Public Safety’s Special Funding Could Be Spared

Despite charges that Ventura County spends too much money on law enforcement, analysts say the county can solve its financial problems in coming years without altering the special budget protections now given police agencies--but only if good economic times continue.

In the most dramatic recent criticism of law enforcement spending, former Chief Administrative Officer David L. Baker charged three weeks ago that other programs will have to be cut over time unless the county changes law enforcement’s special status.

Combining Proposition 172 public safety funds with guaranteed inflationary increases for police agencies “presents a structural financial imbalance which is dramatic and ongoing,” Baker said in a resignation letter after only four days as chief administrative officer.

Since 1993, the year state voters passed Proposition 172, county law enforcement budgets have swollen 70%. That increase compares with a 29% rise in the county budget overall and 32% in its general fund, which provides a variety of basic public services.

About 80%, or $70 million of the increase in the law enforcement budget, comes from Proposition 172’s sales-tax funding while the remaining 20%, or $17.7 million, comes from the general fund.

But a Times study and interviews with public officials and budget analysts last week show that the four county public safety departments that receive Proposition 172 funds--the sheriff, district attorney, probation department and public defender--are taking a smaller share of the general fund compared to 1993-’94.

Law enforcement revenue from the general fund increased 21% in the last six years, compared with 32% for the general fund overall.

General fund dollars are watched closely because county supervisors not only use them to pay for basic services, but also to provide inflationary increases in the police agency budgets--regardless of how much new money the agencies get from their special sales tax.

In actual dollars, police agencies got $82.4 million from the general fund in 1993 and $100.1 million in 1999--but the agencies’ share of the general fund declined, The Times analysis shows. The four agencies take just 18% of the general fund this fiscal year, compared with 19.6% six years ago.

“This is what we’ve been saying for years,” Sheriff Bob Brooks said. “Because we have this other source of dollars, the requests for increases have completely been taken off the general fund table.”

Despite law enforcement’s decreasing use of the general fund, critics say the real question county leaders must face is the potential impact of spending guaranties for the police agencies when the next recession or economic downturn hits.

“Someone I know calls it the hippopotamus in the corner,” one high-ranking official in the chief administrator’s office said. “And nobody is looking at the hippopotamus.”

Local sales and property taxes--supervisors’ primary source of discretionary spending--increased only marginally during the economic slowdown in the early ‘90s but have picked up in recent years. Property taxes grew 16% during the last five years and sales taxes have increased 8% since 1997.

Even with those increases, this year’s budget is still tight, due primarily to at least $11 million in unexpected payouts associated with last year’s disastrous decision to merge the county’s mental health and social service departments.

If the boom times reverse and the county has not stabilized its budget, supervisors will be pressured to look to other options for relief, including the special funding for public safety, said interim county chief administrator Bert Bigler.

“There is definite flexibility in the future in how that ordinance [Proposition 172] is implemented,” Bigler said. “But it’s ultimately the board’s decision. The board has other choices--there are a lot of other programs and services they can also look at.”

Economic Downturn Would Affect All

Even Brooks, whose department is the biggest beneficiary of Proposition 172 funding, agrees that the rules would change for everyone if the economy goes sour.

“If there was a real threat, all of us would have to look at any real option,” said Brooks, whose department will receive $30 million in sales tax money this year. “But we are certainly not there now.”

The fight over distribution of Proposition 172 dollars has been loud and bitter from the start. Under state guidelines, the county must spend all the money from the extended tax on “public safety.” But state leaders left it up to county officials to define which public safety agencies would benefit.

Ventura County supervisors passed a resolution before the Proposition 172 vote in November 1993, vowing to dedicate the money to the Fire Protection District, the Sheriff’s Department, probation agency and the offices of the district attorney and public defender.

The following year, however, the board voted to divert $1.2 million of the $30-million pot to other agencies it considered under the public safety fold--the coroner’s office and legal services for children. That enraged then-Sheriff Larry Carpenter, who started a campaign with Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury to place a local ordinance on the ballot requiring supervisors to stick to their original pledge.

But Carpenter and Bradbury added a twist: In addition to the special tax dollars, the county would be forced to continue fully financing these agencies out of the general fund, as it had in previous years, and pay any inflationary costs. By May 1995, they had the 47,000 signatures needed for a public vote--if necessary.

As it turned out, they did not need to go to the ballot. Two conservative supervisors, Frank Schillo and Judy Mikels, had just been elected to the board, in part by pledging to support Carpenter and Bradbury’s campaign.

With Supervisor John K. Flynn providing the swing decision, they voted 3 to 2 to simply enact the proposal into law. Supervisors Maggie Kildee and Susan Lacey cast dissenting votes, saying it was bad policy to tie the board’s hand on budget matters.

Critics say Carpenter and Bradbury pulled off their coup by exaggerating that crime would spiral unless the ordinance was passed.

“Who would argue against having a safe community?” said another CAO source with knowledge of the county’s budget. “But these steps went much further than defining what groups would receive the Prop. 172 funding.”

Fighting Crime a Top Priority

Brooks insists the public was not misled about the dangers of rising crime. The measure was popular, the sheriff said, because Ventura County residents have made clear that fighting criminals is a high priority.

“I don’t think the public has ever cared about the mechanics of it,” the sheriff said. “I had a neighbor knock on my door the other day, saying, ‘Don’t they get it? I moved to Ventura County for better public safety, not for better welfare.’ ”

Under guidelines worked out by the county administrator, public safety chiefs and the Board of Supervisors, the eligible agencies receive dollars based on the size of their ‘94-’95 budgets.

The county Fire Protection District, which has its own source of tax dollars, can get Proposition 172 funding if supervisors agree it is needed. In the past six years, however, the Fire Department has received just one $565,000 allocation.

Probation chief Cal Remington’s overall budget has grown the fastest in the six years since public safety funding began flowing. Probation added $13.4 million to reach a $30-million annual budget, a 79% increase. The Sheriff’s Department is close behind with a $57.5-million spike up to its current $136-million budget, a 73% increase.

Bradbury’s budget grew more slowly, gaining $14.3 million to $40 million, a 56% budget increase. Public Defender Ken Clayman’s office added $2.5 million to reach $7.2 million, a 53% increase.

Much of the dramatic increase is due to Proposition 172 funding. But even without it, the four agencies’ share of money from the general fund grew at a healthy 3.5% annual rate over the six years.

By comparison, smaller departments have experienced declines in county funding in recent years. General fund allocations to the tax collector, the assessor and other general government services fell from $19 million in 1995 to $17.3 million last year, a 9% decrease.

There is such overwhelming political support for the current Proposition 172 scheme that--before public criticism from Baker--few county officials were willing to even question the current arrangement, except privately. Other county department heads still avoid any direct challenge, although many privately grumble that it is unfair for the law enforcement agencies to enjoy fat budget increases while others are scrimping.

Brooks says he understands their concerns. But fairness is not the issue, the sheriff said. The issue is public priorities.

“It’s never been about being fair. It’s about the public’s right to tax themselves for a specific purpose,” he said. “We pushed for the local ordinance so the board would have to stick with what they said the money would be spent on.”

The extra money allowed the county to open Todd Road jail in 1995, relieving overcrowding at the main jail in Ventura, Brooks said. The Sheriff’s Department has added a second deputy to cruisers for nighttime patrols in unincorporated areas and created a countywide crime suppression unit that is available to city police agencies.

In the district attorney’s office, more domestic abuse cases are being prosecuted and two victims’ advocates have been added, said Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Greg Totten. Both agencies say some of the money was used to make up positions lost during earlier rounds of budget cutting.

172 Indirectly Aided Other Departments

Most of these gains were paid for by Proposition 172 dollars or grant money, Totten said, indirectly taking pressure off the general fund. That leaves the general fund intact to be used by other departments, Totten said.

“It very clearly has had an indirect effect of helping nonpublic safety departments,” he said.

Although distribution of dollars is guided by a formula, the final cuts are almost always negotiated. When Todd Road Jail opened in 1995, the Sheriff’s Department got a larger share of money to cover the added expense, Brooks said.

Similarly, Brooks and Bradbury have offered to dedicate all new sales tax dollars in coming years to operation of a juvenile hall scheduled to open in 2003. We are doing our part, the public safety chiefs say.

“There are a lot of things I could use that money for,” Brooks said. “But there is no dispute among public safety heads that this is tremendous priority for the county.”

But critics say it is bad public policy to depend on the good will of public safety chiefs, whose focus is on one function--fighting crime--to make fiscal decisions in the best interest of the entire county.

“That’s why you have full-time elected supervisors with staffs,” said Maria VanderKolk, a former Ventura County supervisor. “They realize the potential fiscal implications of making these decisions.”

For now, it appears that the county’s political will is on the side of law enforcement. But Flynn, who is seeking reelection in March, has responded to the current financial crisis by saying he is now “looking for some give” on the dollars from the public safety chiefs.

He does not want to be confrontational, but believes mental health crisis teams and code enforcement officers could be added to the list of departments that get Proposition 172 money, Flynn said.

“They are certainly sensitive about these issues,” said Flynn, whose Oxnard-area constituents tend to favor social programs. “I will do whatever it takes to balance the budget.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Law Enforcement’s Impact on the General Fund

A Times analysis shows that the percent of the general fund going to the sheriff, district attorney, probation and public defender agencies has declined slightly in the past six years.

General fund contribution to the four public safety departments

Year: ‘93-94

Budget (in millions): $82.4

Percent of general fund: 19.6%

Year: ‘99-00

Budget (in millions): $100.1

Percent of general fund: 18%

Source: County Auditor’s Office