COOLEY WARY OF TAX HIKE CRITICS FEAR PROPOSAL LEAVES FUNDS UP FOR GRABS.

Byline: Troy Anderson Staff Writer

Critics say they have spotted some serious flaws in the one-half percent sales tax proposal the Board of Supervisors will put on the November ballot at the urging of the sheriff and many city councils in Los Angeles County.

The key issue is why the measure does not guarantee fixed shares of funds from the proposed tax increase for the District Attorney's Office, Probation Department, public defender and alternate public defender - all affected by arrests of criminal suspects - and protect those agencies' budgets from being raided. The Sheriff's Department and local police departments would get guaranteed shares and funding protections.

District Attorney Steve Cooley called it ``beyond a bad measure,'' contending it gives the supervisors discretion on how much money they want to give to his prosecutors, for example.

His concerns are echoed by some in other agencies, but none has come out against the measure.

Steve Ipsen, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, said the group's board, realizing that supervisors have cut manpower in the sheriff's and district attorney's staffs in recent years, voted to support the tax increase despite concerns that new local revenues might be used in a general budget shift rather than a real enhancement of law enforcement.

``Our office is down 10 percent in manpower and is in dire straits,'' Ipsen said.

``We need politicians who will follow the will of the people and not play games with a tax increase by putting it in one pocket and taking it out of the other. (We need) an actual increase in law enforcement and not just another tax shell game.''

Ipsen said everyone hates tax increases and acknowledged that the public has grown mistrustful of politicians' promises.

``The reason they don't trust is because they have been burned in the past. That's why the D.A. is concerned. Whenever the D.A. is able to get grants from the state and federal governments to enhance special prosecutions, we see a corresponding decrease in our budget (of revenue from local taxes).''

Other prosecutors echoed those concerns about the absence of what they call ``maintenance of effort'' provisions - to guarantee that new sales-tax revenues would result in an actual increase in spending to prosecute criminals, not just supplant funds already budgeted from other sources.

``The reason we wanted those (provisions) in the measure is because the Sheriff's Department and police departments are in fact getting those features,'' said Bill Mangan, director the district attorney's Bureau of Management and Budget.

``We'll have to rely on the good-faith commitment of the supervisors to give the D.A. his appropriate share of the proceeds.''

Although Cooley's budget has grown from $226 million when he took office in 2000 to $256 million now, mainly due to increased salaries and benefits, he has lost 131 prosecutors and 68 support staff to attrition in several years of tight budgets. The office gained seven investigators - thanks to getting grants.

Mangan said the office could hire about 160 prosecutors and support staff with the $19.6 million the district attorney wanted as a guaranteed share of new sales tax revenue.

The measure that supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday to place on the Nov. 2 ballot would raise $560 million annually by increasing the sales tax from 8.25 percent to 8.75 percent - tying Alameda County for the highest in the state. Most counties in the state charge 7.25 percent.

Passing the measure would require approval from two-thirds of voters - a standard that could be hard to reach given voters' reluctance to increase taxes.

Sheriff Lee Baca, who first proposed the idea two years ago after voters overwhelmingly approved a parcel-tax increase to keep hospital trauma centers open, and other elected officials plan to raise $2 million for advertising, opinion surveys and public rallies to convince voters of the need to pass the sales tax increase.

Supporters say it will allow law enforcement agencies in the county to hire 5,000 more police officers and sheriff's deputies. Baca and Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton said it will help them cut crime in half within four years in their jurisdictions.

But within days of the supervisors' vote to send the measure to the election booth, critics began saying they fear a repeat of what happened with Proposition 172, a one-half percent sales tax measure voters statewide approved in 1993 to fund public safety agencies.

Since then, state officials have continued to siphon off billions of dollars in property taxes from counties despite promises that passage of the proposition guaranteed a flow of sales tax funding for public safety agencies.

``We are still losing $700 million a year,'' county Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen said. ``That's how much property tax (revenue) we give to the schools. Proposition 172 was supposed to help mitigate the impact of that loss. That's the way it was sold to us.

``(Board Chairman) Supervisor Don Knabe's major interest was that this (new) measure not go the way of Proposition 172.''

Janssen said the supervisors made an oral commitment to give Cooley's office 3.5 percent of the money, or $19.6 million, and to divide 2.5 percent, or $14 million, among the Probation Department, public defender and alternate public defender.

``It's up to the board to decide,'' Janssen said. ``The reason they decided to do that is because we don't know what the workload increase is going to be for those agencies.''

In a July 16 letter to the supervisors, Cooley wrote that the hiring of 5,000 more law enforcement officers would result in a significant increase in arrests in the county, placing an enormous burden on his office to prosecute the cases and on other criminal justice agencies to deal with them.

``A baseline figure to prevent supplanting is a reasonable expectation of voters if a supermajority (two-thirds) is required for passage,'' Cooley wrote. ``If voters are asked to raise taxes for law enforcement and criminal justice system functions, they deserve a clear expectation that what they put in place will stay in place.

Baca said the public does not want to see the prosecution funding supplanted by new revenue rather than enhanced.

``I'm well aware of the need for the district attorney to receive a minimum of $20 million in order to accomplish his responsibilities,'' Baca said. ``I insisted on that. I think the D.A.'s problem is a lack of communication. He just needs to ... seek more information, and he would understand that his requests have been met.''

Public Defender Michael Judge said he would prefer to have maintenance-of-effort or MOE protections included in the measure, but he said it makes sense to allow the supervisors to decide on allocations after they see what kind of increased burdens additional arrests place on the criminal justice system.

``An MOE provision prevents the funding body from backing out of their support for the service,'' Judge said. ``The D.A. is concerned about that. I'm not as concerned. I think sometimes you just have to have faith that the Board of Supervisors will do the right thing and maintain an appropriate level of support.''

Troy Anderson, [phone]

troy.anderson(at)dailynews.com