U.S. Police Funds May Be Out of City’s Reach

How badly off is Los Angeles financially? The city can’t afford to take advantage of a federal gift of money to hire more police officers this year, according to a top financial advisor for the city.

City Administrative Officer Bill Fujioka suggested Thursday that the city accept the federal grant but not use it to hire more officers until next year, when the city treasury may be more flush and the city might be able to spend the matching funds required for the grant.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles officials said Thursday they were considering whether to go to city voters in March for approval of a real estate parcel fee to help pay for hiring 1,000 or more police officers and other public safety priorities.

“I think, if you put it to the voters, they would vote to have some kind of measure to pay for more police officers,” said Councilwoman Janice Hahn.

With 9,263 police officers, the Los Angeles Police Department has far fewer officers per capita than the other five largest cities in the country. New York City, with a population more than twice that of Los Angeles, has 36,000 officers.

The U.S. Justice Department awarded Los Angeles $20.8 million last month to pay part of the cost of hiring 278 additional police officers over three years, on condition that the city provide the rest of the necessary money.

Fujioka said in a report to the City Council this week that, if the officers were hired this year, the city would have to come up with $41.4 million during the next three years to match the federal grant. The city is bracing for a $47-million reduction in state revenue, Fujioka said, and must also grapple with a $13.7-million shortfall in the police salaries account, caused largely by pay increases approved by the City Council.

The administrator recommended that the city go ahead and accept the federal grant but said that using the money to hire officers this year “is not recommended at this time because of the difficulty in identifying matching funds in the current year.”

“Doing so would require the city to immediately identify significant cuts to non-Police Department programs, over and above” those that will be needed to accommodate state budget cuts, he wrote.

The administrator’s suggestion drew objections Thursday from Councilman Eric Garcetti, who said the city should do everything it could to begin hiring officers this year.

Other City Council members, including Cindy Miscikowski, chairwoman of the council’s Public Safety Committee, advocated caution.

“I think it’s going to be very difficult this year,” she said, adding that the city might not be able to use the federal grant next year as well if the city’s budget problems worsen.

Police Chief William J. Bratton said he would like to start using grant funds to hire officers this year.

Mayor James K. Hahn wants to hire as many officers as the city can as quickly as it can, and is still reviewing options for matching the grant, said spokeswoman Julie Wong.

Council members said they were eager to see the result of a pending study by Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton, who is exploring whether it would be practical to go to voters in the March 2 election with a ballot measure that would boost fees on property tax bills to provide police funds.

“We know we don’t have a lot of other resources,” Miscikowski said. “I think if we can continue to provide X number of police officers and ask the public to provide Y, that might be worthwhile.”

Deaton said he had not yet determined whether he would recommend a ballot measure, which is one of several revenue-generating alternatives he is studying. He noted past police-fee measures had garnered more than 60% of the public’s vote but had fallen short of the two-thirds vote needed for approval.

Deaton said he was still determining how large an increase in the police force might be sought, and how much it might cost property owners.

Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.