Supervisors Delay Budget Cuts Until Vote on Jail Tax

Searching for the least politically painful method to build new jails, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday deferred action on more than $30 million in budget cuts until voters decide on a half-cent sales tax increase in June.

In a related action, the board also took the first step toward placing a proposal to waive the so-called Gann spending limit on the June ballot, a measure that county administrators say is needed to avoid the loss of $8.3 million in revenue increases next year and larger losses in subsequent years.

After months of tough talk about the need for fiscal belt-tightening to alleviate the county’s jail overcrowding crisis, even some supervisors expressed concern that Tuesday’s deferral of any budget cuts might be perceived as an ineffectual--and politically inconsistent--response to the county’s highest priority issue.

“I am somewhat disappointed that we do not have at a minimum some recommendation on where these cuts or reallocations should be made,” Supervisor Susan Golding said after county administrators declined to propose specific budget reductions and simply urged the board to defer action until after the June election.

In defense of their position, county administrators emphasized that approval of the proposed half-cent sales tax increase, which officials estimate will generate $1.6 billion for new jails and courts over the next 10 years, could eliminate the need for budget reductions.

‘Cuts Should Be Deferred’

“These discretionary (programs) are some of the county’s most effective services . . . and the dollars being spent on them are among the wisest spent by the county,” Assistant Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen said. “These cuts should be deferred at all costs at this time.”

Last summer, Chief Administrative Officer Norman Hickey, responding to the board’s desire to expedite new jail construction despite severe budget constraints, identified $32 million in potential reductions in 53 programs and 15 county departments.

However, at three hearings last fall, more than 100 individuals and groups vehemently opposed cutbacks in those services, ranging from child care and geriatric care to crime prevention and hazardous-materials plans, in order to shift funds to jails and courts.

The intensity of those sentiments, combined with the board’s decision earlier this month to place the sales tax measure on the June ballot, prompted Hickey’s office to recommend against any immediate budget cuts.

While not eager themselves to curtail funding for those public protection, general government and health and social service programs, the supervisors also were clearly concerned that Tuesday’s action might be interpreted as inaction on the politically volatile jails issue.

County administrators shared that concern, as evidenced by the conclusion of Hickey’s staff’s written report to the board: “In retrospect, some may view the budget conferences as an uneventful fire drill on discretionary programs. On the contrary, the board has conducted a required disaster preparedness exercise.”

Several supervisors, however, argued that, with the inmate population in the six county jails double their official capacity--the norm for the past two years--the county cannot simply bide its time while awaiting voters’ judgment in June on the proposed sales tax increase.

With Golding saying that it would “not be responsible” to wait until after the June election to reconsider the potential budget cuts, the board instructed county administrators to prepare a prioritized list of possible reductions that could be implemented in the event that voters reject the tax increase, which would raise the county’s sales tax to 7%. Currently, the sales tax is 6%, but it is scheduled to increase to 6.5% this spring as a result of voters’ approval last November of Proposition A, a measure designed to improve regional transportation.

“None of us wants to cut any of these discretionary programs,” Golding said. “However, we’re running out of options . . . If we don’t make our own choice, someone else, whether it’s a court or the state or a lawsuit, might take the choice out of our hands.”

Supervisor Brian Bilbray, suggesting that the board “send an even stronger message” to the public about the importance of the June ballot measure, stressed that, if voters reject the sales tax increase and additional state funds are not forthcoming, dozens of other county programs could be “bled dry” to finance the construction and operation of new jails and courtrooms. Under county planners’ projections, $800 million will be needed over the next decade to build new jails and courts, plus operating costs of $270 million.

Most of Bilbray’s colleagues concurred, but expressed concerns that voters might view the board’s request for a contingency list of possible reductions as simply a strategic gambit designed to gain support for the sales tax proposal.

‘This Is Not a Tactic’

“This is not a tactic,” Golding said. “This is, bluntly, the truth.”

Supervisor Leon Williams cast the lone negative vote against Golding’s motion, saying that he opposed scaling back “programs and other ways that help to maintain a civilized society.” Williams noted, for example, that prenatal care, juvenile diversion plans and many of the county’s other discretionary programs ultimately save tens of thousands of dollars by helping to reduce future health problems and crime.

While the jail financing crunch ranks as the county’s most immediate fiscal concern, other thorny issues also cloud the county’s financial horizon. In particular, county administrators warned the board on Tuesday that the Gann spending limit, a statewide measure approved in 1979 that restricts government spending under a formula based on population growth and the inflation rate, could reduce county revenues by at least $8 million annually.

Accepting Hickey’s recommendation, the supervisors directed the county staff to prepare a ballot measure that would ask voters in the June 7 primary to waive the Gann limit for the next 4 years. The board’s unanimous vote, however, was simply a preliminary step, because the supervisors still would have to approve actually placing the proposal on the ballot.

In essence, the Gann limit’s cap on expenditures would require the county, now operating under a $1.1-billion annual budget, to spend less money than would be available through tax revenues and other sources. Combined with related financial problems, the Gann limit could produce an expenditure gap of $46.4 million next year and a $161.8-million gap over the next five years, county officials said. Among other things, the Gann limit could preclude the county from taking advantage of about $35 million in state revenues for courts.

While alarmed over that prospect, some supervisors also expressed concern Tuesday about placing the Gann waiver proposal--similar to a measure approved by City of San Diego voters last fall--on the June ballot along with the sales tax measure and a possible statewide initiative to ease the Gann limit’s restrictions by altering the formula by which it is calculated.

The multiple Gann proposals could confuse voters, supervisors argued, adding that the public also might balk at being asked to simultaneously increase the sales tax and ease government spending restrictions.

When the Gann waiver proposal comes back before the board, Supervisor George Bailey indicated that he may suggest that November might be a more politically propitious time to submit the measure to voters.