The Brief

A recent warning about the state of city finances in Los Angeles struck a dire note.

“We will need to be vigilant in how we proceed,” cautioned Matt Szabo, the city administrative officer at a Budget and Finance Committee meeting last week. “Our reserves are getting dangerously close to the ... emergency level.”

The reasons why are detailed in a financial status report Szabo released late last month. It documents precarious city finances driven by a mix of dwindling revenues and some big unexpected expenses, including the costs of responding to the L.A. wildfires.

Another major over-expenditure: civil payouts.

The city of Los Angeles is expected to pay at least $320 million in settlements and judgments this fiscal year, which ends in June, according to the financial status report. That’s more than three and a half times the money budgeted for such risks.

Liability payouts — which settle claims and lawsuits against the city for wrongdoing, including internal staff harassment, police use of force and injuries — have been a considerable expense for many years. In the current fiscal year, the city has paid more than $37 million in just two cases — the LAPD bomb squad fireworks explosion that injured more than two dozen people and displaced residents for years, as well as a shooting in which an off-duty LAPD officer killed a mentally disabled man in another county.

LAist examined city checkbook data, made available online by the city controller’s office, to analyze all payments made for liability claims since fiscal year 2018.

Here’s what we found:

• The most recent yearly budget set aside $87 million to handle such payouts, an amount that has hardly changed in eight years.
• The city was over budget just two months into this fiscal year.
• Last fiscal year, payouts exceeded the budget within seven months.
  

Why it matters

This is the second year in a row the city’s overall budget has faced financial headwinds. Last year, for the first time since the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, overspending and low revenue led to the city’s reserve funds falling below minimum levels required by city policy. This winter, legal settlements and deferred maintenance costs drove up the city’s spending further, and those costs have continued to rise.

When the city overspends on liability payouts, money is taken from other funds, such as the general fund and reserve accounts, to cover those costs.

Making those transfers has larger implications:

• City policy is to maintain reserve funds of at least 5% of budgeted general fund receipts, and if the reserve fund goes below 2.75%, the City Council must vote and declare an “urgent economic necessity” to use the remaining funds from the Emergency Reserve Account.
• Currently, the city’s reserve fund is at 3.28%, a level Szabo described this month as “dangerously close” to emergency levels.
• If additional cost-saving measures aren’t taken, using the reserves to solve remaining overspending would reduce levels to 2.22%.

What we know about liability claims

The Los Angeles Police Department has the highest liability payouts of any city department, with $100 million in claims in fiscal year 2024, according to an LAist analysis of city checkbook data. The department with the next highest amount in payouts was public works, with $45 million in claims across the street services, sanitation and engineering bureaus.

An additional $106 million in fiscal year 2024 liability payouts reviewed by LAist were not associated with any specific department in city data.

“At the end of the day, every dollar that we spend on lawsuits is a dollar that we're not spending on making our neighborhoods safer,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, told LAist. “Whether it's LAPD or sidewalks or trip-and-falls, we really have to get ahead of the problem instead of paying for it much bigger on the back end.”

Yaroslavsky said the city needs to do more realistic and transparent budgeting while addressing the root causes of liability payouts. She said the city is “focused on solutions that reduce risk, improve public safety and protect city resources.” When it comes to the Police Department, Yaroslavsky said reforms include expanding the use of alternative response teams for mental health crises, as well as improving training and accountability practices.

City Controller Kenneth Mejia also shared concerns with LAist about addressing the root issues that lead to liability payouts, saying that if current trends continue, decreases in revenue combined with overspending could extend a citywide hiring freeze and cause service reductions. The city began its hiring freeze in January 2024, followed by cuts to over 1,700 positions last July, according to the controller’s office.

“This is the second year in a row where we budgeted high revenue amounts, and we're not reaching that amount,” Mejia said. “The city really needs to budget better, more conservatively and more realistically.”

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who proposes and signs the budget, did not respond to requests for comment.

Details of the payouts

The following accounts of the city's largest liability payments from fiscal year 2024 are based on court and federal documents. 

United States ex rel. Mei Ling v. City of L.A. — $38,659,715.21

A settlement was reached between the city and Mei Ling after what she claims was years of discrimination because of her disability, preventing her from finding affordable, accessible housing.

Tammy Murillo v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $25,097,461.25

A district court jury found the city and two police officers liable for excessive force and battery, civil rights violations and negligence in the killing of Jesse Murillo, who was a 32-year-old Navy veteran.

Ismael Soto Luna v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $10,500,000 (An additional $10,500,000 was paid in 2025.)

A settlement was reached between the city and Ismael Soto Luna after an L.A. County jury found the city liable for a streetlight in dangerous condition causing harm to Soto. The jury also found that this risk was foreseeable by the city, and the city had enough time to protect against such an incident.

Ruben Martinez et al v. City of Los Angeles et al — $8,000,000

A settlement was reached between the city and Ruben Martinez after prosecutors agreed that Martinez was wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years for five robberies.

Malcolm Thomas v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $7,885,000

A settlement was reached between the city and Malcolm Thomas after what he claims was discrimination based on disability and retaliation while he served as a police officer and instructor at the Los Angeles Police Academy.

And here are the notable payments so far in 2025.

BD Impotex, LLC v. City of Los Angeles — $20,000,000

A settlement was reached between the city and residents of South L.A. after the detonation of illegal fireworks by the LAPD bomb squad. The explosion injured 27 people, including 18 civilians, and caused severe damage to homes and vehicles, according to a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report, causing some residents to be displaced.

Paula French, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. — $17,700,000

A district court jury found that the city was liable for use of excessive force by an LAPD officer that caused the death of a mentally disabled man outside of a Costco in Corona and severely injured his parents.

How does approving the budget work?

Most city budget negotiations happen behind closed doors. Starting in the early fall, the L.A. mayor works with city department heads to figure out what the budget should look like. The mayor outlines her priorities, and department heads submit specific requests for consideration.

The mayor releases the official budget proposal in April. Then the City Council’s budget committee holds a series of hearings to discuss the proposal and listen to feedback from the public. The committee submits recommendations for changes.

The full City Council then has to vote on the proposed budget and the recommended changes. The approved budget takes effect on July 1, running through June 30 of the following year — this is what’s known as a “fiscal year.” Each fiscal year is referred to based on the year the budget ends. For example, the current budget year is 2025. It runs from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025.

Keep an eye on your local government

The best way to keep tabs on your local government is by attending public meetings for your city council or local boards. Here are a few tips to get you started.

• Find meeting schedules and agendas: City councils usually meet at least twice a month, although larger ones may meet weekly. Committees and boards tend to meet less often, typically once a month. You can find the schedule and meeting agenda on your local government’s website, or posted physically at your local city hall. Find more tips here.
  
• Learn the jargon: Closed session, consent calendars and more! We have definitions for commonly used terms here.
  
• How to give public comment: Every public meeting allows community members to give comment, whether or not it’s about something on the agenda. The meeting agenda will have specific instructions for giving public comment. Review more details here.
  

LAist’s Brianna Lee contributed to this report.

The Trump administration says it’s planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president announced an investigation into unspecified fraud in California.

The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration announcing a freeze on all federal payments for child care in Minnesota, citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

The state’s Democrat governor, Tim Walz — who ran for vice president against Donald Trump’s ticket in 2024 — announced Monday he was dropping out of running for reelection. He pointed to fraud against the state, saying it’s a real issue while alleging Trump and his allies were “seeking to take advantage of the crisis.”

On Monday, the New York Post reported that the administration was expanding the funding freeze to include California and three other Democrat-led states, in addition to Minnesota. Unnamed federal officials cited “concerns that the benefits were fraudulently funneled to non-citizens,” The Post reported.

Early Tuesday, President Trump alleged that corruption in California is worse than Minnesota and announced an investigation.

“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

He did not specify what alleged fraud was being examined in the Golden State.

LAist has reached out to the White House to ask what the president’s fraud concerns are in California and to request an interview with the president.

“For too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said an emailed statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the federal childcare funds.

“Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office disputed Trump’s claim on social media, arguing that since taking office, the governor has blocked $125 billion in fraud and arrested “criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers.”

Criminal fraud cases in CA appear to be rare for this program

Defrauding federally funded programs is a crime — and one LAist has investigated, leading to one of the largest such criminal cases in recent years against a California elected official, which surrounded meal funds.

When it comes to the federal childcare funds that are being frozen, the dollar amount of fraud alleged in criminal cases appears to be a tiny fraction of the overall program’s spending in California.

A search of thousands of news releases by all four federal prosecutor offices in California, going back more than a decade, found a total of one criminal case where the press releases referenced childcare benefits.

That case, brought in 2023, alleged four men stole $3.7 million in federal childcare benefits through fraudulent requests to a San Diego organization that distributed the funds. All four pleaded guilty, with one defendant sentenced to 27 months in prison and others sentenced to other terms, according to authorities.

It appears to be equivalent to one one-hundredth of 1% of all the childcare funding California has received over the past decade-plus covered by the prosecution press release search.

Potential impact on California families

The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials speaking to the New York Times and New York Post.

In the largest category of funding, California receives $3.7 billion per year. The program is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

 ”It's very clear that a freeze of those funds would be very damaging to the children, families, and providers of California,” said Stacy Lee, who oversees early childhood initiatives "at Children Now, an advocacy group for children in California.

 ”It is a significant portion of our funds and will impact families and children and providers across the whole state,” she added. “It would be devastating, in no uncertain terms.”

About 270,000 people are served by the TANF program in L.A. County — about 200,000 of whom are children, according to the county Department of Public Social Services.

“Any pause in funding for their cash benefits – which average $1000/month - would be devastating to these families,” said DPSS chief of staff Nick Ippolito.

Ippolito said the department has a robust fraud prevention and 170-person investigations team, and takes allegations “very seriously.”

It remains to be seen whether the funding freeze will end up in court. The state, as well as major cities and counties in California, has sued to ask judges to halt funding freezes or new requirements placed by the Trump administration. L.A. city officials say they’ve had success with that, including shielding more than $600 million in federal grant funding to the city last year.

A union representing California childcare workers said the funding freeze would harm low-income families.

“These threats need to be called out for what they are: direct threats on working families of all backgrounds who rely on access to quality, affordable child care in their communities to go to work every day supporting, and growing our economy,” said Max Arias, chairperson for the Child Care Providers United, which says it represents more than 70,000 child care workers across the state who care for kids in their homes.

“Funding freezes, even when intended to be temporary, will be devastating — resulting in families losing access to care and working parents facing the devastating choice of keeping their children safe or paying their bills.”

Federal officials planned to send letters to the affected states Monday about the planned funding pauses, the New York Post reported. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, state officials said they haven’t gotten any official notification of the funding freeze plans.

“The California Department of Social Services administers child care programs that help working families afford safe, reliable care for their children — so parents can go to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities,” said a statement from California Department of Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel.

“These funds are critical for working families across California. We take fraud seriously, and CDSS has received no information from the federal government indicating any freeze, pause, or suspension of federal child care funding.”

Housing officials in the city of Los Angeles say a pandemic-era voucher program is set to run out of money later this year, putting thousands of renters at risk of homelessness.

The federal Emergency Housing Voucher program was launched in 2021 as a way to get vulnerable people off the streets and into housing during the COVID-19 crisis. The city of L.A. received more than 3,300 of the vouchers.

With federal funding now running out, the city is preparing to wind down the program. On Monday the city’s housing authority said it had told 2,760 tenant households and 1,700 landlords that unless new funding is found, vouchers will expire by November or December of this year.

“We are providing this notice nearly a year in advance because our families deserve the respect of time to prepare, but this is not a notice of resignation,” said L.A. Housing Authority President Lourdes Castro Ramírez said in a news release. “We are exhausting every avenue — at the local, state and federal levels — to bridge this funding gap.”

The Housing Authority said each household using a voucher had an average of 1.58 members. That puts more than 4,000 Angelenos at risk of losing their housing later this year.

Homelessness progress could be reversed

Congress originally intended the program to continue through 2030, but last year, the Trump administration announced funding would end sooner. The program’s demise risks reversing L.A.’s reported progress at stemming the rise of homelessness.

After years of steady increases, the city has registered slight reductions in the number of people experiencing homelessness for the past two years. In 2023, the region’s homeless services authority reported 46,260 people experiencing homelessness in the city of L.A. By 2025, that number had fallen to 43,695.

The accuracy of those official counts has been questioned by local researchers, but elected officials have cheered the numbers as a sign that the tide is turning in addressing one of L.A.’s most vexing problems.

With thousands of renters now at risk of losing a key resource helping them afford the city’s high rents, sharp increases in homelessness could be on the horizon, said Mike Feuer, a senior policy advisor with the Inner City Law Center.

“They're going to fall into homelessness, and they're going to increase L.A.'s homeless population by almost 10%,” Feuer said. “Those are the implications of what the Trump administration is doing.”

Voucher holders have low incomes; many have kids

According to L.A.’s Housing Authority, about 1-in-4 voucher holders has children and 1-in-5 is elderly. And about 40% are disabled. These households have an average income of less than $14,000 per year, and they receive an average of $1,789 per month in rental subsidy while paying about $350 out of their own pockets.

The loss of federal funding for Emergency Housing Vouchers is distinct from the issues facing renters using Housing Choice Vouchers, another federally funded program often referred to as Section 8. Existing vouchers in the Section 8 program have continued to be funded, but federal funding reductions have caused city officials to cut the amount of rent new vouchers in that program can cover by 10%.

L.A. Housing Authority officials said they have dedicated staff reaching out to tenants to explore other housing resources that might keep them housed after the vouchers expire.

Manuel Villagomez, an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles specializing in subsidized housing, said with city and state budgets strapped, tenant advocates are not counting on California to find alternative funding sources to continue the program.

“It seems like it's a tragedy in the making,” Villagomez said. “We're preparing for the worst.”