County Seeks Public-Safety Shield Against Cuts : Spending: Law enforcement officials are working on a plan to expand definition of services funded by special sales tax revenue. Meanwhile, supervisors open their budget discussions today.

Bound by their own promise to exempt public safety from budget cuts, Ventura County leaders are now looking for new ways to define public safety.

Animal control officers rounding up vicious dogs, medical examiners performing autopsies, even personnel recruiters hiring new sheriff’s deputies could all come under that umbrella--and eventually benefit from the special sales tax revenue pumping nearly $30 million into criminal justice budgets.

Law enforcement officials, who until recently were accusing the Board of Supervisors of “money laundering,” are now working on a plan to expand public safety’s reach.

“I’m looking for a way to deliver as much public service as we can relate to law enforcement, and I am willing to accept responsibility for the (services) under my budget,” Sheriff Larry Carpenter said.

Carpenter said the plan could include county services, such as purchasing, personnel and vehicle maintenance. It could also involve specific jobs, such as airport and harbor security guards, coroners and animal-regulation officers.

Still unclear is whether law enforcement departments would assume control over these services and jobs, or simply share revenues provided through the Proposition 172, half-cent sales tax extended by the voters last November.

So far, Carpenter and Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury have said that any diversion of the tax revenue would constitute a breach of faith with the voters.

The sheriff and district attorney will present their proposal to the board today when budget deliberations resume. Ultimately, it will be the supervisors who control the use of the money.

Board members said they would welcome a solution to their dilemma of supporting law enforcement without gutting the rest of county government.

“I think there has to be some kind of sharing and I’m not sure what form that would take,” Supervisor Maggie Kildee said. “There’s nobody who wants to cut public safety.”

As recently as March, the board pledged $24 million of the sales tax money to expand services for the sheriff, district attorney, public defender and Corrections Services Agency.

But faced with a mounting deficit and unexpected state cuts, board members say they may have to trim those budgets now.

“I’m willing to admit that I made an honest mistake, and I’m going to have to deal with that,” Supervisor Maria VanderKolk said at a recent meeting.

But that would mean breaking the promise the supervisors made in March and risking the wrath of voters who expected Proposition 172 money to be used specifically for public safety.

Already, law enforcement and political figures have warned of the political repercussions with the voters.

But if they don’t touch criminal justice, board members would have to slash 20% of all remaining county agencies.

In a worst-case scenario, that could cost 124 jobs, limit poor residents’ access to medical care, eliminate services for veterans, trim mental health and animal control staffs and gut the medical examiner’s staff.

“You’re going to wipe out or severely cripple some of those services public safety has to have,” Supervisor Vicky Howard said.

Kathy Jenks, who heads the Animal Regulation Department, said she saw this coming. She has watched her staff drop from 65 to 48 workers in the past five years. This year’s cuts would take another six employees and shut down the kennel in east Ventura County.

So Jenks submitted a letter to the board, suggesting that some of her operations be considered public safety and, thus, be exempted from budget cuts.

“We’re not saying that our kennel operation is public safety,” Jenks said. “But things like vicious dogs and biting dogs and animals on the highway, those are definitely public safety issues.”

The Sheriff’s Department calls on her officers to help break up cockfights or handle sea animals stranded on the beach, she said. This year’s budget cuts, however, would eliminate the officers she uses for such emergencies.

Jenks’ letter also suggested putting the county medical examiner’s office and even some building inspectors under the public safety umbrella.

Other department managers say they too could make an argument for including their services. “I clearly think our department is part of a public safety department,” said Randall Feltman, director of county’s Mental Health Services.

“People who are mentally ill who are receiving treatment are safe, stable members of society. People who are not receiving treatment are going to encounter law enforcement. It’s obvious, we’re going to pay for it through mental health professionals or sheriff’s deputies.”

In addition, the County Fire Department has argued that it should receive some of the funds provided in the special sales tax. Supervisors refused to grant firefighters any of the money until the department streamlines its operations.

Carpenter would not discuss his proposal in detail, and Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury could not be reached for comment.

But the sheriff said he was eager to try something new. “I can tell you that we have for some time wanted to break out of the typical bureaucratic mode,” he said. “I do think if the board is genuinely interested, within two or three years we really can become more efficient.”

The debate over whether law enforcement agencies should absorb some of this year’s cuts is just a piece of the larger budget question facing county supervisors: how to hack as much as $19 million from the county’s $880-million spending plan for fiscal 1994-’95.

Typically, the board’s budget subcommittee prepared a cost-cutting proposal that serves as a base for further negotiations.

This year, however, the board disbanded the subcommittee and pledged that all five supervisors would develop the budget together.

The problem is, the full board has not yet agreed on a plan.

Earlier this month, Supervisor John K. Flynn proposed approaching the budget on a three-year basis, using long-term reorganization of county government to cut costs.

His plan calls for using reserve funds to balance the budget, while waiting for the long-term reductions to take effect.

The supervisors have agreed to try Flynn’s approach. But they have not resolved what mix of cuts and reserve funds they should use.

Flynn favors a plan that would rely heavily on reserve funds this year and cut deep into the budget in the years ahead.

But other supervisors want to see major overall reductions this year, as much as $15 million. That would leave the board in better shape next year, when the state is again expected to cut county funding.

VanderKolk and Howard, the two supervisors not seeking reelection this November, both favor that approach.

“Frankly, I’d rather do it now, which is odd because I could slough it off to the next guy,” VanderKolk said. “There is no way you’re going to get around this next year.”

VanderKolk has advocated cutting benefits for county employees. That could include reducing health insurance, forcing county workers to take off days without pay and cutting managers’ perks.

But many of those issues are governed by union contracts and would be difficult to change, other supervisors say.

“When you offer benefits, it’s part of a pay package you negotiate,” Flynn said. “When you get into negotiations, you’re not going to be able to change that much. I don’t want to waste time on that.”

Flynn supports an early retirement plan and cuts in spending for staff travel and training. But he said the big savings will come with structural change in the county government, dramatic shifts that would take two to three years to achieve.

Kildee supports spreading the cuts over the years, with $10 million to $12 million coming this week. “In my mind, it would be very hard to downsize all at once at the end of three years, even if you plan for it,” she said.

The supervisors will open budget deliberations today with final pleas from department heads. A public hearing will follow this evening.

Tuesday, supervisors will begin making final decisions in deliberations that could continue for the rest of the week.

“We’re going to have some very tough days in the next week,” Howard said.

Ventura County Government Funding in millions (except where noted)

1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 PUBLIC SAFETY* $129.2 $131.9 $149.2 $179.2 County’s share 87.3 88.9 96.0 103.2 Budget cuts -2.4 -4.2 -2.2 -- HEALTH & WELFARE** 157.0 170.9 175.6 188.8 County’s share 17.8 18.5 18.2 17.1 Budget cuts (in thousands) -$463,100 -$595,800 -$606,000 -- Total county funding 410.6 441.4 434.2 489.6 Onetime money used 6.9 9.6 15.3 -- Budget cuts -5.7 -10.8 -8.5 --

* Includes district attorney’s office, public defender’s office, Corrections Services Agency, Sheriff’s Department, grand jury

** Includes Health Care Agency, Public Social Services Agency, county’s contribution to the Ventura County Medical Center

Source: Ventura County government