COUNCIL MOVES TO PUT LAPD TAX ON BALLOT.

Byline: Rick Orlov Daily News Staff Writer

A day after scaling back plans to expand the LAPD, the Los Angeles City Council moved Wednesday to hedge its bet by tentatively agreeing to let voters decide whether taxes should be raised to hire more officers.

Supporters said a new tax is the only way to afford the police expansion. Police spending for the coming year is $1.2 billion, and the additional officers could cost the city up to $200 million more annually by 2000.

In a 10-5 vote, the council directed its staff to prepare options for raising taxes to hire more police - including a property tax or a special assessment district - for the Nov. 5 ballot.

But dissenters said the council simply is trying to cover itself from what could be a politically damaging decision to make police a lower priority.

``I don't think this council has got the message,'' said Councilman Hal Bernson. ``The public is not saying we don't want more police. The public is saying we want you to manage the city. The public feels that public safety is our top priority, and they think the responsibility of providing that without any new taxes is ours, and we haven't fulfilled that.

``I can tell you what they'll be saying in editorials: `The council has passed the buck to taxpayers.' ''

On an 8-7 vote Tuesday, the council had agreed to increase the Los Angeles Police Department by 450 officers, not by the 710 officers Mayor Richard Riordan proposed adding to the force in next year's budget as part of his 1993 campaign pledge to hire 3,000 more officers in four years.

Riordan indicated he likely would oppose any effort to increase taxes and repeated his plan to veto the council's decision to slow the growth he wants for the LAPD.

``There is plenty of fat in government that we can cut to pay for this,'' Riordan said. ``It is up to us as leaders, elected by the public, to find a way to pay for this without raising taxes. Every time we're faced with a decision, we shouldn't wimp out and ask the voters to pay more taxes.''

Riordan would not take a specific position on the tax proposal, however, calling it hypothetical until a specific proposal is sent to him.

Some political analysts suggested that the council decision could help Riordan's re-election by allowing him to blame the City Council for slowing efforts to put more cops on the street.

Councilman Mike Feuer took aim at those suggestions Wednesday in defending the council's decision to put the issue to voters.

``We are hearing, in the most cynical political perspective, that this plays into the hands of the mayor,'' Feuer said.

``All of us are hearing loudly and clearly from our constituents what we already know - that public safety is No. 1 on their priority list,'' Feuer said. ``We all want more police officers. The honest way to do it is to say there is a cost associated with those new officers, and the most effective way to do that is persuade our constituents that we need new revenue.''

City officials said the most likely course of action would be a special tax similar to ones approved by the voters in 1989 for the 911 system and in 1983 for the Fire Department dispatch system.

The 1989 tax, most similar in costs to the new one being suggested by the council, charges property owners a rate of 80 cents per 100 square feet, said Gerry Miller, assistant chief administrative officer. For a 1,200-square-foot home, Miller said, that amounts to a payment of $9.60 a year.

Pending its consideration of the tax measure, the council agreed to allow the LAPD to continue training almost 100 recruits a month - 90 in each of 13 classes a year. At that pace, the department would hire 710 additional officers in the 1996-97 fiscal year, which will begin July 1, plus more than 400 to replace officers lost through attrition.

If the tax measure is rejected, the class size would be reduced and the number of officers hired next year would be limited to 450 in addition to replacements.

``It's a very sensible proposal to put forward to the people,'' said Councilman Marvin Braude. ``It's being honest with the people about the situation we face.''

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg said Riordan's proposal to cut other services for police would shortchange the public.

``There is no free lunch in America,'' Goldberg said. ``In three years, 75 percent of our budget will be for police and fire. It's just hogwash to say we are going to close down and not offer any other services.''

In addition to Goldberg, Braude and Feuer, council members supporting the tax-increase study were Richard Alarcon, Richard Alatorre, Laura Chick, John Ferraro, Ruth Galanter, Mike Hernandez and Mark Ridley-Thomas.

Those opposed were Bernson, Nate Holden, Rudy Svorinich, Joel Wachs and Rita Walters.

The action came on the same day the council gave final approval to the city's $4 billion, 1996-97 spending plan. A formal version of the plan with enabling legislation will go to the council Tuesday. If it is approved by the council then, the mayor will have five days to veto any elements.

In addition to cutting police spending proposed by Riordan, the council refused to take $30 million in revenue from the Department of Airports for the general fund. It also cut in half - to $1 million - funding for the New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership.

The council also reduced the amount of streets to be resurfaced from 150 miles to 100. Riordan said he would veto the reduction.

Further, the council froze consultant contracts and provided more funds for the Fire Department, libraries, and recreation and parks. It covered these costs by increasing permit fees for construction, boosting parking ticket fines and increasing the sanitation equipment charge by $1.50 a month.