Supervisors Deadlocked Over Spending $31-Million Surplus

The liberals urged austerity and cautious spending of government money. The conservatives railed about the need to expand government programs that protect the people.

And they say Florida’s system is weird.

Los Angeles County’s supervisors are deadlocked over how to spend $31 million in surplus funds at a time when deficits loom in the future but pressure is mounting to expand politically popular programs.

The $31 million stems from property tax money the state Legislature granted to the county this summer. The Legislature has not promised to give it again next year, so county budget staff recommended spending the money primarily on onetime expenditures. With the county facing an $800-million deficit in five years--and having nearly gone bankrupt five years ago--its chief administrative office recommended caution.

The two biggest items Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen proposed spending the money on were $10 million to prepare retrofitting of county hospitals and $10 million to soak up rising gas and electricity fees.

Even Janssen’s conservative approach proposed spending $6 million of the windfall on continuing expenses, mainly for keeping new park projects open and paying for a hate crimes unit in the Sheriff’s Department.

But Supervisor Mike Antonovich, the board’s most conservative member, said that was not enough. He ticked off a list of programs that are short of cash--a $1-million probation department effort to take guns away from probationers, as well as demand for improved mental health services and a better-equipped county grand jury.

“We have a dramatic need to improve available services,” Antonovich said.

The other Republican on the board, Don Knabe, agreed, saying the money could be particularly useful in public safety.

The board’s three Democrats--Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky--objected to the extra spending. Yaroslavsky argued that the probation department could find money in its own $372-million budget for its gun program.

Still, the single-vote majority was not enough to approve the tighter spending plan. County laws require four votes to allocate new money.

The board delayed a decision for two weeks.