Los Angeles' top policy analyst gave negative reviews Monday to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to address the city's budget crisis, warning that some major proposals would be unworkable or save far less than the mayor predicts.
In his 18-page report, Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry Miller said the mayor's request for voluntary five-day furloughs -- asking employees to stay home and give up their pay -- would not come close to saving the $20 million claimed by the mayor.
Miller also said many of the city-owned cars that Villaraigosa wants to sell were purchased with financing that requires them to be kept for a minimum of six years -- making them ineligible as a current cost-cutting option.
He suggested that officials instead save money by not hiring 45 police officers who are scheduled to expand the force next month.
The latter proposal immediately drew a veto threat from Villaraigosa, who called Miller's recommendations "bureaucratic stalling tactics."
As chief analyst, Miller works for the City Council.
"There is no question that the mayor and the council will have to pursue more aggressive cost-cutting measures," Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said.
"However, cutting cops while preserving perks is not an option," Szabo added.
The council is scheduled to meet today in an attempt to reduce a $155-million shortfall without making cuts in such services as graffiti removal, library supplies and new left-turn signals.
With tax revenue stagnant at best, the city could see another $300 million shortfall by July 1, the start of a new fiscal year.
Faced with such dire numbers, Villaraigosa trumpeted a plan last month to reduce the budget shortfall by $35 million, largely by asking public employees to stay home and by selling city cars, cellphones and buildings, such as unused fire stations.
Councilman Bill Rosendahl quickly protested, saying that he had spent years trying to convert some of those surplus properties into affordable housing in his Westside district, where rents have skyrocketed.
In his report, Miller kept alive the notion of selling city buildings.
But he warned that doing so would only delay the city's larger problem -- too many expenses with too little revenue.
By selling off its land, "the city would be using an asset that almost always appreciates in value to meet current expenditure problems, thereby compounding the city's structural imbalance" in its budget, Miller wrote.
