Law Enforcement Budget Shield Tests County

One year after approving an ordinance that forever shields law enforcement from the budget ax, Ventura County supervisors are struggling with the high cost of that decision as they prepare to chop away at a $20-million operating deficit.

But the three supervisors who supported the ordinance said they stand by their decision, even if it means libraries, mental health and social services must bear the brunt of budget cuts in the new fiscal year, which begins July 1.

“A lot of our deficit problems are due to the fact that we’ve been giving money to public safety,” Supervisor Frank Schillo said. “But I don’t have a problem with that. I consider this a basic function of government. The way I feel is if we’re going to go in the hole, then I’m going to go in the hole on behalf of public safety.”

The ordinance approved last year excludes the sheriff, district attorney, public defender and corrections services from budget cuts. It also requires the county to dip into its general fund to pay inflationary costs for equipment and supplies in these departments as well as all salary and benefit increases. Combined, these costs account for $7 million of the county’s $20-million deficit.

The result is that supervisors will be forced to make deep cuts in other department programs and services. During last summer’s budget hearings, the Ventura County Medical Center, Public Social Services and Mental Health Services ended up taking the biggest hit--about $4 million overall--and it looks like this fiscal year will be much the same, officials said.

In addition, the board has made no provision in its preliminary budget plan to contribute any money to the financially drained Library Services Agency, which is set to close five of its small branch libraries next month. Last year, the county provided a $1-million subsidy to the county library system.

But some supervisors said they might be willing to extend a helping hand again.

“If in fact it is a priority of a majority of the board to give money to the libraries, I wouldn’t be opposed to it--at least on an interim basis,” Supervisor Judy Mikels said. “But the reality is there is only X amount of dollars to go around. And if that’s a priority then it only means that something else isn’t going to be funded.”

Although the county’s public safety ordinance may mean deeper cuts in other departments, Mikels said she still believes that the board made the right decision.

“I can’t see cutting public safety,” she said. “The public has clearly said that’s where they want their money to go. They want to feel safe on the streets, in their schools and in their neighborhoods. That is the No. 1 priority. That’s why we put a lot of effort and dollars into keeping the county safe.”

Another provision in the public safety ordinance is that all revenue collected under Prop. 172 goes directly to the sheriff, district attorney, public defender and corrections services. The half-cent sales tax measure, approved by voters in 1993, is expected to bring in about $32 million this fiscal year.

Thanks to this infusion of cash, the budget of those four designated departments has soared from about $101 million to nearly $149 million in three years. That $47-million boost compares to a $56-million increase in the county’s overall general fund.

But Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury pointed out that roughly half the money collected annually from Prop. 172 goes to operate the Todd Road Jail, which opened last year. He said that when the remainder is spread out among the four public safety agencies, it is just enough to keep pace with increased operating costs and service demands.

“We’ve added some positions, but it’s not like we’re building some huge bureaucracy while other agencies are getting cut,” he said. “It’s not true that we’re growing . . . at the expense of others.”

Although public safety agencies have been exempt from cuts, other departments have been ordered to prepare ways to slice as much as 25% from their budgets. And supervisors warned that cuts in some departments could go even higher.

Nevertheless, Bradbury said, if Prop. 172 had not been approved, county supervisors would still be taking money from other departments to pay for the new county jail and other law enforcement services because that is what their constituents demand.

“They would not allow law enforcement [to suffer],” he said. “So that $32 million would be coming out of the hides of other departments.”

Supervisor John K. Flynn, who also supported the public safety ordinance, agreed. He said that county voters had made their wishes clear when more than 50,000 signed a petition favoring it.

“You have to listen to what the public wants,” he said.

As they continue a series of budget study sessions this week, supervisors said that they hope to wipe out as much of the county’s budget deficit as possible without using reserves.

The pressure on the board was stepped up last week when it was informed by Standard & Poor’s Corp., a top New York bond rating firm, that the county has been placed on a credit watch because of its financial problems.

But even if the board were to halt all overspending this fiscal year, it would still wind up with a projected deficit of about $6 million next fiscal year. That is the estimated amount the county will have to pay for inflationary costs and already approved salary hikes in the four public safety departments.

The only way to avoid this would be if the economy improved significantly and the county were to collect additional tax revenues, officials said.

Whatever the case, Mikels said, the board will make the necessary adjustments.

“I don’t think this is too high a price to pay for public safety,” she said. “If the voters tell us this is what they want us to do, then that’s what I’m going to do. And if they decide they no longer want it, then they can change the law or their supervisors.”