Supervisors May Reallocate Sales Tax Funds

In a move seen by some as payback for the misconduct charges lodged against two of its members, the Orange County Board of Supervisors Tuesday decided to reconsider how it distributes sales tax money virtually monopolized by the county’s district attorney and sheriff.

In September, supervisors voted 4 to 1 to continue giving the lion’s share of Proposition 172 sales tax revenue to the agencies headed by Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi and Sheriff Brad Gates, leaving only 5% for all of the police agencies in the county.

But on Tuesday, the board also voted 4 to 1 to take another look at how the more than $100 million in annual tax revenue is allocated.

Supervisor William G. Steiner voiced support for giving 10% to the county’s Probation Department, which was hit hard with cutbacks in the wake of the bankruptcy and faces additional cuts in federal funds.

Both Gates and Capizzi--whose office is prosecuting Steiner and Board Chairman Roger R. Stanton on civil charges of willful misconduct--rely heavily on Proposition 172 funds to supplement their operating budgets.

The action promptly triggered speculation that the board’s about-face might have more to do with retaliation than equity among public safety agencies.

“There’s a lot of intrigue here,” said one county official who declined to be named. “Any attempt to divert these funds will be seen as retaliation, as payback time.”

Acknowledging there has been some talk that he faced a possible conflict of interest, Stanton said he nonetheless plans to vote on how Proposition 172 funds are spent, adding that the charges against him would not play a role in his decision.

But Stanton conceded that situation was uncomfortable.

“I’m in a no-win situation,” Stanton said. If he supports the current allocation of 95% of the funds to the sheriff and district attorney, he said, it will appear as though he is being “intimidated.” If he opposes it, he comes off as “spiteful and petty.” If he abstains, Stanton said, he appears ineffective.

Steiner dismissed talk of political retaliation. The bulk of the money would continue going to prosecution and law enforcement, but he suggests that 10% of Proposition 172 funds be used for juvenile detention facilities.

“Keeping our juvenile institutions open and keeping juvenile offenders in custody is not inconsistent with the intent of Prop. 172,” Steiner said.

But the move left Gates fuming. He complained of “government bureaucrats trying to get their hands on a pot of gold.”

“I’m always amazed when leaders fail to carry out the voters’ directives that are very clear,” said Gates, who actively campaigned for Proposition 172 and believes voters intended the money to assist police and prosecutors.

Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Maury Evans, who attended the board meeting, declined to comment.

Even without the bankruptcy, the distribution of Proposition 172 funds is politically volatile.

Orange County fire officials contend they, too, should get a piece of the action. Still others say public safety should be broadly interpreted to include efforts to help the mentally ill and the homeless.

Since Orange County slashed the budgets of all public safety agencies in the wake of the Dec. 6, 1994, bankruptcy, the county might not be able to afford a reallocation, warned County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier.

The board will revisit the issue in a month.