BUDGET: Some Proposition 13 Cuts Repaired : County Budget Repairs Some of Deepest Cuts Made by Prop. 13

Seven years after California voters approved Proposition 13 and forced local governments across the state to tighten their fiscal belts, San Diego County has let that belt out a notch.

In the coming year the county plans to spend a record-busting $943 million--more than $450 for every person in San Diego County. The budget tentatively approved earlier this month by the Board of Supervisors may be the last to remain below $1 billion.

For the first time, county officials are saying openly that they have been able to restore some of the programs and services cut during the years just after Proposition 13.

A stronger economy has combined with increased funding from the state to enable the county to hire the equivalent of more than 12,000 full-time employees--a number last reached in 1978, the year Californians sent a message that they wanted their property taxes--and thus the size of their government--reduced.

The budget for fiscal year 1985-1986 includes big increases for such programs as the Edgemoor Geriatric Hospital and the investigation and prosecution of child abuse--areas county officials say are essential and would have been more fully funded years ago had the money been available.

Other areas once cited as expendable and cut with great fanfare are also making a comeback.

Budgets for county supervisors’ offices and general administration have increased this year at rates far greater than the pace of inflation. The county was even able to find $150,000 to touch up the County Administration Center, including new paint and carpeting for the hallway outside the board’s meeting chambers. Such an expense would have been unheard of five years ago.

Clifford W. Graves, the county’s top administrator, insists that the frills have not returned to county government. But Graves said the county has begun to rebuild what past budget cuts dismantled.

“The attitude at that time (1978) was that the public, though they said they wanted their taxes cut, didn’t indicate which services they didn’t want anymore,” Graves said. “So the board said do everything you can in terms of cutting back as long as direct services are the last thing to go. Most of the cuts were made in the infrastructure of the county, in equipment, building maintenance, employee salaries and the quality control areas like audit and budget review.

“Starting last year, and a little more this year, we’ve been able to maintain all of our current levels of service and to make a few add-backs in certain critical areas,” Graves said, adding, “We’re a long way from being back.”

While once the county was forced to delay needed refurbishing on buildings such as the County Courthouse and the Edgemoor Geriatric Hospital, this year’s budget included funds for both. Road maintenance was once put off as an unessential expense, but this year the Board of Supervisors ordered Graves to find a way to reduce the backlog of work needed to be done. The Human Relations Commission, abolished during a 1978 budget session, was recreated this spring.

“Those kinds of things are an indication of an optimism about the future that the board has as well as a sense that the county has certain responsibilities in this region and one way or another they have to find the resources to carry them out,” Graves said. “Back then (1978) it was ‘anything we can’t find a clear responsibility for, let’s stop doing it.’ There’s been a clear change in psychology.”

Private budget watchers say they hope that change in psychology doesn’t lead the county to spend money once again on administrative fat that was trimmed after Proposition 13.

“Obviously, the pressure has relaxed a lot since Prop. 13,” said Charles Nichols, head of the Citizens Council on Budget Management, a self-appointed watchdog group. “I would say we ought to take a hard look at the pattern of growth over the past four years.”

Mark Nelson, executive director of the San Diego Taxpayers Assn., said board members are under less pressure today than five years ago to keep the lid on the most visible public expenses.

“Immediately after Prop. 13, the county was operating in a crisis atmosphere,” Nelson said. “Board members were highly sensitive to the public’s perception of expenditures. You had a lot of symbolic cuts that did not amount to a great deal of dollar savings but showed a desire on the part of the board to hold the line on expenses. Since then, they’ve become a little less sensitive.”

Among those “symbolic cuts” that have since been restored are the supervisors’ office budgets and county’s central administration, directed by Graves.

Board members’ office budgets, cut by a third the year after Proposition 13, have been climbing steadily since then. This year’s budget for the staff and supplies supervisors use to serve their constituents is almost $1.9 million--80% larger than it was six years ago. Board members, paid $32,000 in 1978, now receive $54,000 a year.

The central administration, reorganized and trimmed in the wake of Proposition 13, cost $1.2 million to run in 1978 but now takes more than $4 million.

This year alone, Graves added more than $700,000 to his office budget, a 28% increase. Much of that money will go toward implementing Proposition A, the voter-approved charter reform measure that centralized the county’s day-to-day management in Graves’ office.

But Graves also found money for two staff members to handle the work of the Human Relations Commission and two more to coordinate the county’s membership in the San Diego Assn. of Governments, a regional planning group. Another position was added to enable the county to better analyze legislative developments in Sacramento.

Graves’ proposed budget included a 20% increase in county staff travel, an expense that was one of the most closely watched during the years immediately following Proposition 13. This year, supervisors ordered a 25% cut in all non-mandated travel.

Supervisor Susan Golding, the lone member to vote no when the board approved the budget earlier this month, has called for a change in the way the proposed budget is prepared so that supervisors and the public can more easily analyze where the money is being spent.

“Government spending has not decreased since Proposition 13,” Golding said. “Any illusions that it has should be dispelled. I’m not happy with this year’s budget. I voted against it, and it was not a frivolous vote. There was not enough of an effort to examine departments and see where we wanted to make changes. I think (the atmosphere) is more lax than it used to be.”

Despite the budget increases, Nelson of the taxpayers’ association said he detects more of a willingness on the part of the county, and other local governments, to explore and accept innovative approaches to management, such as contracting with private firms or agencies to do work traditionally done by public employees.

“In a way, now they’ve gotten over the symbolism and they’re looking toward a fundamental reevaluation of how the county provides services,” Nelson said. “That is a more complicated matter and they tend to take incremental steps. It’s less noticeable and not as visible as cutting your board office in half or holding the line on all travel. In a way in might be positive.”