CAO Seeks Less Generous Funding Formula for Public Safety Agencies

Strong growth in the county’s public safety budgets would slow significantly under a new funding formula proposed by the county’s chief administrator to save the general fund millions of dollars each year.

Although CAO Harry Hufford declined to give details on the proposed change, he suggested that any increase for inflation be tied to the consumer price index rather than the annual growth of each agency’s budget.

The change could mean county law enforcement budgets would get an increase of about 2% a year for inflation instead of the average 7% annually they have received since 1994, when Proposition 172 went into effect.

In the preliminary budget he unveiled Monday, Hufford said he will suggest to supervisors a new policy that would end the county’s practice of allowing the sheriff, district attorney, probation agency and public defender such generous budget increases each year.

Although Sheriff Bob Brooks and Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury have vowed to fight any attempt to divert money from public safety, Hufford said he believes those agencies should receive a standard increase as determined by the federal consumer price index.

Hufford said he will issue a letter to the board detailing specifics of the new formula within two weeks.

Both Brooks and Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Greg Totten said the current formula was supported by voters and shouldn’t be modified without their approval.

“By changing your definition of inflation you violate the spirit of the ordinance and the promise to the public,” Brooks said. “There’s all kind of clever ways around the public’s will.”

*

In 1995, Bradbury launched a petition drive that gathered 55,000 signatures to place an initiative on the ballot to exclusively set aside the half-cent sales tax money from Proposition 172 for the county’s four law enforcement agencies.

Before the issue went to voters, supervisors passed the measure as a public safety ordinance, which later included the current funding formula.

“From our perspective, the ordinance is really an act of the electorate,” Totten said. “It was signed by some 50,000 citizens, and to modify it really needs to go back to the electorate.”

Supervisor Frank Schillo disagreed, saying the board can modify its own ordinance without voter approval.

“The ordinance doesn’t really say which [formula] to use as the benchmark,” he said.

Hufford said he believes too much attention is focused on following the formula and not enough has been devoted to the overall funding needs of the county.

“I don’t think we address the issue of budgeting according to need,” he said.

A revised formula would pay the four public safety agencies a total of $5 million less than they had anticipated receiving from Proposition 172 and other discretionary funds in fiscal 2000-01, Hufford said.

Ventura County law enforcement budgets have swollen 70% through 1999, while the county’s general fund increased just 32% during the same period, a Times analysis found.

Last month, the Ventura County Grand Jury reported that the current formula “results in a significantly higher inflationary factor and consequently higher costs for the county.” Jurors recommended the supervisors rescind the ordinance and review annually how best to distribute Proposition 172 funds.

The current formula dates back to 1996, when supervisors voted 3 to 2 to increase funding to the four public safety agencies each year based on the percentage growth of their entire budgets and not just the consumer price index.

That formula was recommended by the sheriff and the district attorney.

Supervisors Judy Mikels, John K. Flynn and Schillo approved the funding plan, which took into account the public agencies’ overall budget increase.

Supervisor Susan Lacey and then-Supervisor Maggie Kildee voted against that recommendation, saying it was too generous and would give the board too little flexibility in its general fund.

On Monday, Flynn declined to comment on changing the distribution formula.

“We need to give Harry every opportunity to show us what he needs to do,” he said.

Schillo warned that reductions to the public safety agencies may affect plans for a juvenile justice center and the $1.5 million budgeted next fiscal year for the project.

*

Budget negotiations between Hufford and Brooks stalled last month after Brooks refused to cut $6.5 million from his department’s spending plan.

Since then, Brooks said he would agree to cut $2.5 million from his budget by eliminating 70 positions--shifting or potentially laying off 38 deputies in the process. But he said he will vigorously oppose further budget cuts.

“At the point that I have to reduce programs and violate the [existing] ordinance, then I’ll fight for that position as hard as I can because I believe I owe that to the public,” he said.