Council Cuts Mayor’s Plan to Add Police

Slicing at the heart of Mayor Richard Riordan’s proposed budget and the promise of his 3-year-old administration, a fiercely split Los Angeles City Council voted 8 to 7 Tuesday to rein in police recruitment, cutting the number of officers to be added next year from 710 to 460 and saying “No, thanks” to $19.5 million in federal funds.

After hours of angry debate marked by personal attacks and politicians challenging each other to raise taxes to pay officers, lawmakers also voted to place $12 million of the $40 million in police overtime that Riordan recommended in an unappropriated balance in case anticipated revenues fall through. The council originally had planned to withhold $20 million in overtime, but decided Tuesday to impose an $8-million tax on the city’s waste water system to fund more hours.

Riordan, who vowed during his 1993 campaign not to run for reelection before adding 3,000 cops to the force, pledged Tuesday to veto the reduction in his LAPD expansion plan. He said that cutting government fat and fostering business growth in the city can pay for police down the road.

“Leadership is setting a goal even if getting there is tough. We can’t sit back and say we can’t get there. We have to get there,” the mayor said at an impromptu City Hall news conference.

The controversial police votes came amid the council’s second marathon day of deliberations on the $4-billion spending plan, in which lawmakers have stripped several of Riordan’s key initiatives and whittled at the city’s safety net, leaving the reserve fund below $30 million, which one top official called “woefully inadequate.”

“The mayor handed us a budget that was half-baked and half-balanced. It was a budget that made grand promises based on mortgaged hopes and unsound fiscal reasoning,” said Councilwoman Rita Walters, who, like several colleagues, raised concerns about how the city would pay the new officers when federal grants run out in three years.

Voting against the slowdown in police hiring Tuesday were councilmen Richard Alarcon, Marvin Braude, Hal Bernson, Mike Hernandez, Nate Holden, Rudy Svorinich and Joel Wachs. While the bare majority of eight falls short of the 10 lawmakers needed to override a mayoral veto, several council members said votes might change the second time around.

Riordan was undeterred.

“Every place I go in this city, the No. 1 issue in this city is public safety. . . . Mothers should not have to tell [their] 3-year-old to duck behind a car when they hear shooting. [Council members] should listen to the mothers,” Riordan said. “To say we’re going to write a check back to the federal government . . . is not responsible government. We have to have a safer city.”

The council has until June 1 to pass an amended budget. Riordan then has five working days to veto any line item. At that point the council has five working days to override Riordan, passing a final budget no later than June 20.

The police debate, stretching over several hours, was the key argument during budget deliberations Tuesday. Council members tried to one-up each other’s commitment to public safety, but disagreed about whether their emphasis should be to hire more police or include programs such as parks and libraries.

“What is the bottom line? What is the most important thing? That is to keep our citizens safe,” Bernson said.

Wachs, the council’s staunchest supporter of the mayor’s budget, suggested paying for the police with $4 million that the budget sets aside as severance pay for government workers who will be laid off next year. No way, his colleagues said.

“Politics makes strange bedfellows,” Wachs said. “But I didn’t think we’d ever have a bed big enough to turn down federal dollars to hire more police officers in a city that desperately needs them.”

As tempers flared, some council members exhorted the others to consider new revenues--from a payroll tax to a refuse collection fee to a special public safety tax that would go to voters in November--to back up the spiraling costs of an expanded LAPD.

The Clinton administration last week promised Los Angeles $53 million over three years to hire 710 officers in 1996-7, but the city would have to pay 25% of each officer’s salary and eventually pick up the entire tab. City officials estimate that Riordan’s public safety plan will cost $200 million a year by 2000.

“It’s time for us to cut the crap and be honest with each other and candid with our voters,” Councilman Mike Feuer said.

“We’re not Santa Claus,” said an exasperated Budget Committee Chairman Richard Alatorre, whose support of the scaled-back recruitment represents a rare break with Riordan. “If we’re willing to [hire all 710 officers], then let’s talk about raising the taxes so we can pay for them.”

Of the seven members who voted against the proposed slowdown, four told The Times last week that they believed that Riordan’s proposal was unrealistic and irresponsible. This week, each cited different reasons for changing their positions.

Police Chief Willie L. Williams said Tuesday that he is unsure how the smaller expansion would affect police deployment next year.

There were about 7,600 officers on the force when Riordan became mayo three years ago. Now, there are about 8,800, including about 600 still in the Police Academy. Riordan’s public safety plan, which the council approved in the fall of 1993, calls for nearly 11,000 officers by 1997.