On Wednesday, Los Angeles City Council voted 9 to 4 to approve additional LAPD funding after the department hired roughly 170 more officers than the budget authorized. The decision came after months of warnings about a deepening fiscal crisis and underscored, once again, that police spending operates under a different set of rules than nearly every other part of city government.
The sequence matters. Last spring, Council cut LAPD hiring to 240 officers to help close a $1 billion budget gap and avoid layoffs across city departments. Mayor Karen Bass opposed the reduction but signed the budget while signaling the cap was temporary. By midyear, LAPD had already reached the limit. In December, Council raised the number to 280. This week, members went further, authorizing hiring up to 410 officers and effectively ratifying an expansion already underway.
Throughout the debate, council members were repeatedly told this was less a policy choice than an administrative necessity. Recruits were already in the pipeline. Academy classes were underway. Recruitment lists would expire if action was delayed. The framing left little room for a meaningful vote on whether the city should be spending more on policing at all.
City officials said the additional hires, costing about $2.6 million this fiscal year, would be funded from within LAPD’s existing budget and related accounts, not the general fund. The money was described as unspent or unused, including funds in accumulated overtime and other police controlled accounts. The larger issue, the projected $25 million in ongoing costs next year, was deferred to the upcoming budget process, with assurances that savings would be found within the department.
That explanation drew skepticism. Over the past two fiscal years, LAPD has exceeded its budget by more than $210 million and generated roughly $260 million in liability payouts. Against that record, claims that millions can simply be absorbed internally raise basic questions about what fiscal discipline means when it comes to policing.
City Controller Kenneth Mejia addressed those questions directly following the vote. As the city’s accountant, Mejia noted that his office can see every account and every dollar labeled unspent or unused. If those funds were truly available for broader city needs, other departments would already be accessing them. They are not. The exception, he said, is LAPD.
That pattern has now repeated itself in quick succession. In December, the city covered police costs by pulling money from another program and from its leasing account and this week, officials said they found the money inside LAPD itself. Council is pulling from different sources, with the same outcome. When police overspend, City Hall adapts.
Several council members acknowledged the bind. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said she remained concerned about long term fiscal impacts but supported the item after amendments addressed how this year’s costs would be covered. Councilmember Hugo Soto Martinez, who voted no, warned the city was committing itself to tens of millions of dollars in future obligations without a clear plan to pay for them. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez described the approach as robbing Peter to pay Paul, arguing that shifting money around does not resolve the underlying crisis.
Police leadership rejected the criticism. LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell told Council the department was “working on a skeleton crew,” and pushed back on the tone of the debate, saying, “This department is doing amazing things for the residents of this city, but it doesn’t seem to be appreciated.”
That response landed in a city where trust in policing is at a breaking point. For many Angelenos, the issue is not staffing levels alone, but the role LAPD has played in their lives. Expansive surveillance, collaboration with federal immigration enforcement, and repeated use of force incidents have left deep skepticism. The city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in police liability payouts reflect that reality. Against that record, appeals to being underappreciated ring hollow for residents who have borne the cost of misconduct and violence.
But the broader issue is governance. When LAPD exceeds its budget, the mayor signals support, city staff searches for funds, and City Council votes to essentially ratify what has already happened. Meanwhile, other departments are told there is no money for critical services.