Sheriff Offers to Spread the Prop. 172 Wealth

Hoping to avoid a bitter public debate and a potential legal battle, Sheriff Bob Brooks has proposed to the Board of Supervisors a compromise plan for spending millions of extra dollars expected next year from a special half-cent sales tax for police agencies.

In a letter delivered to county chief administrator Harry Hufford on Tuesday, Brooks proposed that money in excess of the $40 million that public safety agencies get annually from Proposition 172--about $4.3 million this year--could be directed to programs not now supported by that money.

The extra cash, which would grow as sales tax revenues increase, could be used to pay for police programs now supported by the county general fund, to provide bonuses for trainee deputies now leaving for higher pay elsewhere, or to fund new sheriff’s programs to relieve the workload on other county departments.

For example, Brooks said he could hire mental health workers who would team with deputies to respond to domestic disturbances or crises in which mentally ill people confront police.

“Mental health has its own teams, but there are not enough of them,” he said. “And they usually respond long after the situation is over. We would team specialists with deputies in patrol cars.”

Brooks filed his letter in response to Hufford’s proposal that supervisors next year amend the county ordinance implementing Proposition 172 by capping its inflationary guarantee or pegging it to the consumer price index, thus cutting the general fund money that goes to police agencies.

A Times analysis found last year that, since Proposition 172 passed in 1993, Ventura County law enforcement budgets had swelled 70%. The county budget overall, meanwhile, increased 29% and the general fund, which provides a variety of basic services, grew 32%.

“If the real goal is financial responsibility and the best interests of the public, [these] options . . . don’t violate the public trust or pit elected officials against each other in a ‘no win’ scenario,” wrote Brooks, an elected official, in the letter.

Brooks said Wednesday that he presented Hufford and the board with an early set of options to open the door for discussions before the issue is publicly debated.

“We are trying to find some reasonable middle ground,” Brooks said. “We understand the need to revisit this issue, and we’re trying to find some solution that works for everyone. I don’t think it’s an insurmountable issue.”

Supervisors welcomed Brooks’ overture.

*

Even Susan Lacey, a longtime critic of public safety’s preferred treatment in county budgets, said she is encouraged, but would like to see the extra money spent in departments outside Brooks’ control. She considers his efforts to maintain control empire-building.

“But just using the word ‘compromise’ is a good breakthrough,” said Lacey, who retires Dec. 31. “It’s a crack--he’s admitting there are other important public services that should be funded.”

Supervisor John Flynn, who also backs Hufford’s proposal, said Brooks’ letter is a step in the right direction.

“I would say he is being sensitive,” Flynn said. “He’s showing some good promise there, I think. Some good promise.”

Supervisor Frank Schillo called Brooks’ offer a “significant change” and praised him for his attempt to make peace.

“I think he’s come a long way with his recommendations,” Schillo said. “He’s bending over backward to relieve some of the expense of the general fund.”

Supervisor Judy Mikels said Brooks’ letter reflects not only the fact that public safety departments are in solid financial shape, but that Brooks has always been willing to face political facts and talk about differences.

“I think the willingness to start talking is critical,” she said. “Now there will be lots of opportunity to find consensus.”

Hufford has argued that the board needs more flexibility in setting its budget each year, and that all public agencies should compete for public dollars equally.

“My primary objective is to eliminate the concept of an entitlement, so the public safety budgets compete with other agencies,” he said. “If we can come up with something like that I’ll be satisfied.”

*

Hufford said he thinks the supervisors will back a compromise.

“I think they’ll buy into an agreed solution that will increase their capacity to deal with budgetary matters,” he said.

In his letter, Brooks says that county public safety departments--the sheriff, district attorney, probation department and public defender--have now recovered from big budget cuts in the early 1990s, thanks to Proposition 172.

And he said he understands the need to spread the bounty without undercutting the will of voters who overwhelmingly passed the ballot measure in 1993.

He said his department, which receives about three-fourths of the special tax money--has already diverted $47 million to the general fund, at least $4.3 million a year. But that shift has come at the end of the budget year when the unspent Proposition 172 money was declared surplus and rolled into the countywide fund.

Under his new proposal, Brooks said the board could budget the extra cash up front to relieve the workload in other departments such as behavioral health. Regional police programs now paid for by the county’s general fund could also be underwritten by the special taxes, he said. Those include the sheriff’s crime lab and helicopter unit, as well as additional probation officers needed because voters approved treatment, not jail, for first-time drug offenders in passing Proposition 36 this month.

The sheriff said the money could help retain high-caliber young officers. He said his department is losing 14 new deputies, just trained at a cost of $700,000, to higher-paying jobs in Ventura, Simi Valley, Oxnard and with the California Highway Patrol.

*

The 1995 county ordinance implementing Proposition 172 not only guaranteed that all of the special tax would go to public safety, but also that those agencies would get an annual increase from the general fund to cover inflation.

Ventura County is the only county in California to impose such strict mandates on the use of Proposition 172 funds. Many other counties have diverted the special tax for other purposes.

For years, few officials showed an interest in tinkering with the measure, since it was approved by 60% of local voters. But former chief executive David Baker cited Proposition 172 funding as a key budget problem a year ago, and Hufford also focused on it as the board struggled to balance the budget last summer.

“I think budgeting by formula is a bad policy, period,” Hufford said.