LOS ANGELES, CA – The Los Angeles City Council voted 11-3 on Wednesday to adopt a motion on funding a feasibility study for a city-owned public bank, reviving a proposal that stalled after money set aside for the study was swept back into city reserves.
The council acted at City Hall on Wednesday, Oct. 21, adopting a motion by Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Marqueece Harris-Dawson, according to the City Clerk’s council file titled “Budget Motion / Public Bank Study / Funding.” The record lists the vote as 11-3-1 and says the motion was adopted subject to reconsideration under Council Rule 51.
Councilmembers John Lee, Traci Park and Monica Rodriguez voted no, and Eunisses Hernandez was absent, the record shows.
The action directs the city to identify $460,000 for the study, including by exploring the use of discretionary funds from council offices. It does not itself create a public bank.
Motion began in May 2025
The council file began as a motion introduced May 22, 2025, by Councilmember Ysabel Jurado and seconded by Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, the City Clerk’s record shows. The Government Operations Committee approved it Sept. 5, 2025.
The Budget and Finance Committee, which Yaroslavsky chairs, approved the file as amended on Oct. 7, 2025. The full council adopted the motion on Oct. 21, 2026.
Council District 1, Jurado’s office, has also published a news release on the council’s push to explore a public bank.
Vote does not open a bank
The council’s vote does not mean Los Angeles will open a public bank. The city must still identify funding for the feasibility study, which is intended to help officials determine whether the proposal is financially viable and could responsibly serve Angelenos.
Mayor Karen Bass does not vote on City Council motions.
How supporters describe a public bank
Unlike a traditional retail bank, a public bank would be owned by the city and designed to manage public funds and potentially provide financing for projects that serve the public interest.
Eli Lipmen, executive director of MoveLA and a member of the Public Bank LA Coalition, said a public bank would hold public revenues, such as taxes and fees, rather than operate like a conventional bank where customers open checking accounts and withdraw cash from ATMs.
Supporters say the model could allow the city to direct financing toward affordable housing, small businesses and infrastructure projects. They also argue it could reduce the fees Los Angeles pays to private financial institutions.
Jurado said during the meeting that a public bank “has the potential to finance affordable housing, supporting small businesses, and invest in infrastructure that serves instead of private profit.” She also said, “The city spends millions each year in fees to pay private banks. A public bank would let us keep that money here in L.A.”
Park objects to cost and trust
Park, who represents Council District 11, was among the three members who voted against the motion. She said during the meeting that the city cannot even manage its own finances, and she questioned whether Los Angeles should spend money exploring a new banking system while it struggles to meet existing needs.
Park also questioned whether businesses and residents would trust a bank run by the city. “Who in their right mind would do their financial businesses and banking with the Bank of the City of L.A.? Absolutely no one,” she said.
She criticized the cost of hiring another consultant as well. “Half a million dollars for another consultant when we have streetlights out across the city is ridiculous,” Park said.
Banking expert cites financial and operational risks
Thomas Tarter, a banking expert with Andela Consulting Group, warned that creating a public bank would carry financial and operational risks. He pointed to “the use of taxpayer money,” the potential for political influence, and the potential for credit risk and operational risk.
Those concerns are positions from critics and experts rather than findings of the feasibility study, which has not yet been funded or carried out.
Proposal dates back to 2019
The idea of a city-owned bank has moved through the council for several years. The council file for the Municipal Bank of Los Angeles, Council File 19-1235, is titled with references to AB 857, California law and a public bank license. It shows the council adopted the original motion Dec. 4, 2019, by a vote of 14-0-1.
On Oct. 5, 2021, the council adopted the item as amended, by 15-0-0, with an amending motion by then-Councilmembers Paul Krekorian and Curren Price. The council voted unanimously that month to study the viability of a city-owned bank and develop a business plan.
The file lists Chief Legislative Analyst reports dated Feb. 27, 2020, and Dec. 9, 2022. The Economic and Community Development Committee approved the item as amended on June 7, 2023, and the council adopted it June 20, 2023, by a vote of 12-0-3.
In June 2023, the council approved $460,000 for the first phase of a feasibility study. Then-Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is now running for mayor, championed the proposal. “What’s really exciting is, we have a potential to fill the gaps that our overreliance on commercial banking has left us,” Raman said during a June 2023 council meeting.
That funding was later swept back into city reserves amid budget pressures, which delayed the study.
Council offices have already put in discretionary money
In a statement Wednesday, Raman’s office said the city had already committed to studying the proposal and that the latest vote would help move that work forward. “Councilmember Raman supported today’s action so that work can move forward and provide the City the information it needs to judge whether a public bank could responsibly serve Angelenos,” her office said.
Raman’s office also said her district allocated $15,000 in discretionary funds to the Public Bank Feasibility Study last year.
Council District 13 says on its own page, “What’s a public bank?” that it allocated $45,000 in discretionary funds to jump-start a feasibility study. The page also explains the concept of a public bank.
Vote comes amid a budget gap
The renewed push comes as Los Angeles continues to face budget challenges, with a projected budget gap of nearly $100 million.
The City Administrative Officer’s fourth financial status report for fiscal year 2025-26, dated June 2, 2026, shows $81.45 million in overspending and unbudgeted expenses remaining. The office recommended $79.61 million in solutions and $5.26 million in anticipated future actions to address it.
Park pointed to those pressures in her objections, while supporters of the study say a public bank could eventually reduce the fees the city pays to private institutions and keep more city money local.
Funding for the study must still be identified
The council adopted the motion subject to reconsideration under Council Rule 51, and the city must still identify the $460,000, including by exploring council offices’ discretionary funds. The motion itself does not establish a public bank, and the study is meant to inform any later decision on whether the proposal is viable.
