Deep Cuts Unlikely for Law Enforcement : Finances: Supervisors say the Sheriff’s Department, the district attorney and public defender’s offices and the Corrections Services Agency could be cut just 5% while other agencies take a 10% hit.

Despite a bleak budget forecast for Ventura County government, law enforcement agencies probably will be spared again this year from the sharpest cuts when the Board of Supervisors whittles the budget beginning with hearings today.

A majority of the supervisors said they want to shield the Sheriff’s Department, the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office and the Corrections Services Agency from deep budget reductions required by the shortfall in state dollars.

Although state lawmakers have yet to finalize the budget, board members are set to receive testimony today from county department managers on how to slash spending by up to 10%, in preparation for the worst possible cuts in state funding.

But even under a worst-case scenario, supervisors said they plan to cut the county’s criminal justice system by only about 5%--allowing the departments to continue operations with few program changes.

“We are a very law-enforcement-oriented county,” Supervisor Vicky Howard said. “We have outstanding departments, and that shows in our low crime rate. Law enforcement is very important to me.”

In addition to Howard, Supervisors Maria VanderKolk, Maggie Kildee and John K. Flynn have all said they support minimal cuts for law enforcement.

The board has a history of favoring crime-fighting agencies when there are few dollars to spread around. Last summer, the supervisors cut most department budgets by 5%, but limited the range of reductions for law enforcement agencies to from 1.9% to 3.5%.

This year, the steepest cuts in the county’s $788-million budget are expected to be made by eliminating programs and staff in virtually every other county department and service.

“There are choices you don’t like to make,” Howard said. “But there are some things we could afford in better times but that we can’t afford now.”

Some of the proposed reductions include:

* Discontinuing the county employee Wellness Program--which provides up to a $300 bonus for employees who eat healthy and exercise--and other benefits for employees.

* Eliminating at least 159 county jobs, about half of which are vacant. The Health Care Agency has already moved to save $900,000 a year by cutting 23 jobs, including 18 managers and supervisors. Ten positions are proposed to be cut in the county Social Services Agency.

* Cutting the Adult Literacy Program, closing down library branches on Ventura Avenue and in Meiners Oaks and Piru and shutting down the bookmobile. Libraries also would be closed on Sunday and programs for children will also be eliminated in small libraries.

* Close local parks in unincorporated areas on weekdays and discontinue local park improvements.

Since July 1 when the state budget impasse began, county officials have struggled to determine how much state funding would be lost.

At stake is $2.8 billion in property tax revenue that the state now funnels to cities, counties and special districts to make up for the money that localities lost because of Proposition 13.

While legislators agree that the state no longer can afford the bailout and that the flow of dollars should be reversed, they are divided over how to make the switch.

On Aug. 7, the Legislature’s budget-writing conference committee passed a spending plan that calls for cutting property tax revenues to counties by $740 million. County officials said the plan would force at least $17 million in cuts to the $436-million General Fund, prompting the supervisors to request that department heads identify 10% cuts in their proposed budgets.

But on Friday, Gov. Pete Wilson made a counterproposal. Backing away from his earlier positions to spare cities from cuts in property tax revenues at the expense of county governments, Wilson called for cutting revenue to counties by $475 million while cutting cities by $200 million.

If passed by the Legislature, Wilson’s proposal would force county officials to slice an estimated $12 million from the General Fund.

“It is still going to hurt,” said Penny Bohannon, the county’s Sacramento lobbyist.

With limited funds, it comes down to a matter of setting priorities, Kildee said. “We’ll be lucky to deliver the services we are required to deliver,” she said. “This is the worst I’ve ever seen it.”

Since the start of the budget process, officials for the district attorney’s office and the public defender’s office have been lobbying the board to spare them from drastic reductions.

Public Defender Kenneth I. Clayman said that if his office was forced to cut its budget by 10%, he would have to lay off six of his 39 lawyers. Such a move, he said, would force him to refuse cases or contract with outside attorneys at a higher price.

“We have already suffered various cuts,” he said. “Our lawyers are working toward the bursting point. We need the bodies.”

Colleen (Toy) White, the county’s chief assistant district attorney, said her office would be forced not to prosecute some crimes--such as child support cases--if faced with a 10% cut.

“It would be devastating,” she said. “We have done our best to convince (the supervisors) that public safety should be a high priority.”

But some employees in other county departments have expressed frustration that the law-enforcement officials have curried the favor of the supervisors.

“I understand where the board is coming from,” said Barbara Fitzgerald, chief deputy director of the Public Social Services Agency. “But if you don’t protect the children now and address mental health, drug and alcohol problems, you pay for it down at the end of the road.”

Ronald W. Komers, county personnel director, added: “I think there is a sentiment that we are all in this together and there should be some sense of equality. But it is up to the board to define what equality is.”