City Council Wants to Slow Police Buildup

A clear majority of the City Council wants to slow down Mayor Richard J. Riordan’s massive buildup of the Los Angeles Police Department, even if it means turning down $20 million from the federal government, according to interviews with lawmakers last week.

Although each of the 15 City Council members echoed Riordan’s mantra that public safety is priority No. 1, at least 12--two more than needed to override a veto by the chief executive--said a scaled-back expansion plan is more realistic and fiscally responsible than the blueprint the mayor offers in his 1996-97 budget proposal.

Inspired by concern that the police budget is draining crucial dollars from parks, libraries and firefighters, and bolstered by worries about how the city would pay new police officers’ salaries once the federal grants dry up, a council committee’s plan chops the number of recruits to be hired next year from 710 to 450 and could further cut the number of officers patrolling city streets by several hundred because of a reduction in overtime funds.

“There’s no foreseeable way we can pay for the increased cost of the Police Department,” Councilman Marvin Braude said. “If we keep this up, we’ll be headed for a catastrophe.”

Councilwoman Laura Chick, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, admitted that “it’s very painful to turn away a gift, free money,” but noted that the gift is “one-time money.”

“If we can’t absorb the cost of this police expansion, then we’ve got to say so,” Chick said. “We’re not changing the size of the department we want, we’re just saying it’s going to take a little longer to get there.”

The less ambitious police budget would place a major roadblock in front of Riordan’s campaign promise of adding 3,000 new officers to the force by 1997 or bowing out. With the full council scheduled to begin deliberations on the city’s $4-billion spending plan this morning, the mayor’s office has pledged a full-scale battle to restore the police funding, along with half a dozen major initiatives the council plans on changing.

Still, Riordan and his staff remain unable to answer the council’s key question: How will the city pay the police three years down the road, when the expanded force will cost $200 million a year and the federal grants are gone?

“If you don’t aggressively pursue a goal--in city government, in private business, or in a family--you never get there,” Riordan chief of staff Robin Kramer responded, offering vague notions of increased business activity in the city to pay for police and more efficient government operations but no concrete proposals to add dollars to the city’s worn wallet.

“Right now you have a situation where the long-term is very much in vogue,” Kramer said. “I don’t think anyone can ever tell you where every nickel is going to come from three years from now.”

Of the council members, only Joel Wachs and Rudy Svorinich Jr. said they side with the mayor on the police expansion proposals. Councilman Hal Bernson, frequently a Riordan supporter, said he has not sufficiently reviewed the budget to discuss it.

“Libraries and parks are very much part of the quality of life in Los Angeles--until you get mugged in one,” Svorinich said. “Public safety is still job No. 1. If people feel safe, all sorts of growth can occur.”

*

The other 12--including Budget Committee Chairman Richard Alatorre and Council President John Ferraro, two of the mayor’s strongest allies--said Riordan’s budget proposal took too narrow a view of public safety by emphasizing the campaign promise to grow the department rather than a balanced approach to residents’ real needs.

“We have opened up the definition of what public safety is,” Alatorre told his colleagues Friday as he unveiled his budget amendments. “It’s not just about police and fire. It’s about parks, it’s about libraries, it’s about streets, it’s about lighting. The city has got to be about more than how we patrol our streets. It’s got to be about the quality of life on those streets.”

Within the LAPD, there are differing views on the budget proposals.

Police Protective League President Cliff Ruff testified at committee hearings that the 90 recruits per month that Riordan’s budget calls for was too many, forcing the department to sacrifice quality for quantity. Police Chief Willie L. Williams told the council his department could handle the mayor’s proposed volume but did not express a clear preference between 90 and 70 per month. Last week, when President Clinton announced a $53-million grant to Los Angeles over three years, which would provide for the hiring of all 710 officers but require the city to provide about 25% in matching funds, Williams expressed concern about the prospect of saying “No thanks” to $19.5 million.

But among rank-and-file officers, the real concern is not the pace of new hiring but the fate of $40 million in overtime funds.

Worried that Riordan’s proposed revenues--including a $30-million transfer from the airport and $20 million from the harbor, both of which face stiff opposition and court fights--won’t come through, the council wants to place half the overtime funds in the city’s “unappropriated balance” and decide later whether to use the money for police or other needs.

In the past, overtime funds stored in the unappropriated balance for safekeeping have never made it to the LAPD. Without the dollars available, cops will take time off rather than be paid in cash for their overtime.

Typically, LAPD uses about 1.5 million hours--the equivalent of 857 officers--of overtime each year, said Bill Moran, the department’s top fiscal officer. Because officers take their overtime as vacation when there is no cash available, the council’s halving of the pot could result in the equivalent of a net loss of 300 officers, rather than a gain of 100 under Riordan’s plan.

“You definitely lose field deployment” by reducing the overtime budget, Moran said. “In the long run, there will be fewer officers on the street.”

Lawmakers insist it is the long run they are thinking about.

“The scaling back might be putting us back on track in terms of what’s doable,” Councilman Mike Hernandez said. “If we want police and fire services, and to help keep our parks and libraries open, it’s not going to happen unless we collect some [new revenue].”

The council Budget Committee has already proposed upping residents’ sanitation equipment charge from $4.50 to $6 per month, a move Riordan also vigorously opposes but a strong majority of the full council supports. Hernandez said Friday he also plans to introduce a payroll tax, so people who work here but spend their money outside the city will pay their fair share, and a refuse collection fee.

*

Other council members have hinted that they would support a trash pickup fee--something most other cities already charge but Los Angeles has long resisted--but most said they would not dare put new taxes on the table during an election year.

The full council will hold a series of budget hearings this week in which individual lawmakers can offer amendments and debate those proposals already on the table. They must send a budget to Riordan’s office by June 1.

The mayor has five working days to veto any line items and send back a new version of the document. Then the council has another five days to override Riordan’s vetoes, which requires 10 of the 15 council members’ votes.

According to the charter, the whole budget must be in place by June 20.

Besides the police, which will surely be the most contentious, other items likely to spark debate include:

* The $30-million LAX transfer. Some council members want to remove this item altogether for fear it will strain relations with federal officials and place funding for other transportation projects, including the Alameda Corridor and Metro Rail, in jeopardy.

“You can’t win a war with Congress,” said Councilman Nate Holden, chairman of the Transportation Committee.

* The council committee’s elimination of Riordan’s beloved charge-back system, in which city departments would pay for what they use in postage, telephones and other services.

“That’s the kind of concept that teaches good government and good business at the same time. It makes people accountable,” said Wachs, chairman of the Government Efficiency Committee. “Taking that out is an act of bad faith.”

* Reducing the city’s contribution to the New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership--a Riordan favorite that advertises worldwide to promote the region--from $2 million to $1 million. “I can appreciate in these tight times people might have a hard time spending $2 million in advertising, especially in an election year,” said Councilman Richard Alarcon.