Committee directs staff to develop ballot options to address Los Angeles Fire Department staffing and stations

A City Council committee voted to move forward with a study and report to develop ballot and funding options aimed at addressing staffing, response-time and fire-station shortfalls at the Los Angeles Fire Department.

The committee’s request for a report will present options for capital and operating funding — including bond measures and other voter-approved revenue tools — and is intended to return to the council with recommendations in time to place a measure on the ballot by December if directed. The motion and subsequent amendments were approved as amended; items addressing the same subject (items 6 and 23) passed 4–0, with one member noted as absent.

Committee members said recent reports and local experience show the department has not kept pace with population growth and rising call volume, and they asked staff to analyze how many stations and personnel are needed, the costs to staff and operate additions, and which funding tools could lawfully pay for capital versus personnel.

During public comment, Sean Hood, identifying himself as a member of a Los Angeles department local, said the department’s current resources fall well below national norms and cited a 2023 analysis calling for 62 new stations, about 700 additional firefighters, dozens of dispatchers and extra battalion officers. "Now, more than ever, there should be no doubt that our department needs a major investment," Hood said. He and union representatives urged the committee to place a measure before voters or otherwise secure resources.

Freddy Escobar, who identified himself as president of a unit representing station personnel in a local union, told the committee that decades of underinvestment have left staffing and pay levels that are unsustainable. He compared per-resident funding amounts in San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles and said the city must act to prioritize public safety.

City staff from the mayor’s office and the chief administrative office described a typical process: convene a working group (including the fire department, city attorney and other departments), identify capital and operational priorities, analyze options (different bond types, parcel or sales taxes, or fee-based approaches), and return to council with draft ballot language and cost estimates. Staff said general obligation or other capital bonds generally pay for construction and rehabilitation of stations, while ongoing personnel costs typically cannot be paid directly from capital bonds and require separate revenue sources if included.

Council members asked staff to include in the report: (1) a range of options that distinguish capital investments from operating and staffing needs, (2) an assessment of the realistic number of stations and associated staffing that voters would support, (3) consultations with campaign and polling experts and labor and (4) cost estimates and potential fiscal impacts to the general fund. One councilmember offered a verbal amendment asking the report to compare bond-based options with fee- or tax-based alternatives and to consult campaign advisers; staff agreed those elements would be included.

Votes at the meeting recorded the committee’s direction: items 6 and 23 (consolidated for this issue) were approved as amended by a 4–0 vote (one member absent). The committee later reconsidered and approved item 23 as amended by the same 4–0 margin. A separate motion addressing a related funding package or ballot sequencing was discussed but left to staff analysis.

The committee did not adopt a specific measure or dollar amount at the meeting; members directed staff to prepare a detailed report with options, costs and draft ballot language for future council consideration. Staff said the analysis will consider how capital-only bond measures and other revenue tools would each affect the city’s fiscal picture and the department’s ability to staff and operate new facilities.

Next steps: staff will prepare the report and return with recommendations and proposed ballot language; committee members indicated a desire to have the work completed in time to consider placement on a December ballot if council directs.