Budget Can’t Cover Police Raise, Officials Fear : Finances: Warning that some revenue sources won’t come through, two City Council panels urge that consideration of a pay package for officers be postponed.

Several city officials cast doubt Monday on a city budget they approved less than two weeks ago, saying revenue shortfalls will make it impossible to both give police a proposed raise and continue increasing police patrols.

Two City Council committees recommended that the full council postpone consideration of a pay raise package for police until shortfalls in revenues have been more clearly defined.

The police pay package--with a base increase of 7%, topped by bonuses totaling as much as 5%--is scheduled for ratification votes by the police union beginning today and continuing until Thursday. If it is approved, the council is expected to take up the package at its Friday meeting.

A majority of the 15-member council appears to favor the contract to end the 2-year-old labor dispute. But a vocal minority--including members of the Public Safety and Budget and Finance committees, which voted Monday--is working hard to defeat the proposal, saying it is too expensive for the financially strapped city.

Opponents of the raise held a hearing Friday at which several department heads cast doubt on the city treasury receiving an additional $100 million that was part of Mayor Richard Riordan’s budget. The budget was approved by the council earlier this month.

Ken Miyoshi, head of the Department of Water and Power, said he could guarantee only about half of the $75-million special appropriation that the DWP had earlier pledged. As much as $37 million of the transfer is in doubt because the DWP is uncertain that it can sell surplus land, as it had previously proposed, Miyoshi said.

The city may also lose $25 million that officials had anticipated because state officials are expected to reduce funding from motor vehicle licensing, the city’s chief legislative analyst said. Special transfers from the Harbor and Airport departments, totaling $15 million, were also questioned, because of state and federal laws that limit use of those funds. And the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency warned that its pledge to pick up $25 million in city expenses could be hampered by legal limitations.

“It’s now clear that some of the revenue estimates in the mayor’s budget were far too optimistic,” said Councilman Marvin Braude, who earlier this month had been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the spending plan.

Riordan conceded last week that some of the money for the police raises might have to be taken from his plan to put more police on the street. But Riordan said he was hopeful that ingenuity could head off reductions.

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said $27 million that had been set aside for police overtime will not be available in the coming year because a contribution from a city pension system fell through, and a special contract to collect more parking tickets will not be in place until next year. Another $10 million will be needed from overtime accounts to pay higher salaries, Yaroslavsky said.

Using those assumptions, Police Department financial officers said the equivalent of 577 police officers could not be put on the street as planned in the mayor’s Project Safety Los Angeles. That would amount to a reduction of more than one-third from the 1,522 additional officers Riordan has pledged.