About 100 residents Wednesday criticized Mayor Karen Bass’ proposed 2024-25 city budget for its reductions to various services and its increases in funding for the Los Angeles Police Department.
During Wednesday’s meeting of the City Council’s Budget, Finance and Innovation Committee on the mayor’s proposed $12.8 billion spending plan, the five-member committee heard almost four hours of public comment — during which residents urged for millions more dollars be spent on social services.
The committee also faced some criticism for scheduling public comment for only one day instead of staggering it throughout its multi-week review process.
Jake Flynn, a spokesman for Councilman Bob Blumenfield, chair of the budget committee, told City News Service via email that public comment was scheduled for Wednesday to “enable the public to speak up before members get into the details of the budget.” He noted it would ensure that comments can inform and impact the upcoming deliberation.
“Having a full day of public comment helps ensure that the committee does not have arbitrary time limits, potentially not allowing everyone to speak,” Flynn wrote. “While the budget gets heard over multiple days, it is in fact one continuous meeting that is recessed each day.”
Angelenos can also submit their public comment via a survey online, email or write to the City Council members. Once the proposal comes for a final vote, there will be another day of public comment, Flynn added.
The council is expected to revise Bass’ spending plan and adopt it before the fiscal year begins July 1.
Some Angelenos Wednesday took issue that public comment was permitted only to those who showed up to the Council Chambers — also pointing out that it excluded those who could not take time off work or afford to make it to the City Hall. Those who were able to show up expressed their concerns with Bass’ proposed budget.
Last week on X, City Controller Kenneth Mejia broke down changes to some city departments’ operational budgets. He noted that Bass’ proposal would provide an increase of $138.2 million for LAPD, $14.6 million for the Los Angeles Library Department, and $8.3 million for the city attorney’s office.
On the other hand, the Bureau of Street Services faces a decrease of $30 million, the Fire Department would see a reduction of about $22.9 million, funding for sanitation would decrease by $17.3 million, the city controller’s office would see a decrease of $2.5 million and animal services’ funding would also see a decline of about $1 million.
Freddy Escobar, an LAFD fire captain, urged the committee to support a request for $5.8 million that would be used to cover overtime, as well as $1 million for 11 civilian positions, who maintain the department’s fire truck engines and ambulances.
“Firefighters and paramedics are busier today than ever before,” Escobar said. “To have a proposed budget that is $23 million less from our current year’s budget doesn’t make sense.”
About 15 speakers spoke up in support of providing more funding to the Department of Animal Services to cover spay-and-neuter programs, provide improved care for animals at the six city-run shelters, which face overcrowding.
Another 30 or more speakers called for the city to allocate $1.5 million to the Rep L.A. program, which provides legal services including deportation defense for the city’s immigrant community.
Nagwa Ibrahim, director of legal services for the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, a nonprofit, urged the committee to budget $12 million to address those issues. In light of federal cuts to the Victims of Crime Act, Ibrahim hopes the city can step up and fill the funding gaps to aid survivors.
Other speakers called for revisions to the budget so that more funding from Measure ULA can be spent on eviction defense, emergency rental aid, outreach services, among other efforts.
Prior to public comment, the committee also heard from staff regarding the city’s employees’ retirement system, fire and police pensions, and the Port of Los Angeles.
On Tuesday, the committee heard from high-ranking city officials, who echoed Bass’ message that the proposed budget will serve as a “reset” for the city. They said it would guide the city toward financial stability amid a lower-than-projected revenue outlook, new labor contract costs and other concerns in the coming years.
While there was agreement among committee members that the spending plan was a step in the right direction, there was worry about how efforts to address a $467 million deficit would impact city services.
“I don’t want to sugarcoat what we’re facing — except for the potential budget we were going to face during COVID-19, which was avoided because of federal funding — this is the worst budget I’ve had to face in my time as a council member in terms of real reductions,” Blumenfield said.
The mayor’s office and City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo also provided an overview of the budget.
Representatives for Bass said the spending plan represents a $323.3 million, or 2.46%, decrease compared to the 2023-24 budget of $13.1 billion. They also said the proposal meets the city’s policy of maintaining the reserve fund at a 5% minimum.
In the current fiscal year, the city faces a $467 million deficit, composed of a revenue shortfall of $180 million below projected and unexpected spending of about $289 million, mainly from liability payouts related to the LAPD, among other costs.
The city faces an increase in expenditures to cover new labor contracts, which represents a $412 million increase just in the 2024-25 fiscal year. The cost associated with contracts for city employees is expected to reach more than $1 billion by 2028, on top of another contract with the union representing LAPD officers that is also expected to cost $1 billion by that same year.
While Szabo noted an expected 1% growth in projected revenue in the 2024-25 budget, it wouldn’t be enough to cover ongoing costs.
In a bid to address the $467 million deficit, city officials have taken steps including dipping into the reserve fund, increasing fees for city services, reducing capital spending and implementing a priority hiring plan with the intention of eliminating 2,139 vacant positions from the city’s books.
Szabo has estimated the city could save almost $180 million by eliminating those vacant positions. He said if the city were to adopt the mayor’s budget with all of the reductions, it would still face a $56 million deficit in 2025-26, which would increase by $294 million in fiscal year 2026-27, but by 2028-29 the city would be able to “turn it around.”
He noted the city was faced with a choice — pay more employees less or fewer employees more. The savings from cutting vacant positions will also compound over the following years, helping the city cover costs related to the new labor agreements.
Looking ahead to the next couple of years, city officials said, they would focus on three primary objectives, including cutting functions that are currently repeated across many departments, identifying strategic investments in technology or efficiency solutions and designing programs to measure their effectiveness and make refinements.
Szabo also said the city should make itself more competitive for outside investments from grants and have shovel-ready projects that would attract outside capital.