Diversion of CRA Funds to City Urged : Budget: Officials say part of agency’s revenues should go to prevent massive cuts in police and fire protection.

Determined to fight proposed cutbacks in police and fire service, Los Angeles officials on Tuesday vigorously renewed calls to take money from the Community Redevelopment Agency to help solve the city’s budget crisis.

The threatened loss of nearly 700 police officers over two years and 274 Fire Department employees next fiscal year--proposals in Mayor Tom Bradley’s city budget--could lead the city for the first time to tap the robust CRA treasury for ongoing expenses, several city officials said.

“I think the City Council should have enough ammunition to go where the money is and go to the CRA,” said Councilman Nate Holden. “I would say there should be a requirement for them to carry their share of police and fire (service).”

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, leading the charge to divert money from redevelopment projects into other services, said: “The equation has changed dramatically now. The political value of cutting another ribbon on a new project in some (council member’s) district versus the public cost of taking 600 or 700 police officers off the street is not a close call. That is the change in the political environment.”

Yaroslavsky is expected within a week to announce a proposal to divert $30 million or more from the Redevelopment Agency to the city’s general fund to help shore up a projected $183-million shortfall in the fiscal year beginning July 1.

The independent CRA, with an annual budget of $391 million, supports redevelopment in 17 project areas--financing everything from housing projects and office towers to day-care facilities and street improvements.

In the past, council members have been quick to criticize the CRA for subsidizing wealthy developers and their construction projects. But when it came time to actually take funds for other city programs, the City Council balked, citing legal opinions that limit the use of redevelopment money.

Council members say their colleagues’ caution is political as well; that they fear alienating an agency whose projects can bring publicity and prestige.

Yaroslavsky predicted that will change this year. He said he will propose spending redevelopment money in areas where the agency already has projects, such as downtown Los Angeles.

Such a proposal was presented to the mayor by budget analysts who suggested that $26 million in CRA money--enough to build 175 housing units--could instead be used to pay the city’s cost of expanding the Convention Center, refurbishing the Central Library and improving Figueroa Street.

Yaroslavsky said such an approach has the benefit of not requiring a change in state law, since it keeps redevelopment money in established improvement areas and for purposes envisioned by the redevelopment law.

But Bradley rejected this option.

The mayor has declined to discuss specifics of the budget battle. His spokesman, Bill Chandler, would only say: “The mayor considered all the revenue options and made the tough decisions mandated by the dismal budget situation.”

Yaroslavsky said even more money could be garnered from the CRA by having it repay the city for past expenses in expanding the Convention Center. Budget analysts said the city paid out $27 million in the past two years on the project.

“It’s a choice between development or emergency services,” Yaroslavsky said. “That is what this budget has come down to in its simplest terms.”

CRA Administrator Ed Avila, however, warned against perceiving his agency treasury as a panacea to solve the city’s financial woes.

“The idea that we have this pot of money just sitting there with no use for it is just not true,” Avila said. The Agency has $129 million not yet contracted for specific projects for the coming year, but Avila said much of that money would eventually go to child-care programs, housing for the homeless and other politically popular programs.

He conceded the agency could make payments on the Convention Center and Central Library. “But people have to understand the consequences,” Avila said. “That money (normally) goes to the revitalization of the historic core of the city or child-care or other services.”

In a concession to the city’s bleak financial outlook, however, the CRA board voted last week to support state legislation that would allow limited use of redevelopment funds for police expenses.

State law currently prohibits the use of redevelopment funds to support ongoing government operations, such as police.

Avila called his agency’s support of the legislation the first time it has backed use of its funds for ongoing government operations. He added that it was “a clear recognition that crime is of major importance and of concern to the agency in its redevelopment areas.”

The agency, however, was willing to take its support only so far. It has asked for amendments to the legislation--proposed by state Sen. David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles)--that would effectively limit the Los Angeles CRA’s payments for police expenses to about $6 million a year.

The City Council is scheduled to consider supporting the state legislation at its meeting today.

“I think it makes a lot of sense,” said Councilman Michael Woo, “especially in areas like Hollywood, where crime has hindered the goals of redevelopment, to improve the community.”

Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed a similar proposal in 1989 and another bill died on the Assembly floor last year.

But Yaroslavsky said more decisive action is needed immediately.

“The choice will be: Do we want an amorphous promise in the future,” he said, “or do we want to put police in the street now? I think the choice is clear.”