KTLA News: "Mayor Tom Bradley on budget cuts due to Proposition 13" (1978)

[Background conversation, partially unintelligible] Oh, yeah. [KTLA Reporter, Stan Chambers] The city council chambers were almost full when Mayor Bradley arrived this morning. [Chambers] He told the councilman the message election day was clear,   "Cut your budgets." [Chambers] He said his revised budget is in accordance with the mandate of the people. [Mayor Tom Bradley] It is based upon certain assumptions which, ah, include, the assumption that the city will lose, two hundred thirty four million dollars. Over one fourth of it's budget. On that issue, I have not heard, one word of dissent. [Chambers] The mayor said no new taxes would be asked for. [Chambers] But he said a rubbish collection fee would be necessary. [Chambers] And that would bring some thirty million dollars to the city. [Bradley] If we do not adopt such a fee, [Bradley] you must add another thirty million dollars loss, [Bradley] in department programs. [Bradley] There is no alternative. [Chambers] He was emphatic that the suggested firing of one thousand policemen was not his idea. [Chambers] But came from Police Chief Daryl Gates, [Chambers] who submitted the proposal, when asked to budget within the limits of the Jarvis measure. [Bradley] I repeat. Laying off police officers and other employees, [Bradley] was not my choice. [Bradely] these, proposals you find in that budget document, [Bradley] were the representations made by the department managers. [Bradley] I then, prepared them in budget form and submitted them to you. [Bradley] To those who say that, ah, I don't want police layoffs. I join you. I don't want any policemen laid off either. But I've looked at the figures. I've looked at the alternatives. I face the reality. As did the Chief of Police. [Chambers] In his speech this morning, Mayor Bradley hammered home the message, the city would lose some two hundred thirty four million dollars because of Jarvis. [Chambers] That's about one fourth of the entire revenue of the city. [Chambers] He called for departments to take cutbacks from seventeen to thirty percent. [Chambers] And the budget also calls for the layoffs of as many as eight thousand people. [Chambers] He's hoping the negotiations on shorter work week and wage freezes might make that number much smaller. [Chambers] Stan Chambers, Channel 5 News Watch, reporting from the City Council Chambers. [Background voices, unintelligible] [Unidentified man at podium] Welcome to City Hall, er, City Council. [Bradley] Thank you. [No audio] [Bradley] Having shorter work weeks, a number of other alternatives. [Bradley] And it is very clear that, at that, [Bradley] the department representatives, [Bradley] with my, [Bradley] And these include the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief. [Bradley] Based upon the assumptions that were available to us at, [Bradley] the time this document was prepared. [Bradley] There seemed to be little possibility that we could get agreement. [Bradley] I met with each of these department heads. [Camera noise] [Bradley] figures which you find in your budget documents, [Bradley] are based upon that reliable information, at that point in history. occasion that we will lose  even more. We have assumed that we would get, our pro rata share of the one percent of the property tax, mandated by Proposition 13. But there has been, some discussion in Sacramento, to the effect that, the schools and the counties would get that money, and, in fact, last week, by a twenty four to twenty vote of a caucus session, the decision was made that, no city in California would get any portion of that one percent to which we believe we are entitled, as a matter of right. There is, no clear indication that we will get any portion, of the surplus, in the state treasury. Further bad news, last week the State Board of Equalization, declared that the cities would not get, any portion of the unsecured, property tax, this year. Now, if this is true, we will lose another thirty one and a half million dollars. We had made the assumption in this, budget preparation that we would get that money. So if we lose it, our loss, our problem is magnified even more. [Bradley] It is, [Bradley] salary cuts, [Bradley] each, [Camera noise] [Bradley] Their priorities. Their choices. [Bradley] That while it would be painful and difficult, [Camera noise] easy to propose that the Fire Chief, six. I don't intend to sit quietly [Camera noise] a thousand policeman or anybody else, when in fact, it came from someplace else. in thirty four million dollars, over a quarter of our revenue, and not cut the police and fire departments. Combined, the police and fire budgets, make up over half of our total budget. If you cut completely, thirty five of our, forty one city departments, in order to fully finance, Police, Fire, Sanitation, Street Maintenance, Recreation and Parks and a portion of Engineering. You wouldn't even have enough money to finance those five and a half departments. That's how serious the magnitude of this loss of revenue is. If you took thirty of the smaller departments of city government and said, let's cut, all of their money. You'd only have a hundred and twenty million dollars in cuts. In short, you cannot fully finance the present level of police and fire services, take that money from some other department. It simply cannot be done. That's why every [Camera noise] [Bradley] make sense that, [Camera noise] [Bradley] We have, a loss of two hundred thirty four million dollars. [Applause] [Unidentified speaker] The rhetoric. The divisiveness. The anger. The hostility. And to really work together, And try to determine as best we can, what the facts are. To gather together, our experts and to give us a review of what those objective facts are. And that is what your committee has been doing these past several months. We have a grasp of what the facts are. The effects on the various departments, and on the city. And we are prepared with the CAO and the City Legislative Analyst, to answer all your questions, with regard to, the consequences of various courses of action. Now, [Camera noise] they've made it very clear, they want cuts and they want immediate cuts. So an attempt was made, to find some moderate position. Cut substantially. And there is an alternate proposal before you, that says cut a hundred and fifty two million dollars right now. And wait until next month to see whether we shall cut further than that. What that says is, let's, go, slower. Let's try to be as prudent and objective as possible. Let's have the minimum traumatic, upset to employees. To all the the people of our city, in terms of disrupting their services. And let us, do it in an efficient manner. Now that's a possibility. There are two approaches basically, [Applause]