Budget and Finance Advisory Committee

MINUTES – BUDGET AND FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Friday, February 6, 2026 ROOM 401, CITY HALL - 1:00 PM 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 MEMBERS: RON S. GALPERIN, CHAIR VACANT, VICE CHAIR GILDA HAAS DERRIC J. JOHNSON JOSEPH M. LUMARDA Armando Bencomo - Legislative Assistant - (213) 978-1080 (or Clerk.BudgetandFinanceCommittee@lacity.org) Submit written comment at LACouncilComment.com The audio for this meeting is broadcast live on the internet at https://clerk.lacity.gov/calendar. Additional information regarding Committee procedures provided at the end of this agenda. ITEM(S) (1) Call to Order and Roll Call Members Present: Ron S. Galperin, Gilda Haas, Derric J. Johnson (3); Absent: Joseph M. Lumarda (1); Vacant: Vice Chair (1) Chairperson Ron S. Galperin called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. (2) Public Comment • Multiple Agenda Item Comment • General Public Comment The Committee provided an opportunity for Multiple Agenda Item and General Public Comments. (3) Approval of Minutes • The Committee will review and approve the Minutes of the November 24, 2025, Budget and Finance Advisory Committee meeting. Member Derric J. Johnson move to approve the Minutes of the November 24, 2025 Committee Meeting, which was seconded by Member Gilda Haas – Ayes: Galperin, Haas, Johnson (3); Nays: (0); Absent: Lumarda (1) (4) Report Backs on Focus Area Progress • Committee members will report back on the status and progress of the potential focus areas discussed during the previous meeting. Discussion will include updates on initial research and goals regarding economic development, financial management, and revenue sources. The Committee discussed the progress on potential focus areas that were identified during the November 24, 2025 Committee Meeting, which include new revenue- generating opportunities, mitigation of unnecessary loss of revenue caused by the City’s fiscal liability costs, proposed policy interventions to reign in excessive costs that impact the City’s budget, exploring opportunities for privatizing liability and self-insurance, researching new law enforcement insurance models, developing performance-based budget mechanisms to stabilize the General Fund, linking budget allocations to key performance reviews and indicators for all City departments, and shifting liability payouts from the General Fund to the departmental operating budgets. The Committee discussed the focus area relative to the exponential increase in Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) liability payouts that arise from matters related to wrongful convictions, general misconduct, traffic violations, traffic collisions, lawsuits filed directly by LAPD personnel. Golden Bachelder, Fellow of University of California of Los Angeles (UCLA) Luskin School of Public Affairs, reported on the research relative to liability payouts in comparison to the cities of New York and Chicago. The LAPD liability payouts amounted to $155.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25; $104 million in FY 2023-24; $35 million in FY 2022-23; $38 million in FY 2021-22; and $16 million in FY 2020-21. In comparison, the policies liability payouts for the City of New York were $375 million in FY 2025; $319 million in FY 2024; $275 million in FY 2023; and $235 million in FY 2022. The police liability payouts for the City of Chicago were $84 million in FY 2024;  $81 million in FY 2023; and $86 million in FY 2022. The population comparison, in terms of per-person spent for each city in the latest year, amounts to $40 per person for the City of Los Angeles; $44 per person for City of New York; and, $31 per person for the City of Chicago. Other potential focus areas that were discussed include the implementation of a single unified accounts receivable system to streamline revenue tracking, developing a liability mitigation system with early warning signs to identify City departments and offices with high litigation risk, codifying codify a municipal evaluation system that would tie departmental revenue receipts to a quality service delivery commitment, achieving labor and operational efficiencies through labor agreement negotiations, and establishing consistent supplemental budget schedules to reassess departmental budget requirements for mid-year re-allocations based on current liability overruns. (5) Discussion • Committee members will refine the BFAC work plan, goals, and focus areas for the year, as needed. The Committee discussed financial management policy matters as potential focus areas to be considered, such as the utilization and potential consolidation of designated special funds that have spending limitations imposed by Federal or State law, voter initiatives, the City Council, or other applicable reasons. The Committee could evaluate whether any communal benefits can be achieved through special funds designated for proprietary departments, identify special funds that can be used to reimburse the General Fund or general overhead costs through the City’s Cost Allocation Plan (CAP); and, the potential creation of an internal CAP that would capture costs that are not subject to applicable Federal or State rules, regulations, or grant requirements. The Committee can also consider exploring the interpretation of limitations imposed on the utilization of special funds, and evaluate the potential utilization of idle funds, underutilized funds, and funds with accumulated balances that exceed a departmental annual budget or a department’s respective ability to expend such funds. Other potential focus areas to be considered include an evaluation of the City’s treasury portfolio and realized investment returns, Reserve Fund and Budget Stabilization Fund allocations and compliance with the City’s financial guidelines monitored by credit rating agencies, real estate asset management, increasing parking enforcement revenue, and exploring innovative technological opportunities and collateral consequences associated with streamlining parking enforcement operations. The Committee, City Attorney, and City Clerk discussed the Ralph M. Brown Act compliance parameters pertinent to the distribution of documents, information, and  meeting materials prior to a Committee Meeting; communications, discussions, and informal meetings among the Members; and, the methods for electronic posting of documents that will be made available to the Members and the general public. (6) Next Steps and Future Agenda Items The Committee identified several next steps, including the gathering of prior research on matters to be discussed by the Committee, the development of proposed language for a potential Motion to be introduced for the City Council’s consideration, the development of a draft performance-based budget template for accountability and oversight pillars; and, the evaluation of models for performance-based budgeting models. Charles Turner, Council District 5, discussed the coordination of research requests and the submittal of documents and meeting materials for future Agenda Items. The next Committee Meeting was confirmed to be scheduled on Friday, February 27, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. (7) Adjournment Member Derric J. Johnson moved to adjourn the Committee Meeting at 3:00 p.m, seconded by Member Gilda Haas, with the following Members present: Ron S. Galperin, Gilda Haas, Derric J. Johnson (3); Absent: Joseph M. Lumarda (1); Vacant: Vice Chair (1) If you challenge this Committee's action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to, the public hearing. Any written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk before the City Council's final action on a matter will become a part of the administrative record. Materials relative to items on this agenda can be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk's Council File Management System, at lacouncilfile.com by entering the Council File number listed immediately following the item number (e.g., 00-0000). Telecommunication Relay Services Telephone communication is one of the most important forms of communication in society today. Due to advancements in technology, telephone devices have evolved with new services and capabilities. Individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing, and individuals with a speech disability are following these trends and are rapidly migrating to more advanced telecommunications methods, both for peer-to-peer and third-party telecommunications relay service (TRS) communications. Telecommunications Relay Service is a telephone service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities to place and receive telephone calls. TRS is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories for local and/or long distance calls. TRS providers - generally telephone companies - are compensated for the costs of providing TRS from either a state or a federal fund. There is no cost to the TRS user. What forms of TRS are available?There are several forms of TRS, depending on the particular needs of the user and the equipment available: TRS includes: Text to Voice TIY-Based TRS; Speech-to-Speech Relay Service; Shared Non-English Language Relay Service; Captioned Telephone Relay Service; Internet Protocol Relay Service; and Video Relay Service. Please visit this site for detail descriptions, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs. Don't hang up! Some people hang up on TRS calls because they think the CA is a telemarketer. If you hear, "Hello. This is the relay service .. . " when you pick up the phone, please don't hang up! You are about to talk, through a TRS provider, to a person who is deaf, hard-of-hearing, or has a speech disability. For more information about FCC programs to promote access to telecommunications services for people with disabilities, visit theFCC's Disability Rights Office website.