Committee votes to advance bond measure aimed at repairing and expanding fire services

The Public Safety Committee voted 5-0 to adopt a motion advancing a bond measure intended to fund Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) infrastructure, station repairs and equipment as well as to support staffing needs.

Committee members moved the measure forward after testimony from firefighters' union leaders and council members who said the department has not kept pace with decades of population growth and rising emergency demand.

Union officials and firefighters described long-term understaffing, aging stations and unmet maintenance needs. Richard Ramírez, second vice president of UFLAC 112 and a paramedic, said the department has answered many more calls while losing stations and staff: "Necesitamos los fondos necesarios para que nosotros podamos hacer nuestro trabajo efectivamente y eficazmente" ("We need the funds necessary so we can do our work effectively and efficiently"). Another union speaker told the committee the department needs "an additional sixty-two new stations" to meet service goals.

Speakers compared local spending with other large West Coast cities during public comment. A presenter cited current LAFD budget figures as approximately $837 million for a service area of 3.8 million people and noted per-resident spending of roughly $222, compared with smaller per-resident budgets in San Francisco and Seattle. Committee members and public witnesses used those figures to illustrate perceived underinvestment in fire infrastructure and equipment.

Council members emphasized the policy choice involved in funding public safety. Member Park and Member Price both said they would support advancing the measure to ballot consideration while stressing the need for clear spending priorities. Member Macosker and Member Lee likewise supported moving the measure forward; the committee chair called the item a first step in a broader budgetary discussion.

The motion that advanced the bond measure passed by roll call: Member Lee — yes; Member Price — yes; Member Macosker — yes; Member Soto Martínez — yes; Member Park — yes. The vote record was announced on the public record as five in favor, and the committee approved the motion to advance the bond measure.

The committee did not set a final ballot language or a specific dollar amount during the meeting; speakers and council members discussed priorities (station replacement/repair, equipment, personnel) but the precise measure text and timeline will be developed in subsequent staff work and brought back to the council for further action.

Supporters said the bond would fund capital needs that annual budgets have not addressed, while some members stressed that any bond proposal should include clear prioritization for staffing and maintenance as well as transparent reporting to voters.