full 2 percent. Fire-damaged properties qualify for Misfortune and Calamity reassessment when damage exceeds $10,000, filed on Form ADS-820, and Senate Bill 663 gives survivors 24 months from the date of damage to file; the office’s disaster relief unit can be reached at relief@assessor.lacounty.gov or (213) 974-8658. County officials warned Pasadena property owners this month about a fake “Form 1098-SR” property tax freeze circulating online. “No legitimate property tax program requires you to file a mysterious federal form you learned about through social media,” Prang said then. Proposition 19 lets eligible wildfire victims transfer their base-year value to a replacement home.

The office’s next Homeowners’ Resource Fair is Saturday, Sept. 19, from 9 a.m. to noon at the Southland Regional Association of Realtors, 7232 Balboa Blvd., Lake Balboa, with Prang and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, covering property tax savings, Proposition 19, family transfers and inheritance, and veterans’ and other exemptions; it will be livestreamed on the Assessor’s Facebook page, and registration is at assessor.lacounty.gov/news-information/events. The Assessor’s help line is (213) 974-3211, or helpdesk@assessor.lacounty.gov.

A Flock Safety camera in use. [Shutterstock]

Rules under which Pasadena’s 61-camera Flock network operates, unchanged

A bill to tighten how California police collect and share automated license plate reader (ALPR) data died in the Assembly without a floor vote last week, leaving Pasadena’s 61-camera Flock network operations unchanged under existing law.

Senate Bill 1013 by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, passed the Senate in May but was stopped by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry on the final day of the session before it could reach the floor, CalMatters reported — the fifth straight year the Legislature has failed to regulate the technology.

In Pasadena, where a City Council committee is divided over whether to keep the cameras at all, the outcome leaves the question to the city.

The bill would have limited police use of plate-reader data to locating criminal suspects or missing people, required privacy and cybersecurity training, restricted sharing with national databases by default and required the attorney general’s office to audit plate-reader activity at random.

A similar Cervantes bill passed in 2025 but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, in part over a requirement that police delete data after 60 days.

“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” Cervantes said in a statement. More than 230 California police and sheriff’s departments use the readers, according to Cervantes.

Nearly 40 law enforcement agencies and police unions opposed the bill.

“We were concerned that this bill was going to limit the utility of ALPR data to solve crimes, find missing persons, exonerate innocent individuals, and so the fact that it did not pass, we’re glad for that,”  Cory Salzillo, legislative director of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, told the news organization.

Pasadena’s program dates to a contract the council approved July 17, 2023, with Flock Group Inc. for cameras at 17 intersections. The Police Department now operates 61 fixed cameras and has asked for 11 more, according to a July 2026 review by Independent Police Auditor Teresa Magula.

That review found no evidence camera locations were chosen on the basis of race or ethnicity, and concluded the program complies with state law and department policy with no evidence of use for immigration enforcement.

The committee that will decide the contract’s future is split. Minutes of its May 20, 2026, meeting record Vice Mayor Jess Rivas, the Public Safety Committee’s chair, favoring termination without a replacement vendor, and Councilmember Steve Madison supporting continued use with adjustments within the municipal code. Councilmember Tyron Hampton favored a new vendor whose system would hold data for the city’s use only absent a warrant. Councilmember Justin Jones raised concerns about data sharing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and about camera concentration in District 3, according to the minutes.

The committee’s Aug. 19 hearing on the cameras was canceled for lack of a quorum, under a notice the city posted Aug. 12. An April 15 meeting was canceled as well. Its next regular meeting falls on Sept. 16.

Several dozen residents rallied on the west steps of City Hall on Aug. 19 under the banner “DeFlock Pasadena,” organized by a group called Pasadena Privacy, asking the council to disable and remove the cameras, cancel the contract, decline any replacement vendor and redirect the money to community programs. Organizers say the contract comes up in September.

“It’s unnecessary and it’s creepy as hell,” Rivas told the crowd.