The Brief

L.A. city leaders will finalize the city budget this month, likely locking in drastic cuts to services to make up for department overspending, wildfire recovery costs and the potential loss of federal funding. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ proposed cuts, which include more than 1,600 layoffs, have stoked a heated conversation about what the city prioritizes in the budget and how it makes financial decisions.

But city officials don’t have absolute say over everything in the budget.

Once in a while, voters get to make decisions that affect what the city can and can’t spend from that point on.

Here are some local ballot measures that L.A. voters passed in recent years that helped shape the budget today:

Increasing pension costs

What voters did: In the 2024 general election, L.A. voters opted to increase the amount spent on the police and fire pension system. They passed Measure FF, a city ballot measure that amended the City Charter to allow about 460 park rangers, port police and other peace officers to switch over to the more generous police and fire pensions system.

How it changed the budget: The measure will cost the general fund an estimated $23 million one-time payment and another $1 million annually. The general fund is the main account used to pay for most services, including libraries, parks and homelessness programs. Other costs will be covered by airport and harbor revenues.

The bigger picture: The city can’t cut back or opt out of its pension contributions — it’s obligated to fund these pension funds under the terms of the L.A. City Charter. So when more people have access to larger pension benefits, that’s less money for other departments. It also turns out that L.A. votes on pension system changes a lot, and this isn’t the first time they’ve approved increases. In 2001, voters raised the maximum benefit amount a retired firefighter or police officer could receive, to 90% of their salaries up from 70% (a decade later, they voted to decrease those maximums).

This year, L.A. paid an estimated $481 million to fund pensions for retired police officers and firefighters. That’s more money than any L.A. city department received, with the exception of only the police and fire departments.

Decreasing pension costs

What voters did: In 2011, voters rolled back some of the pension benefits they had approved in 2001, lowering the amounts that new sworn police and fire employees could receive under certain conditions.

How it changed the budget: The 2001 measure to consolidate pension systems lowered the overall cost of those pensions by an estimated $196 million over a five-year period, according to the city administrative officer’s analysis.

The city’s fiscal impact analysis of the 2011 measure to roll back certain benefits estimated it would lower the city’s contribution to these pensions by $152 million over the course of 10 years.

An LAPD patrol car.

(

David McNew

/

Getty Images

)

The bigger picture: There have been almost a dozen city ballot measures specifically about the police and fire pension system in the last 25 years, some aimed at expanding benefits and others focused on scaling back costs. The central tension over these measures is how to rein in the costs of L.A. employee pensions and retirement benefits overall. This year the city paid about $1.4 billion dollars, or about 17% of the general fund, to cover its obligations — an amount that’s ballooned over the past two decades.

Establishing an emergency reserve fund

What voters did: L.A. voters in 2011 passed Measure P, which sets aside money the city can only touch in cases of emergency.

How it changed the budget: Before Measure P, there was no official law on the books that said the city had to have an emergency fund — it was just a general city policy. The measure added a requirement to the City Charter that the city keep an emergency reserve fund amounting to 2.75% of the general fund (that’s about $220 million for this fiscal year). If the city wants to draw money from this fund, the move would need approval from two-thirds of the City Council.

It also set up a contingency reserve account, which stores money for unexpected costs that weren’t previously in the budget.

The bigger picture: Having an emergency fund requirement forces city leaders to plan ahead and keep a last-resort cushion for extreme situations. It also serves as a warning sign — if reserves are low, that means the city’s spending needs to dial back. L.A.’s city controller and chief administrative officer frequently pointed to the state of the reserve fund this year as a signal to leaders that spending was getting out of hand.

The city has a policy to maintain a total reserve (which includes the emergency reserve account, the contingency account and other “just in case” funds) of at least 5% of the general fund, but this year’s cost overruns made reserve numbers dip below that threshold. Bass’ proposed budget for the coming fiscal year sets aside money to fill that reserve back up again — at the cost of funding for other departments.

Giving the Ethics Commission a set budget

What voters did: In the 2024 general election, voters opted to protect the annual budget for the Ethics Commission, the group in charge of enforcing anti-corruption and campaign finance laws for the city.

How it changed the budget: Before 2024's Measure ER took effect this year, the Ethics Commission’s budget was determined by the City Council. Critics argued that was a major obstacle to the commission’s independence, since it risked having its funding taken away if it penalized city council members or their associates.

With the measure’s passage, the Ethics Commission now has a set minimum annual budget of $7 million, which can be adjusted depending on revenue trends.

The bigger picture: $7 million is small potatoes in terms of the $13 billion city budget, but this measure was much more about making sure the Ethics Commission could do its job effectively. It was part of a larger package of reforms for the Ethics Commission that gained momentum after the 2022 City Hall leaked audio scandal.

Increasing funding for the public library

What voters did: In 2011, voters passed Measure L, which increased the budget for the L.A. Public Library system.

Los Angeles' Central Public Library, lit up in yellow light at night.

(

Charley Gallay

/

Getty Images

)

How it changed the budget: The City Charter says L.A.’s library and parks departments must receive a certain percentage of the city’s property tax revenue for their funding. Measure L changed the percentage used for the Library department’s budget, ultimately increasing its budget by about 70%, and made its funding formula match that of the Recreation and Parks Department. This year the library department received $258 million from the city’s general fund.

The bigger picture: This measure arose in the wake of another city financial crisis, in which then-Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council cut two days a week of service from many city libraries to deal with budget constraints. Library service days haven’t been cut again since Measure L was passed.

How do measures get on the ballot, anyway?

It can happen one of two ways: either the City Council votes to put a measure before voters, or residents can collect enough signatures for a measure to qualify.

All of the measures mentioned above were worked out through City Council committees before getting the full council’s approval to be included on the ballot.

But several non-budget-related measures that voters passed recently (Measures ULA, a tax to fund affordable housing and HLA, a street improvement law) started out with signatures.

According to the city’s handbook on initiative, referendum and recall petitions, all you need is a group of five registered L.A. city voters to start a petition to get a measure on the ballot. The group must submit a letter requesting the city clerk to prepare an official petition, along with full text of their proposed law or charter amendment.

Once the petition language gets approved, the group needs to collect signatures. This year, the signature threshold for an initiative to qualify is just under 140,000 — it’s tied to the number of votes that were cast in the most recent mayoral race. (If you want the exact math, there were 929,974 votes cast in the 2022 mayoral runoff, and the signature requirement is 15% of that number.)

There’s a higher threshold for a charter amendment — around 329,000 signatures this year, or 15% of the number of registered voters in the entire city.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.