los angeles budget challenge_2013

7/29/2019 Los Angeles Budget Challenge_2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/los-angeles-budget-challenge2013 1/25

Los Angeles Budget Challenge

2013 Please mail your completed survey to: Or drop off your completed survey at one of the following locations between 9am and 5pm:

Office of Neighborhood and

Community Services

Mayor Antonio

R.

Villaraigosa

ATTN: NCS, Amanda R.

200 N. Spring St., Room 303‐D

Los Angeles, CA 90012

City Hall

Office of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa

Mayor's Receptionist

Desk


200 N. Spring St., Room 303


Van Nuys City Hall

ATTN: Mayor’s Office, NCS, Amanda R.

14410 Sylvan

Street,

Rm

211

Van Nuys, CA 91401

*Surveys must be postmarked or dropped at off at City Hall or Van Nuys City Hall no later than Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

Survey results will be posted on http://mayor.lacity.org in March 2013.



Page 1 of 20

2013 Los Angeles Budget Challenge

‐‐‐ YOUR CHALLENGE ‐‐‐

Balance the City of Los Angeles' Budget

Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa invites you to take the Los Angeles Budget Challenge. Developed with input from

the City's

Neighborhood

Council

Budget

Advocates,

the

survey

gives

you

the

opportunity

to

share

your

priorities for balancing the City of Los Angeles' budget. For the next Fiscal Year, the City of Los Angeles

projects a $216 million budget gap. Over the coming months, Mayor Villaraigosa will review opportunities to

build upon recent efforts to improve the City's fiscal sustainability. Your participation will assist Mayor

Villaraigosa as he prepares the Fiscal Year 2013‐14 Proposed Budget, which will be released in April 2013.

For information about the City of Los Angeles' budget and previous actions taken to balance the budget, view the attached

handout ‐ City of LA Budget Background . To take the survey online, please visit: http://la.budgetchallenge.org.

Where do these policy options come from? Links for Budget Background Share your thoughts

The Budget Challenge is a budget balancing

simulation. Budget

amounts

for

each

policy

option

are estimates based on preliminary budget targets

developed by the Mayor in anticipation of a $216

million deficit for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013‐14. For more

information, please view the Mayor’s Fiscal Year

2013‐14 Budget Policy Letter linked here:

http://tinyurl.com/cityofla‐bpl, which directed City

Departments to submit budget proposals that meet

preliminary reduction targets.

City of LA Budget Background

http://tinyurl.com/cityofla‐bb1

Budget Summary Book


The FY12‐13 Adopted Budget


The City’s Financial Status


Mayor Villaraigosa welcomes

you to

share

your

ideas

about

the City's budget and

operations. Please use the

comment boxes available

throughout the survey to

share your thoughts and

concerns about budget

balancing options and about

City services in general.



Page 2 of 20


Before you begin…

Please tell us about yourself

Zip Code:

Neighborhood Council

Affiliation

(optional):

I am a Neighborhood Council Board Member (optional): ____ Yes ____ No

Budget Priorities

Rank your budget priorities. (Please Note: The City of Los Angeles is a full‐service city, but is not responsible for

all local government services such as K‐12 education, health services, and highway construction and

maintenance.)

High ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Low

Priority

1

Priority

2

Priority

3

Priority

4

Priority

5

Priority

6

Economic Development and Private Sector Job

Creation (Includes Business Assistance, Code

Enforcement, City Planning, Job Training, Affordable

Housing, and Homeless Services)

Fire Services (Includes Rescue and Emergency Medical

Services, Fire Prevention, and Arson Investigation)

Fiscal Sustainability (Includes Stable Reserve Fund,

Streamlined Central Administration Functions, Alternative

Service Delivery

Models,

Consolidation

of

Services,

and

Reform of Employee Compensation, Pension and Benefits)

Improved Infrastructure (Includes Public Transit, Signal

Synchronization, Parking Enforcement, Sidewalk Repair

and Street Improvements)

Livable Neighborhoods (Includes Library Services, Recreational Services, Human Welfare Services, Arts and

Cultural Programs, Sanitation, and Environmental

Sustainability Efforts)

Police Services (Includes Crime Prevention, Crime

Investigation, Patrol Services, and Traffic Enforcement)

Other (please specify and indicate priority):



Page 3 of 20


Long‐Term Initiatives to Reform City Government Note: While these reforms may generate substantial cost savings and increased revenue in future years, they require additional

study and therefore would not assist with balancing the FY 2013‐14 General Fund Budget.

Background

Over the past several years, the City has implemented a variety of measures that have significantly reduced the structural

deficit. These measures include reforming City employee pension plans, reducing the City workforce by over 5,000

positions, improving the City's billing and revenue collections processes, and strictly limiting the hiring of new employees.

To ensure that the City continues on this path to fiscal sustainability, the Mayor has instructed the City Administrative

Officer to conduct a comprehensive review of various opportunities to reduce the City's long term structural deficit, the

Mayor has instructed the City Administrative Officer to conduct a comprehensive review of various opportunities to reduce

the City's long term structural deficit. While the above listed reforms can potentially generate substantial cost savings in

future years, they require additional study and therefore would not produce savings in the short‐term. Furthermore,

reforms to employee pay and benefits are subject to negotiations with the City's labor unions. To view the Mayor's memo

to the City Administrative Officer, please visit the following link: http://tinyurl.com/cityofla‐bgrd1

Options

(choose as many as you like or none at all)

REFORM EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE

Pursue opportunities to reduce the cost of employee health care. This may include increasing co‐pays, utilizing

a lower cost rate for health subsidies, and increasing employee contributions towards healthcare premium

costs

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Increasing employee contributions to health benefits

would be structural savings to the City. The City would be

able to maintain service levels and avoid potential

layoffs.

City employees are already contributing into their

healthcare premiums and paying higher co‐ pays. The City

should operate more efficiently and find other ways to

balance the

budget.

REFORM EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION

Pursue opportunities to modify employee compensation levels. This may include reducing civilian employees'

starting salaries, modifying automatic salary step increases, and eliminating pay for non‐federal City holidays.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City should reform the existing civil service

compensation structure. It should be based on a merit

system rather than automatic salary increases based on

time.

The City should continue its current civil service structure.

Salary increases are fixed and automatic based on service

time.

REFORM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Pursue additional opportunities to reduce workers' comp costs. This may include investing additional resources to prevent and investigate workers comp claims and negotiating with labor unions to reduce Injured

on Duty rate to the State's lower cost rate.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City needs to reform its workers compensation

benefits. Currently a city Employee receives 100% of its

salary for 52 weeks as opposed to the 2/3 gross rate with

a ceiling of $52,546 annual.

City employees are already contributing into their benefits.

Reducing the workers comp rate would reduce employees

benefit further. The City should operate more efficiently and

find other ways to balance the budget. Additional long‐term initiatives on the following page…



Page 4 of 20


Long‐Term Initiatives continued…

Note: While these reforms may generate substantial cost savings and increased revenue in future years, they

require additional study and therefore would not assist with balancing the FY 2013‐14 General Fund Budget.

Options

(choose as many as you like or none at all)

REFORM RETIREE PENSIONS

Further pursue opportunities to reform retiree pensions. This may include modifying automatic cost of

living adjustments to post‐employment benefits for retirees.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City should continue to reduce the cost of retiree

benefits. This would help to reduce the structural deficit

without impacting service levels.

Retirees have already paid for their benefits into the City.

They are now on a fixed income and should be

compensated what was promised to them.

EXPAND

STRATEGIC

OUTSOURCING

Expand the use of legal and fiscally prudent opportunities to contract out City services, including but not

limited to ambulance transport, information technology, and street maintenance services.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City should increase its utilization of strategic

outsourcing for the provision of City services when

appropriate. Partnering with non‐City entities can

provide the City with specialized expertise and allow it to

address unanticipated peaks in workload.

Outsourcing City services requires additional administrative

oversight. Furthermore, the quality and affordability of City

services may be impacted.

NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MODEL

Establish a new model for organizing and delivering services that will help create/retain jobs in Los

Angeles and

generate

investment

in

under

‐serviced

communities.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: While various City departments provide services related

to local economic development, a new economic

development model will allow the City to make a

concerted effort to create new jobs, attract new business

and industries, maximize the City's assets, and increase

General Fund revenue.

The creation of an economic development model will

require new costs for staff, equipment, facilities and other

expenses. While the City may be able to streamline its

existing resources to create this new model, the costs may

increase City's structural deficit and any potential revenue

growth will most likely be realized in the long‐term.

Please use the space below to provide additional ideas and to share your thoughts about these policy options.



Page 5 of 20


Spending Options: Animal Services

(choose one)

MAINTAIN STATUS QUO FUNDING

Maintain current General Fund support (approx. $20 million) for Animal Services, which reflects an

overall reduction of 1% since 2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The department should continue to look for

efficiencies. Explore the potential public private

partnerships with other organizations.

The department has sustained cuts in the past and

absorbing additional cuts will create inefficiencies and

potential liabilities. The City should look at reductions

through other efficiencies.

REDUCE $2.0 MILLION

Reduce funding for animal shelter operations, spay/neuter programs, and animal licensing. This may

result in the closure of an animal shelter and in increased euthanization of animals in the care of the City.

Note: Decreasing

funding

may

result

in

layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City has a significant structural gap between

expenditures and revenues. It cannot maintain the

status quo. The City should continue to reduce funding

for Animal Services and explore public private

partnerships with other organizations.

Reductions to the department will create inefficiencies,

potential liabilities and the probable closure of an

animal shelter. The City should not risk increasing

animal euthanizations. The City should make reductions

to other services.

INCREASE $2.0 MILLION

Increase funding to support animal shelter operations, spay/neuter programs, and animal licensing.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The department has been cut 20% over the last 5

years. Increasing

funding

will

allow

the

department

to

properly staff its operations.

The department should be treated like all other

departments and

continue

to

implement

efficiencies

and

further cost reductions.


Background

The Department of Animal Services (www.laanimalservices.com) operates and maintains animal shelters, issues

dog and

equine

licenses,

participates

in

the

County's

rabies

control

program,

issues

permits,

and

conducts

inspections for the operation of animal establishments. In 2011, the Department partnered with the non‐profit

organization, Best Friends Animal Society (http://bfla.bestfriends.org), for the operation of the City's Northeast

Valley Shelter. The unique partnership has allowed the City to maintain services at the shelter at a reduced cost

to the City. The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of $20 million (all of which is

provided by the General Fund) to the Department of Animal Services.



Page 6 of 20


Spending Options: City Attorney

(choose one)

MAINTAIN

STATUS

QUO

FUNDING

Maintain current General Fund support (approx. $94 million) for City Attorney operations and services,

which reflects an overall reduction of 4% since 2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City Attorney provides an essential City service.

Further reductions may create liabilities for the City

and would impair the City Attorney's ability to file

cases and to render legal opinions in a timely manner.

To prevent severe service reductions, the City should

make modest cuts to all departments, including the City

Attorney's Office.

REDUCE $9.4 MILLION

Reduce funding for legal counsel services to the City Council and City departments. This may create

delays in the review of contracts and ordinances, and may place the City at greater risk of liability

lawsuits. Note:

Decreasing

funding

may

result

in

layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Cuts to City Attorney's budget are necessary to

prevent severe service reductions to core departments

such as the Police Department and Fire Department.

Funding for the City Attorney has already been reduced.

Further cuts will impair the Office's ability to file cases

and render legal opinions in a timely manner. Any

further reductions could pose a liability to the City.


Increase funding for legal counsel services to the City Council and City departments. This may improve

the Office’s capacity to represent the City in cases related to workers' compensation claims and litigation;

to examine City contracts and ordinances; and to prosecute misdemeanors.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The additional funds would allow the department to

restore the 34 furlough days (unpaid time off)

currently imposed on attorney positions in the office.

Eliminating these 34 furloughs would result in

increased services.

Restoring funding for the City Attorney's Office will add

to the City's budget shortfall. The City should continue

to reduce its expenditures to all departments, including

the City Attorney's Office.


Background

The City Attorney (http://atty.lacity.org) acts as legal advisor to the City of Los Angeles, the City Council, all

Board and Commission Officers, and City Departments. The City Attorney renders legal opinions construing

federal and State laws, the Charter and City ordinances. Additionally, the City Attorney represents the City, its

boards, officials and officers in all civil trials and legal proceedings before all courts, as well as State and Federal

Committees and Commissions. The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of $98 million

(of which $94 million is provided by the General Fund) to the Office of the City Attorney. For the current year,

the Budget included 34 furlough days (unpaid time off) for over 400 employees in the City Attorney’s Office.



Page 7 of 20


Spending Options: Constituent Services, Legislative Analysis

& Policy Determination

(choose one)

MAINTAIN

STATUS

QUO

FUNDING

Maintain current General Fund support (approx. $32 million) for Mayor, Council and Neighborhood Councils,

which reflects an overall reduction of 36% since 2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Our City leaders were elected to implement effective public

policies that improve conditions in the City. Further

reductions will make it difficult for them to perform their

Charter ‐mandated responsibilities and to address

constituents' requests and concerns in a timely manner.

Our elected officials and Neighborhood Councils should be

subject to budget cuts just like all other City departments. It

would be unfair to exempt our City leaders from budget

reductions while other municipal services continue to be cut.

REDUCE $3.2 MILLION

Reduce funding for constituent services, legislative analysis & policy determination. This may impact the

Mayor, Council & Neighborhood Councils’ abilities to support community events and services, to respond to

constituent requests

and

to

conduct

legislative

analysis

required

for

decision

making.

Note:

Decreasing

funding may result in layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Public officials must lead by example and trim their budgets.

Without modest cuts to Neighborhood Councils and elected

officials’ offices, the City will be forced to make severe

reductions to other critical services.

Public officials need sufficient resources to respond to

constituent requests and to carry out legislative analysis

required to implement good public policy. Further cuts impact

our leaders' capacities to improve public safety, health, and

economic conditions in Los Angeles.


Increase funding for constituent services, legislative analysis and policy determination.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The Mayor, Council & Neighborhood Councils provide critical

services to

residents

and

other

City

stakeholders.

We

must

provide public officials with sufficient resources needed to

lead our City and place it on a more fiscally sustainable path.

Restoring funding for the Mayor's Office, the City Council and

Neighborhood Councils

will

add

to

the

City's

budget

shortfall.

The City should continue to make budget cuts to all

departments, including our public officials.


Background

As the elected head of City government, the Mayor (http://mayor.lacity.org) recommends the annual budget, submits

proposals to the Council, approves or vetoes ordinances passed by the Council, and actively enforces the City's ordinances.

The City Council (http://lacity.org/YourGovernment/CityCouncil ) is the governing body of the City and enacts ordinances

subject to the approval or veto of the Mayor. The Council adopts or modifies the budget proposed by the Mayor. The

Council is

provided

technical

assistance

by

the

Chief

Legislative

Analyst's

Office.

Neighborhood

Councils

(http://done.lacity.org) are city‐certified local groups comprised of people who live, work, or own property in a

neighborhood. Currently, the there are 95 Neighborhood Councils in the City of Los Angeles. In Fiscal Year 2012‐13, each

Neighborhood Council received public funds of $37,000 to support their activities, which may include creating events and

programs that address the unique needs of their community. The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment

(http://done.lacity.org) is responsible for developing and supporting the citywide system of Neighborhood Councils. The

Department's mission is to promote increased participation in government and to make government more responsive to

local needs through the Neighborhood Council system. The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of

$32 million (the vast majority of which is provided by the General Fund) to the Mayor's Office, City Council,

Neighborhood Councils and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.



Page 8 of 20


Spending Options: Employee Compensation

(choose one)

MAINTAIN STATUS QUO

Provide funding for City employees' cost of living adjustments (COLAs) that have been deferred since

2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City should fulfill its promise to employees by

funding previously negotiated COLAs. Employees have

already sacrificed by agreeing to defer the COLAs, to

contribute more into their healthcare premiums, and

to pay higher co‐ pays. The City should operate more

efficiently and find ways to balance the budget other

than on the backs of employees.

It would be irresponsible for the City to raise employee

salaries while it is facing a significant imbalance

between its expenditures and revenues. Not funding the

COLAs will allow the City to reduce the FY 2012‐13

shortfall by over $20 million.

REDUCE $22.3 MILLION

Do not provide funding for contractual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) to civilian employees. Note:

This policy option is subject to labor negotiations and may result in litigation.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Not funding the COLAs to civilian employees will allow

the City to avoid a substantial increase to its

expenditures. By choosing not to fund the COLAs, the

City would be able to avoid significant service

reductions and potential layoffs needed to balance the

budget.

The City should not balance the budget with uncertain

cost savings. If the City does not fund the COLAs for

civilian employees, it is very likely that labor unions will

legally challenge the City for failing to fulfill its

contractual obligation to employees. Should the City

lose in court, it will be forced to pay for the COLAs.


Background

The City's primary costs are associated to salary and benefits. Since 2009 the City has undertaken

unprecedented efforts to address its rising employee compensation, benefits and pension costs. These efforts

include, but are not limited to:

• Modifying civilian pensions by raising the retirement age from 55 to 65, reducing the maximum pension

allowance

from

100

percent

to

75

percent

of

an

employee's

final

compensation,

and

eliminating

pension

spiking by setting an employees' pension on a 3‐year salary average as opposed to one year.

• Requiring employees to contribute 2 percent to 4 percent (from zero) of their pay for retiree health

benefits, and freezing benefits for employees not contributing.

• Eliminating over 5,000 positions, resulting in the smallest civilian workforce since 1993.

• Imposing a 20 percent salary reduction for new sworn police officers in addition to reducing retirement

benefits.

For more information about employee labor agreements , visit the following website: http://cao.lacity.org/MOUs



Page 9 of 20


Spending Options: Fire Suppression & Prevention

(choose one)


Maintain current General Fund support (approx. $506 million) for Fire Department operations and

services, which reflects an overall reduction of 9% since 2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Staff and resource reductions to the Fire Department

put the lives of residents and firefighters at risk. The

City should support the Fire Department's current

funding level.

The department currently has insufficient resources.

Budget reductions will create inefficiencies and

potential liabilities. The City should look at reductions to

other departments.

REDUCE $3.1 MILLION

Reduce funding for Fire Department operations and services. This may impact fire prevention services as

well as fire suppression and emergency ambulance response times. Note: Decreasing funding may result

in layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The Los Angeles Fire Department City should develop a

plan to more cost ‐effectively deploy fire fighters and

to civilianize certain Fire Department functions.

Staff and resource reductions to the Fire Department will

increase firefighter and ambulance response times,

which puts the lives of residents at risk.


Increase funding for Fire Department operations and services. This may increase firefighter deployment

levels.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The Fire Department is currently operating with

insufficient resources. The City should increase

support to

the

department

to

protect

public

safety.

Restoring funding for the Fire Department will add to the

City's budget shortfall. The City should continue to make

budget cuts

to

all

departments,

including

the

Fire

Department.


Background

The Los Angeles Fire Department (http://lafd.org) provides rescue and emergency medical services; controls

and extinguishes

dangerous

fires;

protects

life

and

property

from

fire

risks

by

inspecting

buildings

for

fire

hazards and enforcing fire prevention laws; carries on a fire prevention educational program; and investigates

suspected cases of arson.

The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of $513 million (of which $506 million is

provided by the General Fund) to the Los Angeles Fire Department.



Page 10 of 20


Spending Options: Human Welfare Programs

(choose one)


Maintain current General Fund support (approx. $48 million) for Human Welfare programs, which reflects

an overall increase of 9% since 2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: These programs are integral to the public safety,

economic vitality, health and well ‐being of many City

residents. The City should maintain the current

funding level for Human Welfare Programs.

To prevent severe service reductions to other City

functions, the City should make modest cuts to all

services including human welfare programs.

REDUCE $4.8 MILLION

Reduce funding for services for low‐income seniors, persons with disabilities, at‐risk youth, the homeless,

as well as gang prevention and intervention services. Note: Decreasing funding may result in layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Reducing funding to human welfare programs is

necessary to balance the budget. Human welfare

programs should continue to streamline their

operations to accommodate modest cuts to their

budgets.

These programs help to ensure that the City of Los

Angeles supports the health, wellbeing, public safety,

and economic vitality of all of its residents. The City

should prioritize human welfare. Budget cuts should be

made elsewhere.


Increase funding for services for low‐income seniors, persons with disabilities, at‐risk youth, the

homeless, as well as gang prevention and intervention services.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: These programs provide unique services that enrich

the lives

of

residents.

The

City

should

increase

funding

for these programs.

While human welfare programs are important to the

well ‐being

of

Los

Angeles

communities,

the

City

must

prioritize its more essential functions, such as public

safety and basic street repair.


Background

The City

of

Los

Angeles

provides

a number

of

human

welfare

programs,

including

services

for

low

‐income

seniors, persons with disabilities, at‐risk youth, the homeless, as well as gang prevention and intervention

services. These services are provided by the the Department of Aging (http://aging.lacity.org), Department on

Disability (http://disability.lacity.org), Community Development Department (http://cdd.lacity.org), the Housing

Department (http://lahd.lacity.org), Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (http://www.lahsa.org), the Office

of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (http://mayor.lacity.org/Issues/GangReduction), and several non‐

profit agencies that contract with the City. The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of

$129 million (of which $48 million is provided by the General Fund) to these departments and programs.



Page 11 of 20


Spending Options: Police Services

(choose one)


Maintain current General Fund support (approx. $1.22 billion) for Police Department operations and

services, which reflects an overall reduction of 5% since 2009. Arguments For: Arguments Against: The Police Department is already operating with

insufficient resources. Ensuring public safety should

be the City's number one priority. Cuts should be

made elsewhere.

Over 25% of the City's total General Fund is spent on the

Police Department. The department should find ways to

be more efficient.


Reduce funding for Police Department expenses and for civilian staff support of crime prevention and

suppression functions. Note: Decreasing funding may result in layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Crime levels in Los Angeles are at a historic low. The

Police Department should be able to continue to

provide adequate public safety services with fewer

resources. The department should reassess its

current deployment model to operate more efficiently.

Reducing funding for the Police Department will

jeopardize public safety. The department is already

operating with insufficient resources and should not be

cut.


Increase funding for Police Department expenses and for civilian staff support of crime prevention and

suppression functions.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Currently, the Police Department is operating with

insufficient resources.

We

must

invest

in

the

department to ensure public safety, which is essential

to the local economy and residents' quality of life.

Increasing funding for the Police Department will add to

the City's

budget

shortfall.

The

City

should

continue

to

make budget cuts to all departments, especially the

City's largest department.


Background

The Los Angeles Police Department or LAPD (http://www.lapdonline.org) is provided a General Fund budget of

$1.22 billion

to

safeguard

the

lives

and

property

of

the

people

it

serves,

to

reduce

the

incidence

and

fear

of

crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the City’s diverse communities to improve quality of

life. The Mayor and the Police Chief have pledged their commitment to crime reduction by maintaining the

ranks of the LAPD. As of January 1, 2013, the number of police officers has increased to 10,023, an increase of

over 700 officers since 2005. During this same period, total Part 1 Crimes (Homicide, Robbery, Rape,

Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Grand Theft Auto and Theft from Motor Vehicles) have decreased by 27%. For

the 2012 End of Year Summary on Crime Statistics, please view the following link:

http://www.lapdonline.org/lapd_command_staff/pdf_view/52718. The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a

total appropriation of $1.26 billion (of which $1.22 billion is provided by the General Fund) to the LAPD.



Page 12 of 20


Spending Options: Recreation & Parks

(choose one)


Maintain current General Fund support (approximately $99 million) for Recreation and Parks operations

and services, which reflects an overall reduction of 24% since 2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Recreation and Parks builds healthy community by

providing residents with safe facilities and a variety of

affordable programs. The City should maintain the

department's current funding level.

The City is still facing a structural deficit. To balance the

budget, the City should continue to make modest cuts to

all departments, including Recreation and Parks.

REDUCE $4.0 MILLION

Require the department to fully reimburse the General Fund for overhead costs. This may reduce

maintenance and landscaping of facilities and parks, reduce programming for at‐risk youth, and reduce

funds

available

for

capital

projects.

Note:

Decreasing

funding

may

result

in

layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Reducing funding citywide, especially for non‐core

services, is necessary to eliminate the City's deficit.

Further reductions to Recreation and Parks will impact

the well ‐being of youth, families and adults who rely on

safe and affordable recreational services in their

neighborhoods. Reductions should be made elsewhere.


Increase funding to improve maintenance of recreational facilities and parks, to increase recreational

programming hours, and to replace outdated equipment.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The department provides valuable services that not

only

enrich

the

lives

of

residents,

but

also

promote

public health and prevent crime in local

neighborhoods. The City should prioritize these core

services.

While recreational services are important to the well ‐

being

of

Los

Angeles

communities,

the

City

must

prioritize its more essential functions, such as public

safety and basic street repair.


Background

The Department of Recreation and Parks (http://www.laparks.org) manages over 15,000 acres of parkland with

over 400 parks, 60 public pools, eleven lakes, more than 180 recreation and community centers, 13 golf

courses, and numerous cultural centers and museums. The Department offers a wide range of programs and

services including recreation programs at park facilities, after‐school recreation classes, summer programs, and

senior citizen services. Many of these programs are dependent on the work of some 15,000 active volunteers.

The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of $99 million (all of which is provided by the

General Fund) to the Department of Recreation and Parks. Note: This amount accounts for the Department's

reimbursement to the General Fund for overhead costs.



Page 13 of 20


Spending Options: Support Services

(choose one)


Maintain current General Fund funding (approximately $371 million) for support services, which reflects

an overall reduction of 25% since 2009. These services include information technology support, financial

support, fleet and fuel operations, custodial and security services for City facilities, administrative and

budget analysis, auditing and accounting services, and personnel services.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Most City services rely on the adequate provision of

general administration and support. The City should

not impose further cuts in funding for these functions.

The City should continue to make modest cuts to all

departments, including those that provide general

administration and support to other departments.


Reduce funding for information technology support, financial support, fleet and fuel operations, custodial

and security services for City facilities, administrative and budget analysis, auditing and accounting

services, and

personnel

services.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Departments that perform general administration and

support services should be able to streamline their

operations to absorb modest budget reductions.

The City has already implemented significant efforts to

streamline general administration and support

functions. Departments depend on general admin and

support to effectively provide direct services. The City

should protect support services from severe cuts.


Increase funding for information technology support, financial support, fleet and fuel operations,

custodial and security services for City facilities, administrative and budget analysis, auditing and

accounting services, and personnel services.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: General administration and support is integral to the

delivery of most City services. The City should ensure

that departments that provide general administration

and support have the resources to perform both

effectively and efficiently.

Cuts should be made to administration and support

functions in order to mitigate severe cuts to other more

essential services.


Background

The City must provide internal services to support its 31,000 employees and to assist City departments, such as the

Police Department and Fire Department, in providing services to over 4 million residents. General administration and

support include information technology support, financial support, fleet and fuel operations, custodial and security

services for City facilities, administrative and budget analysis, auditing and accounting services, and personnel

services. The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of $438 million (of which $371 million is

provided by the General Fund) to the City Clerk (http://cityclerk.lacity.org), City Administrative Officer

(http://cao.lacity.org) , City Controller (http://controller.lacity.org), Department of General Services

(http://gsd.lacity.org), Information Technology Agency (http://ita.lacity.org), Office of Finance

(http://finance.lacity.org/), and the Personnel Department (http://www.ci.la.ca.us/per).



Page 14 of 20


Spending Options: Transportation, Streets & Infrastructure

(choose one)


Maintain current General Fund support (approx. $145 million) for Transportation, Streets and

Infrastructure, which reflects an overall reduction of 36% since 2009.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Maintaining our roads and infrastructure and ensuring

an effective transportation system are integral to the

safety and well being of residents. The City should

maintain funding levels for these projects and

operations.

Reducing funding to departments citywide is necessary

to balance the budget. The City should be able to

streamline transportation, streets and infrastructure

operations to absorb modest budget reductions.


Reduce funding for Transportation, Streets and Infrastructure. This may result in reduced street

maintenance and pothole repair as well as deferred capital infrastructure projects. Note: Decreasing

funding may

result

in

layoffs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Without meaningful cuts to large City departments

like LADOT, the City will be unable to fix the structural

imbalance between City revenues and expenditures.

The City must continue to invest in transportation,

streets and infrastructure. These services and

operations are necessary to the quality of life and vitality

of the City's business community.


Increase funding for Transportation, Streets and Infrastructure. This would provide support for priority

capital infrastructure projects and increased street maintenance and pothole repairs.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City's economic recovery depends on a well ‐

maintained infrastructure

and

a high

quality

transportation system. The City should support efforts

to meet these goals by maintaining funding levels in

this category.

The City simply cannot afford to increase funding for

operations and

projects

at

this

time.

To

ensure

the

City's

fiscal sustainability and its ability to provide quality

services well into the future, the City must continue to

implement efficiencies and budget reductions.


Background

The City manages a variety of infrastructure projects and transportation and street services. These include, but

are

not

limited

to:

the

maintenance

of

roadways,

bridges,

and

sidewalks;

enforcement

of

parking

and

taxicab

regulations; provision of school crossing guard services; maintenance of traffic signals and street signage;

administration of construction permits for public works; and the preparation of environmental assessments and

engineering designs for public improvements.

The Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget includes a total appropriation of $587 million (of which $145 million is

provided by the General Fund) to the Board of Public Works (http://bpw.lacity.org/), the Bureau of Contract

Administration (http://bca.lacity.org), the Bureau of Engineering (http://eng.lacity.org), the Bureau of Street

Services (http://www.ci.la.ca.us/boss), the Department of Transportation (http://www.ladottransit.com) and

the Capital Improvement Expenditure Program.



Page 15 of 20


Spending Options: Other

(choose one)

MAINTAIN STATUS QUO

Maintain current management structure for the Los Angeles Zoo and Convention Center.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Altering the management structure for the Los Angeles

Zoo and the Los Angeles Convention Center may lead to

layoffs, less public accountability, and a reduction in

service quality. The City should retain full control of the

management and operations of the Zoo and the

Convention Center.

Implementing new operating models allow the City to

reduce costs and prioritize funding for core services such as

public safety, transportation and streets.

REDUCE $1.3 MILLION

Implement a new operating model for the LA Zoo that strengthens the City's partnership with the non‐

profit, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association, and provides the Zoo with greater flexibility to

implement

entrepreneurial,

revenue

generating

initiatives.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: A new operating model will allow the Zoo to improve its

operations and to better compete with other tourist

destinations in the Los Angeles region.

A new operating model may impact the quality of animal

care and the affordability of the Zoo for residents. The City

must maintain animal care standards and protect

affordable, recreational activities for its residents.


Implement an alternative management structure for the Los Angeles Convention Centers that allows a

private company to manage and operate the facility. Note: The City Administrative Officer reports that

between $2.1 and $6.2 million in savings could be realized. The Budget Challenge uses the average, $4.1

million, for the purposes of this exercise.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The

City

should

take

every

opportunity

to

reduce

its

costs

and improve the quality and efficiency of Convention

Center services. Concerns over the impacts of public

private partnerships can be addressed by structuring

contracts in a manner that holds third ‐ party

organizations accountable to the City's goals.

There is

no

guarantee

that

a private

company

would

be

able to improve the LACC's operations. If management is

turned over to a third party, employees may be laid off,

operations may suffer and fees may sky rocket.


Background

The Los

Angeles

Zoo

(http://www.lazoo.org)

is

home

to

more

than

1,100

mammals,

birds,

amphibians

and

reptiles

representing more than 250 different species of which 29 are endangered. In addition, the Zoo’s botanical collection

comprises several planted gardens and over 800 different plant species. The Zoo receives over 1.5 million people

visitors each year. The Los Angeles Convention Center (http://www.lacclink.com) performs as an economic and jobs

engine for the Los Angeles region by serving as a destination of choice for citywide conventions, exhibitions,

tradeshows and high profile events. Over the past several years, the City has explored alternative service delivery

models for the Los Angeles Zoo and Convention Center. Similar to the City's collaborative efforts with private

organizations to run City animal shelters and cultural facilities, these models would allow the City to protect and

improve municipal services while providing the City with fiscal relief.



Page 16 of 20


Revenue Options: Licenses, Permits, Fees and Fines

(choose one, both, or none at all)

RAISE $6.0 MILLION

Ensure all Licenses, Permits, Fees and Fines (fees for filming on City properties, credit card convenience

fees, swimming pool fees; animal services licensing, etc.) are fully recovering the cost of administration.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Modest increases to licenses, permits, fees and fines

are necessary to ensure the fiscal sustainability of City

service.

Businesses and residents in Los Angeles already pay high

taxes. The City should not increase licenses, permits, fees

and fines especially while we are just starting to recover

from the global economic crisis.

RAISE $10.0 MILLION

Improve street sweeping operations and increase revenue by imposing parking restrictions for more

street sweeping routes. Vehicles parked in these areas during restricted times will be given a citation.

(Note: Currently,

the

City

does

not

restrict

parking

during

street

sweeping

hours

for

all

street

routes).

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Clean streets are critical to the economic vitality and

quality of life in Los Angeles. If restricting parking on

more street sweeping routes will lead to cleaner

streets and increased revenue, then the City should

implement this policy option.

Imposing more parking restrictions will limit parking

availability in the City and may have negative impacts on

the local economy. Furthermore, parking fines and fees

are already too much of a burden for Angelenos. The

City should not adopt this policy.


Background

For Fiscal Year 2012‐13, the City projects to generate $770 million from Licenses, Permits, Fees and Fines

(LPFF). The majority of LPFF revenue comes from reimbursements from special funds and proprietary

departments to the General Fund. For example, the Port of Los Angeles reimburses the General Fund for

legal services provided by the City Attorney's Office.

The rest of LPFF revenue comes from the payments made by individuals and businesses for licenses,

permits, fees and fines issued by the City. For example, the Department of Animal Services charges fees to

license dogs. Each year City Departments are required to develop fee increase proposals to ensure that

the City

is

recovering

the

full

cost

of

providing

specific

services.



Page 17 of 20


Reserves: Tax Revenue

(choose one, both or none at all)

RAISE $6.0 MILLION

Extend the Tax Amnesty Program that encourages unregistered business to remit uncollected Business

Tax on gross receipts.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Extending the Tax Amnesty Program will help

generate additional business tax revenue while giving

businesses the opportunity to pay delinquent taxes.

Extending the Tax Amnesty Program may create a

disincentive for businesses to pay their taxes in the

future. Some businesses may wait to pay their taxes

until a new tax amnesty program is offered to avoid

having to pay late penalties.

RAISE $106.0 MILLION

Increase the sales tax rate by a half ‐cent. Note: This policy option is estimated to generate over $200

million in

annual

revenue.

In

the

first

year

of

implementation,

however,

the

City

would

realize

only

$106

million in new revenue from this measure. See background information below for more detail.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Increasing the Sales Tax will provide substantial

closure of the existing structural deficit while

preventing severe cuts to City services and personnel.

Angelenos are already burdened by recently approved

State tax hikes. An additional increase to the sales tax

will have a disproportional impact on low ‐income

families and individuals, and may endanger the City's

local economy.


Background

Approximately $3.3 billion of the City's $4.5 billion General Fund Budget comes from tax revenue.

California Proposition 218 requires that the City obtain voter approval of all new taxes or tax increases.

*For the upcoming March 2013 primary election, the City Council has placed a measure on the ballot to

increase the sales tax rate to 9.5%, which is equivalent to the tax rates in the City of Santa Monica and

Culver City. Currently, the City of Los Angeles' sales tax rate is 9.00%, of which the City receives 0.75%. If

the measure is approved, the City's share will increase to 1.25%. The sales tax measure is estimated to

generate over

$200

million

annually

in

new

revenue.

However,

the

sales

tax

increase

would

not

go

into

effect until October 1st, 2013 and would therefore generate only $106 million in revenue in Fiscal Year

2013‐14.



Page 18 of 20


Other Options: Reserve Fund

(choose one)

MAINTAIN STATUS QUO

Maintain the current the Reserve Fund balance of $225 million, which represents approximately 4.9% of

the General Fund.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: A healthy Reserve Fund is critical to the City’s fiscal

sustainability. The City should protect the Reserve

Fund rather then use it to balance the budget.

The City needs to implement a variety of strategies to

address the budget shortfall. Dipping into the Reserve

Fund is a necessary budgetary strategy that allows the

City to preserve essential services citywide.


Dip into reserves set aside for emergencies and other unforeseen expenditures in order to balance the

City's budget.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Transferring funds from the reserves is a reasonable

strategy that will help reduce the deficit without

endangering the City’s fiscal sustainability. The City

should borrow from the reserve fund to mitigate

layoffs until the economy recovers and revenues

increase.

Depleting the reserves to balance the budget is a one‐

time solution to an ongoing problem. Rather than

endangering the Reserve Fund, the City should

implement structural changes to its budget by reducing

expenditures and generating new revenue.


Continue to build the reserves so the City has sufficient funds set aside for emergencies and other

unforeseen expenditures.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The

City

should

aim

to

meet

its

policy

of

maintaining

a

Reserve Fund that represents at least 5% of General

Fund revenues.

The City

is

facing

a substantial

budget

gap.

Growing

the

reserves will reduce funds available to support vital

services such as public safety and street maintenance.


Background

The City

has

a Reserve

Fund

to

assist

with

economic

uncertainties,

disasters

and

cash

flow

needs.

The

Reserve

Fund is divided into two accounts, the Emergency Reserve and the Contingency Reserve. As of October

2012, the Reserve Fund balance was $225 million ($125 M in the Emergency Reserve and $100 M in the

Contingency Reserve). The current Reserve Fund balance, which represents about 4.94% of General Fund

revenues, falls short of the City's policy to maintain a Reserve Fund representing 5% of General Fund revenues.

The City Administrative Officer (http://cao.lacity.org) and bond rating agencies advise against utilizing the

Reserve Fund to balance the City's Budget because it reduces the amount of cash available to address economic

uncertainties and natural disasters.



Page 19 of 20


Other Options: Budget Stabilization Fund

(choose one)

MAINTAIN STATUS QUO

Do not utilize unanticipated current‐year revenue and savings to grow the Budget Stabilization Fund,

which was created in 2008 to help stabilize revenue, supplement the Reserve Fund, prevent overspending

during prosperous years, and maintain service levels during fiscally challenging times.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: The City has sustained severe budget cuts over the

past five years. Instead of growing the Budget

Stabilization Fund, we should utilize unanticipated

current ‐year revenue to restore funding for critical

services and operations.

It would be irresponsible for the City to use one‐time

revenue and savings to restore services and operations.

The City should use these funds to address the Fiscal

Year 2013‐14 budget shortfall.


Utilize unanticipated

current

‐year

revenue

growth

and

savings

to

grow

the

Budget

Stabilization

Fund,

which can then be used to prevent severe cuts next year and to address the General Fund shortfall.

Arguments For: Arguments Against: Using these funds to close the City's Fiscal Year 2013‐

14 budget gap is a responsible, fiscal policy.

Many City Departments are operating with insufficient

resources. The City should fund these Departments

appropriately using any unanticipated revenues and

savings.


Background

The City's general fund revenue is highly sensitive to changes in the State budget and in the overall economy.

To address unanticipated revenue shortfalls, the City has made difficult, yet necessary decisions to reduce

critical City services and operations. In 2008, the City created the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF), to help

stabilize revenue, supplement the Reserve Fund, prevent overspending during prosperous years, and maintain

service levels during fiscally challenging times. According to the City's First Financial Status Report

(http://tinyurl.com/cityofla ‐bb4), which was released in October 2012, the current BSF balance is $500,000.



Page 20 of 20


Please share your feedback with us.

Thank you for taking the time to complete the Los Angeles Budget Challenge. Survey responses will be collected

by the first week of March, analyzed by the Mayor’s Office with the assistance of Neighborhood Council Budget

Advocates, and presented to community stakeholders and the Mayor in March. Budget survey results will be

posted on Mayor Villaraigosa's website (http://mayor.lacity.org/) in March 2013.

What was the most important or surprising thing you learned?

How can the budget challenge be improved?

Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts or comments on the City of LA Budget.

Please mail your completed survey to: Or drop off your completed survey at one of the following locations between 9am and 5pm:

Office of Neighborhood and

Community Services

Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa


200 N. Spring St., Room 303‐D


City Hall

Office of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa

Mayor's Receptionist Desk


200 N. Spring St., Room 303


Van Nuys City Hall

ATTN: Mayor’s Office, NCS, Amanda R.

14410 Sylvan Street, Rm 211

Van Nuys, CA 91401

*Surveys must be postmarked or dropped at off at City Hall or Van Nuys City Hall no later than Wednesday, February 27, 2013.



The FY 2012‐13 operating budget is $7.25 billion, consisting of a$4.55

billion General Fund and special funds of $2.70 billion.

The General Fund supports basic municipal

services such as police protection, fire services,

parks, libraries, transit services, sidewalk

repair, public works services, and a variety of

other essential services.

Special funds are usually

approved by

LA Voters for a specific

purpose such as sewer

construction.

Fiscal Year 2012‐13 Budget

AMOUNT

($ Mil)

AUTHORIZED

POSITIONS

General Fund 4,550 21,724

Special Funds 2,696 10,093

TOTAL OPERATIONAL BUDGET 7,246 31,817

Proprietary Department Budgets

Airports 4,341 3,534

Harbor 954 994

Water and Power 6,708 9,986

Grants & Other Non‐Budgeted

Sources

1,337 0

TOTAL CITY GOVERNMENT $20,586 46,331

1%$49Property Tax Ex‐CRA

GF REVENUE SOURCE AMOUNT

($ Mil)

% OF GF

Property Tax $ 1,457 32%

Licenses, Permits, Fees & Fines $ 770 17%

Utility Users’ Tax $ 623 14%

Business Tax $ 450 10%

Sales Tax $

333 7%

Power Revenue Transfer $ 249 5%

Miscellaneous Revenues $619 14%

TOTAL $4,550 100%

GF EXPENDITURE AMOUNT

($ Mil)

% OF GF

Police Department $ 1,136 28%

Pensions and Post Retirement Benefits $ 891 19%

Health Care and Workers’ Comp $553 13%

Fire Department $466 11%

Recreation & Parks and Library $230 5%

Infrastructure (Public

Works,

Planning,

Transportation, and Building and Safety)$153 3%

Other Expenditures (Other departments,

Utilities, Liability Claims)

$928 20%

TOTAL $4,550 100%

Reserve Fund: The City has a Reserve Fund where unrestricted

cash is set aside for unforeseen expenditures and

emergencies. The current Reserve Fund balance of $227.0

million represents 4.94% of the General Fund.

City of Los Angeles – Budget Background

The structural

imbalance

between

City

revenues

and

expenditures

is

primarily

limited

to

the

General

Fund.

Escalating

operational costs

have

significantly threatened the City’s fiscal sustainability and its ability to provide essential services to the people of Los Angeles. For information

about actions taken to address the structural deficit, please see page two.

GENERAL

FUND

$4.55 B

SPECIAL

FUNDS

$2.70 B

Budget Development Process and Opportunities for Community Input

Each fall, the Mayor releases a policy letter to all City Departments that outlines his budget goals and provides budget instructions for the

upcoming year. In November, City departments submit their budgets to the Office of the Mayor and the City Administrative Officer (CAO). This

is followed by a period of collaborative decision‐making between the CAO, community representatives, and the City Council who assist the

Mayor in formulating the Proposed Budget. The Mayor then submits his Proposed Budget to the City Council on or before April 20th.

Mayor’s Community

Budget Day Mayor’s

Budget

Survey

is Released

Mayor Releases 2013‐14

Budget Policy Letter

Department FY 2013‐14

Proposed Budgets Due

Budget Kick‐Off

Meetings with

Departments

Budget Hearings with

Departments

Controller Releases Estimate of

Revenue Report

Mayor Releases

FY 2013‐14

Proposed

Budget

(April 20th)

City Council

Adopts

FY 2013‐14

Budget

Budget

Survey

Results are

CollectedMeetings with Neighborhood Council (NC)

Budget Advocates

Mayor’s

Regional Budget

Day and

NC Budget

Advocates Meet

with Mayor

Council B&F

Cmte

Review

Proposed

Budget

City Council

Review

Proposed

Budget

MAJOR GENERAL FUND REVENUE SOURCES MAJOR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES

FY 2012‐13 ADOPTED BUDGET

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Mayor’s Office and City

Administrative Officer Review

Departments’ Proposed Budgets



$4,551

$4,870

$5,295

$5,167

$5,056

$4,837

$4,729

$4,621

$5,030

$4,200

$4,400

$4,600

$4,800

$5,000

$5,200

2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17

( $ m i l l i o n s )

Previous Expenditure P rojection Current Expenditure Projection

Previous Revenue Projection Current Revenue Projection

$(216)

$(327)

$(297)

$(265)

Actions Taken to Address the City’s Fiscal Crisis

Summarized below are actions the City has taken in recent years to balance its budget.

In December 2010, the FY 2013‐14 budget

deficit was estimated to grow to over $500

million. Budget balancing measures

implemented over the past three years, have

significantly reduced the structural deficit. As

of October 2012, the City estimates a $216

million deficit for FY 2013‐14, primarily due to

the rising

costs

of

employee

compensation,

pensions and benefits.

In preparation of the FY 2013‐14 Proposed

Budget, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa is

reviewing opportunities to further reduce the

City’s major cost drivers and to grow the City’s

revenue base.

AUTHORIZED CITYWIDE STAFFING

14,253 14,012 1 3, 74 0 1 3, 67 7 1 3,6 47

22,718 21,85219,225 18,597 18,170

36,971 35,86432,965 32,274 31,817

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

2008‐0 9 2 00 9

‐1 0 2 01 0

‐1 1 2 01 1

‐1 2 2 01 2

‐13

A u t h o r i z e d P o s i t i o n s

Police (sworn & civilian) All Others

AUSTERITY MEASURES

Eliminated non‐core functions including:

► Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

► Commission for Children, Youth & Families (CCYF)

► Human Relations Commission (HRC)

► Environmental Affairs Department (functions partially

moved to

other

departments)

► Treasurer (consolidated with the Office of Finance)

Suspended General Funded Capital Projects

Freeze on travel, equipment and furniture purchases

Reduced City fleet

WORKFORCE REDUCTIONS

Over 5,000 General Fund positions eliminated since FY07‐08

through the following:

► Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP)

► Layoffs and transfers to non‐General Fund

departments

► Vacant position eliminations

New hiring strictly limited through Managed Hiring

Committee

RENEGOTIATED LABOR CONTRACTS

Cost savings provisions include:

► Salary reductions and restructuring

► Healthcare plan design change for active employees

► Unpaid holidays

► Reduction in

cash

payment

of

overtime

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES

Improved billing and collections

Replaced and upgraded parking meter infrastructure

Partnered with non‐profits for operations of the East San Fernando

Valley Animal Shelter and a number of Cultural Facilities

REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS

Obtained full cost‐recovery for reimbursable services

Maximized use of special funds and grants

Refinanced debt for lower interest rates

Protected $270 M in Communication Users’ Tax revenue by

obtaining voter approval of Measure S in 2008

Four‐Year Fiscal Outlook (General Fund)

Source: Adopted FY 2012‐13 Budget

PENSION AND RETIREE HEALTH REFORM

Obtained active employee contribution towards post‐

employment benefits

Froze medical subsidy for active employees that do not make

additional contribution toward retiree health

Obtained voter approval for new retirement tier for sworn

hires Created a new civilian retirement tier that increased

retirement age and capped the retirement allowance.

SOURCE: City Administrative Officer, First Financial Status Report, October 2012



ELECTORATE

Community

Development

InformationTechnology

Agency

EmployeeRelations Board

General Services Housing Aging

MAYOR

Chief Executive C IT Y A TT OR NE Y CO NTR OLL ER

CityAdministrative

OfficerCity Clerk Finance/

City TreasurerFire

(Commission)Police

(Commission)

Personnel

EthicsCommission

(Commission)

Animal Services

Los AngelesWorld Airports Harbor

Department ofWater & Power Library Recreation & Parks

City Employees’Retirement

System

Board ofPublic Works

HousingAuthority

Chief LegislativeAnalyst

ELECTED OFFICIALS

CHARTER OFFICES AND

CHARTER DEPARTMENTS

HEADED BY COMMISSIONS

CHARTER DEPARTMENTS

WITH CITIZEN COMMISSIONS

ORDINANCE DEPARTMENTS

ORDINANCE DEPARTMENTS

WITH CITIZEN COMMISSIONS

INDEPENDENT CHARTER

DEPARTMENTS HEADED BY

CITIZEN COMMISSIONS

STATE LAW DEPARTMENTS

HEADED BY CITY COMMISSIONS

CHARTER DEPARTMENT

WITH FULL-TIME COMMISSION

ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF LOS ANG

Bureau ofContract

Administration

Bureau ofEngineering

Bureau ofSanitation

Bureau ofStreet Lighting

Bureau ofStreet Services

Building & Safety

Planning

Cultural AffairsConvention

Center TransportationEl Pueblo Zoo Disabil

COUNCIL15 Member

Governing Body

Planning NeighborhoodEmpowerment



Departmental Appropriations and Authorized Positions

For more information about the City’s budget, please visit:

http://mayor lacity org/issues/balancedbudget

Source: Adopted FY 2012‐13 Budget, CAO

los angeles budget challenge_2013

Documents