Panel Urges Cuts in Riordan’s Budget for Police

Striking at the heart of Mayor Richard J. Riordan’s proposed budget for next year, a Los Angeles City Council panel Monday recommended scaling back the expansion of the police force from 90 to 70 recruits per month, and chopping the department’s proposed overtime funds in half.

After two weeks of criticizing Riordan’s $4-billion spending blueprint as a “pyramid scheme” and “shell game,” the five-member council committee also proposed raising residents’ monthly sanitation equipment charge from $4.50 to $6 to pay for more fire services, park rangers, library books, crossing guards and parking lots.

“This is not the police budget, this is the budget for the entire city. . . . I’d like to have 12,000 police officers, but not at the expense of everything else,” Budget Committee Chairman Richard Alatorre said. “Everybody’s going to say public safety is the most important issue, but at what price? Having safe parks and safe libraries is also public safety.”

The committee also proposes placing $37 million of police funding into the “unappropriated balance,” so that if revenues fall short, the council can weigh spending priorities at midyear.

With the unanimous approval of the budget committee--whose five members span the council’s political spectrum--the amended spending plan now lands in the hands of the full council, which will hold budget hearings next week. It takes eight votes to pass any amendment, as well as the whole package, which then returns to Riordan for a signature.

The mayor can veto any line item, but 10 council votes constitute an override.

The mayor’s office swiftly denounced the panel’s changes, promising to fight any cuts in the proposed $1.2-billion police budget as well as any attempt to raise fees or taxes. Mayoral Budget Director Christopher O’Donnell estimated that the city will lose the equivalent of 600 officers--260 because of the slowdown in hiring, the rest because of overtime cuts.

“The one thing the people in this city demand is a safe city. It’s my No. 1 priority,” Riordan said. “It’s a tough budget. When you add something in one place, you take away from the other. If . . . you’re going to take away from police, the people in this city won’t stand for it.”

In total, the committee’s report includes 65 changes, including a net revenue increase of $26 million from Riordan’s proposal. While the council would add nearly $11 million in expenditures to what the mayor suggested--restoring positions in the Building and Safety Department, adding dollars to the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and increasing the number of security guards at some city facilities, among other things--it reduces spending in other areas by about $9 million.

Among the other significant changes proposed:

* Eliminate the charge-back system, through which city departments would pay for services they use, from postage to lawyers’ time, out of their individual budgets.

* Make the Human Relations Commission its own department, rather than include it as part of the city clerk’s office.

* Restore $11 million in special parking revenue funds to the projects for which it was earmarked, rather than move it into the general fund.

* Cut $1 million, half the amount proposed, from the New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership, one of Riordan’s pet projects to promotes business in the region.

* Increase permit fees so the Building and Safety Department pays for itself.

* Add $1.4 million to the parks, including a comprehensive “safe parks” program.

* Give libraries $500,000 more to buy materials.

* Delete $750,000 for management audits by consultants, require that all contracting-out proposals get council approval and place all management consulting contracts in the “unappropriated balance” so the council, rather than individual departments, controls them.

* Increase parking fines by $10, rather than the $5 Riordan proposed.

Regarding Riordan’s proposed reorganization of the Department of Public Works, which includes elimination of more than 100 jobs in the Bureau of Engineering, the committee proposes handling the cutbacks outside the budgetary process with the same financial goals.

“I think that the committee has come up with a workable document. It certainly isn’t to the pleasure of all of us--and probably not to any of us in its entirety--but . . . I think [it’s] in the best interests of the city,” said Councilwoman Rita Walters, a member of the panel.

Committee members Jackie Goldberg and Mike Feuer said they believe the committee made major improvements in next year’s spending plan, but remain worried about the city’s long-term reliance on one-time funds for ongoing expenses such as a larger police force.

“We’re heading for a train wreck,” Feuer said. “We simply don’t have the revenue that we need to deliver the array of services our constituents expect down the road.”

O’Donnell said the mayor’s office will be looking for ways to work out differences with the council.