Allocation of Prop. 172 Funds Under Question

Although they see little chance that Proposition 172 funding will be altered, some Ventura County leaders expect to face the strongest push yet to adjust the way the sales tax money is distributed in the wake of the departure of chief administrator David L. Baker.

Baker blasted the county’s use of the voter-approved tax dollars in his letter of resignation, saying that funding guarantees for public safety come at the expense of programs and employees not linked to law enforcement.

Two years after the 1993 statewide passage of the half-cent sales tax initiative, Ventura County became the only county in California to guarantee that Proposition 172 dollars would go exclusively to the sheriff, district attorney, public defender and corrections services. That action came on a 3-2 vote by the Board of Supervisors and was meant to avoid a special election on the issue, prompted by a highly successful law enforcement-led petition drive.

While there has since been some frustration expressed over how the sales tax windfall is spent, Supervisor Frank Schillo said Wednesday he believes there will be more pressure than ever to revamp the local ordinance and spread the wealth among other departments.

“I’m not interested in changing one thing having to do with Proposition 172,” Schillo said. “But I think the public should be aware of the possibility that there could be even greater pressure to change the ordinance and should call their supervisors to voice their concerns.”

Supervisor John Flynn said he doesn’t want to take money away from law enforcement either. But he said he is willing to meet with law enforcement officials to discuss whether the definition of public safety should be broadened to include programs such as the county’s mental health crisis teams, which often work hand-in-hand with police to diffuse volatile situations.

“Politically, it would be very difficult to change the ordinance because it has the support of the people,” Flynn said. “But I’d be willing to sit down with the public-safety people and talk about these issues to see if they are bendable on any part of the ordinance.”

Law enforcement officials have long defended sole use of the Proposition 172 pot, noting that nearly 60% of Ventura County voters approved the statewide measure and that more than 50,000 local residents signed petitions to ensure that the additional revenue would be spent on specific public-safety programs.

In addition to the monetary guarantee--the tax provided $40 million this fiscal year for the specific departments--the county’s ordinance requires officials to dip into the general fund to pay inflationary costs for equipment and supplies in those departments as well as all salary and benefit increases.

The ordinance can be amended or repealed by a simple majority vote of the board, according to a 1996 opinion issued by the county counsel’s office. But county officials have steered clear of tapping that money, maintaining a solid show of support for public-safety programs.

Law enforcement officials say this source of extra money has allowed the county to maintain its ranking as the safest urban area in the West. And they say it also has allowed the county to direct more money toward nonsafety programs, sparing those programs from even deeper budget cuts.

The Sheriff’s Department alone has returned more than $30 million in year-end surpluses to county coffers since 1993, money that has gone directly to fund nonsafety agencies.

“When you look at the way those dollars are currently distributed, the Board of Supervisors has honored the mandate of the electorate,” Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Greg Totten said. “Some people may be trying to make Prop. 172 into a villain when in fact it’s been a good thing for all of county government.”

But Barry Hammitt, executive director of county government’s largest labor union, said the budgets of all of the county’s programs should be on the table and open for review, especially at times of looming financial crisis.

“You see an ever-increasing amount of the county’s general fund being allocated over there, without any apparent review or oversight by the people elected to be responsible for the budget,” Hammitt said. “But it has almost gotten to the point where you’re attacking apple pie and motherhood if you raise the issue of ‘how safe is safe?’ If you dare question the legitimacy of any of this, you must be supportive of criminals and anti-public safety.”

Even some leaders within the law enforcement community have been critical of being cut out of the Proposition 172 windfall.

Earlier this year, city police chiefs across the county embarked on a campaign to change the way the extra public safety dollars are divided. Police chiefs in Ventura and Santa Paula said they had grown increasingly frustrated that the Sheriff’s Department was enjoying a bonanza of Proposition 172 dollars while local police forces were struggling just to keep pace with inflation.

The Sheriff’s Department gets two-thirds of the $30 million to $40 million generated locally by the half-cent sales tax, while six city police agencies split 4% of the total pot.