Brief

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez and Nithya Raman introduced a motion directing the Los Angeles Police Department to transfer unappropriated budget balances and establish quarterly reporting on overtime spending. The motion was referred to Budget and Finance, Personnel and Hiring, and Public Safety committees on May 21, 2026, and remains pending review across all three bodies.

Full summary

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez introduced a budget amendment on May 21, 2026, as part of the Budget and Finance Committee's deliberations on the Mayor's Proposed Budget for 2026-27. The motion would shift $50 million in non-reimbursable sworn officer overtime from LAPD's direct appropriation to the Unappropriated Balance, a city holding account. The total budget impact is neutral — no money is eliminated — but the mechanics create a conditional release structure: LAPD would have to earn each tranche of overtime funding through demonstrated accountability rather than receiving the full sum upfront. The oversight mechanism is the motion's core policy contribution. Before overtime funds are transferred back to the department, LAPD would be required to submit quarterly reports covering the prior quarter's overtime usage. Those reports must include categorized breakdowns by type of activity — for example, tags such as large gatherings and crowd control, marketing events, and high-priority incident support — as well as the geographic location of overtime deployment down to the Council District level, a description of outcomes produced, and a forward-looking projection of anticipated overtime needs for the next period, specifically calling out large events, protest activity, and departmental marketing events. The motion's framing ties disbursement of future funds directly to the submission of these reports, giving the Council a recurring leverage point to scrutinize how LAPD uses one of its largest and most variable budget line items. Sworn officer overtime at LAPD has historically been a significant and difficult-to-predict expense, and the geographic and categorical tagging requirements appear designed to reveal patterns — such as whether overtime is concentrated in particular districts or driven disproportionately by event policing or public-relations activities. As of its introduction on May 21, 2026, the motion was referred to the Budget and Finance, Public Safety, and Personnel and Hiring committees, where it remains pending. No committee votes or further actions have been recorded. The file expires in May 2028 if not acted upon.

Activity (1)

• 2026-05-21 Motion referred to Budget and Finance Committee; Personnel and Hiring Committee; Public Safety Committee.

Documents (1)

• 2026-05-21 Motion · motion