Grand Jury Recommends Sales Tax Hike : Government: The panel’s annual report says the half-cent increase should be used for law enforcement. It criticizes the Board of Supervisors’ $4-million grant to a proposed children’s home.

Ventura County needs a half-cent sales tax increase for law enforcement, and Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury should lead the campaign for voter approval of it, the county grand jury said Monday.

In its annual report on county and municipal government, the panel also said that Bradbury, who has repeatedly overspent his budget in recent years, needs an outside performance audit to look for ways to cut spending.

On its last day of work, the 1990-91 panel also criticized the Board of Supervisors for contributing nearly $4 million to Casa Pacifica, a proposed children’s home, without examining the potential long-term costs. And it faulted Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg for failing to develop a system of promptly communicating policy changes to county employees.

In response, Deputy Dist. Atty. Donald D. Coleman said Bradbury would support a tax increase for law enforcement if the Board of Supervisors put it on the ballot and “if he was convinced that there was no other alternative.”

He said Bradbury’s budget overruns do not indicate the need for such a tax “unless you are convinced that the board is spending money wisely now.”

The grand jury report noted that Bradbury has frequently defended his budget overruns by claiming strong public support for his aggressive but costly policies, which include a refusal to plea-bargain.

But Coleman said he doubts that the support would translate into approval of a tax increase. “I think, frankly, that nothing like that would have a chance of success,” he said.

The report noted that Bradbury had recognized the need for a performance audit. Coleman said the county auditor’s office began the study about a month ago and said it could include an examination of the no-plea-bargain policy.

As for Casa Pacifica, the panel said it has been unable to obtain answers to “critical questions relating to the county’s potential liability for construction and operation costs” if private-sector funds do not materialize.

Youth Connection, a private, nonprofit group working with the county to build the center, is using the $200,000 a year in interest on the county’s contribution to underwrite its fund-raising costs, the report said.

“It is difficult to justify the nearly $4 million ‘advance match’ . . . and the forfeiture of interest it is producing in a year when county departments and agencies have already been required to make substantial cuts,” the report said. It said the supervisors have not explained to the public “their strong and apparently overriding commitment to this project.”

The report said the best estimate of the monthly cost of housing a child at Casa Pacifica would be about $3,200, compared to the maximum of $702 for children in the current system of foster-care homes.

Supervisor Susan K. Lacey, a member of the Casa Pacifica board, said she was surprised by the criticisms, adding that the grand jurors that she met with appeared to support the venture.

She said Casa Pacifica, which is modeled after a shelter in Orange County, is necessary to make better use of the foster-care system. It would allow children to be evaluated by social workers, doctors and psychologists before they are placed, and large groups of siblings could stay there instead of splitting up among foster homes.

As for advancing the money to Youth Connection, Lacey said: “Every study has shown that you have to have public funds before you get the matching money.”

She said Casa Pacifica board members tried to meet with the grand jury but were told that the panel was too busy.

In its criticism of Wittenberg’s office, the report said administrative policies are issued in a bound manual that is revised every two years, making it difficult to change a policy in the meantime. It recommended a return to the loose-leaf format used until 1987.

Wittenberg said the loose-leaf format did not work because “people were confused about what was the current policy.” He also said that new manuals are published every year, not every other year. “It’s better than the system they’re suggesting.”

The report also said county agencies should develop clear objectives and standards for measuring whether the goals are achieved. It called for better communications with the public, including establishment of a public information office. Members of the grand jury have discovered that many citizens do not understand what county government does and does not do, the report said.

Wittenberg said he had not seen the grand jury report, which was released at 2 p.m. Monday, but said “those are things that can always be improved on.”

The grand jury examined each of the county’s 10 cities and had only one recommendation: that Camarillo find a way to replace its police station. The report said 56 employees work in the 5,000-square-foot station. The City Council agrees on the need and is considering a site, the report said.

In other areas, the report called for:

* Random drug testing of police officers and sheriff’s deputies. Last year’s grand jury report called for random tests of all county employees, an idea that went nowhere.

* Improvement in relations between the county and the cities, which have been strained, the report said, by county efforts to charge the cities for booking prisoners into the jail and for collecting taxes. The report said the newly formed Ventura County Council of Governments, representing the county and the cities, needs a formal statement of mission and policies to help mend the relationship.

* A requirement that all county employees wear identification badges while on duty in county buildings.

* Expansion of the county’s work-furlough and work-release programs to reduce overcrowding at County Jail.

* Creation of a new master plan to deal with the “exploding population” at the county’s two major juvenile facilities.

* Replacement of the “old and obsolete” fire stations on Kunkle Street in Oak View and on Ventura Boulevard in Camarillo.

Under the law, the governments and agencies cited in the report do not have to adopt any of the recommendations. But they must respond to them within 90 days.