ELECTIONS : Several Measures Will Shape County Budget Fate

Consider the best scenario: If voters are generous on Tuesday, the financially strapped Los Angeles County budget could be awash in more than $1 billion in new funds provided by a variety of propositions.

Mental health clinics threatened with closure could remain open. Jails would be built and expanded. The county’s ailing trauma care system would be shored up.

Now, consider the worst: Unless voters approve certain key tax increases and bonds, the Board of Supervisors will be faced with cutting $57 million from health and mental health programs--only one week after the election.

Ten of the proposed bond measures and tax increases on the ballot, if approved, would provide Los Angeles County with money enough to avert closing the clinics and upgrade beaches, parks and cultural facilities, among other things, said County Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon.

The failure of just three measures in particular would contribute to the county budget’s downward spiral and make tougher Dixon’s job of running a huge bureaucracy beset with growing demands and shrinking resources, he said.

Most critical are two measures: State Proposition 134, the so-called “nickel-a-drink” tax, and Proposition A, a county-sponsored half-cent increase in the local sales tax, Dixon said. They would provide the county with a continuing source of money.

Not everyone in county government agrees that more money is needed. Addressing his colleagues’ assertions that the county’s budget must grow, board Chairman Pete Schabarum said, “Baloney.”

“This board would be better served in reassessing our priorities rather than seeking more revenues,” Schabarum said, pointing out that the county’s $10.3 billion budget is bigger than the budget of 42 states.

Months ago, the supervisors voted to continue funding for county health and mental health programs even though Gov. George Deukmejian, facing a state budget crisis, last summer slashed state funding for those programs. The supervisors decided to postpone cuts until after the election in the hope that voters would approve the alcohol-tax increase, which would provide Los Angeles County with $180 million a year.

Under alcohol industry-supported Proposition 126, the county is projected to receive $34 million a year. But Joel Bellman, a spokesman for Supervisor Ed Edelman, said that Proposition 126 provides for the state to distribute the money.

“If Proposition 126 passes, there is no guarantee that Los Angeles County will get one penny,” he said.

If Proposition 134 is rejected, the county will be forced to cut $40 million in mental health programs, resulting in the closure of most of the 19 county-run mental health clinics and forcing 22,000 of the 52,000 mostly low-income patients who now receive mental health treatment to go without care, said county mental health director Roberto Quiroz.

In neither alcohol tax measure is approved, the county will also cut $17 million in health services over and above the $7 million in reductions implemented in September, officials said. If Proposition 126 passes, the county could receive enough money to avert health cuts but not the mental health cuts.

The supervisors could cut funding in other areas. But they have been loathe to allocate scarce resources to bail out programs such as mental health, which the state requires but does not fully fund.

If approved, Proposition 134 would provide enough money to avert most of the mental health cuts, plus help the county’s trauma care network, increase alcohol and drug education and treatment programs, expand the sheriff’s anti-drug programs in the schools and fund sobriety check points, said Dixon.

Opponents of Proposition 134 say it would lock into the state budget higher levels of spending than the increases it would raise, perhaps leading to other tax increases.

Dixon said the county’s Proposition A is critical to prevent county-run jails from draining funds from other programs. It would raise the sales tax half a cent to generate $423 million a year for construction and operation of county jails and juvenile detention facilities.

Jail costs, Dixon said, have soared from $76 million in 1980 to $348 million this year.

Other measures that would add to the county budget, as well as give cities money, include:

* Proposition B, the largest bond measure in county history. It would boost property taxes by $817 million to pay for an array of recreational and cultural projects. The county would receive $336 million, and the remainder would go to cities and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

* Proposition C is a proposed half-cent increase in the local sales tax to fund transit projects. It would raise $400 million annually, of which the supervisors would receive about $10 million to improve bus service and dial-a-ride service for the elderly and the handicapped. The bulk of the money would be distributed by the county Transportation Commission.

* Proposition 129, sponsored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, would allocate $1.2 billion in state funds over an eight-year period for drug enforcement and treatment. It also would authorize $740 million in bonds for building jails. The Los Angeles County sheriff would receive $36 million a year, which could be used to increase sheriff’s patrols, according to a spokesman for the campaign. The county also would receive $24 million a year for drug education and treatment.

Dixon has opposed this measure, saying it would require “diversion of existing state funds from other programs with unknown impact.”

* Proposition 133, sponsored by Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, is a proposed statewide half-cent sales tax increase to fund a four-year, $7.5-billion plan to put more police on the streets, expand drug education in the schools and provide treatment for drug users. If approved, the measure would provide the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department with $53 million a year. The county also would receive $9.6 million a year for more prosecutors, $9.6 million a year for more judges, $38.4 million a year for alcohol- and drug-abuse programs and $31 million for jails.

* Proposition 147 is a $225-million state bond that would finance construction of county jails and juvenile detention facilities. No specific amount is earmarked for Los Angeles County, but Dixon projected that the county would receive up to $80 million.

* Proposition 149 is a state park bond. Los Angeles County would receive $10 million.

* Proposition 150 is a state bond for courthouse construction. Los Angeles County expects to receive $60 million to $80 million.

Even if all the spending measures pass, that still will not solve all of the county’s problems, Dixon said.

“Without the infusion of new money, we’re going to see a continued deterioration of our infrastructure and our services,” Dixon said. “With it, you’ll see us hold our own, and maybe improve a little.”