Council agrees to delay Prop. 172 support effort

February 15, 2002
Santa Paula City Council

Letting sleeping dogs - or in this case a larger cut of the special sales tax funding public safety - lie was the conclusion of the City Council who at the Feb. 4 meeting decided to discontinue an effort to garner a larger percentage of the Prop. 172 funds.

By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesLetting sleeping dogs - or in this case a larger cut of the special sales tax funding public safety - lie was the conclusion of the City Council who at the Feb. 4 meeting decided to discontinue an effort to garner a larger percentage of the Prop. 172 funds.The council had asked Police Chief Bob Gonzales months ago to try to gather support for a more equitable distribution of the approximately $46 million that flows into county coffers through the special sales tax approved by voters in the early-1990s; Santa Paula received about $160,000 during the last round of funding.Chief Gonzales told the council that the support effort had been delayed due to the preoccupation of law enforcement with security issues in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.Those he subsequently discussed the issue with were lukewarm about a joint effort to garner more Prop. 172 funds.“Other police chiefs said we should let sleeping dogs lie,” with some even suggesting that with state fiscal woes any discussion of redistribution of the Prop. 172 funds might lead to “countering with using the money to bail out the state. . .”
The county oversees funds distribution, Chief Gonzales noted, and there has been some discussion on that level of just how the funds could be best spent. “My recommendation is not to send a letter now,” in an effort to gain support for reconfiguring fund distribution.“I’m not sure if they [the county] are entitled to that money,” said Mayor Ray Luna.Chief Gonzales said there are various funding sources: “You’re talking about COPS [state grant funds] that come to the city; the county can’t touch that but the state can augment or delay,” that particular source. “Our issue would be with the state level and not the county level. . .”“It appears we really don’t have the support to push this forward at the state level,” Vice Mayor Laura Flores Espinosa said of Prop. 172 funds. “There’s no sense at this time to look foolish; we don’t have our ducks set up.”She suggested that the issue be held in reserve for future discussion, “when we have more strength,” in numbers. “We don’t even have the support of other cities; we’re going to look foolish if we force the Chief. The level of timing is not just right.”“Vice Mayor Espinosa is correct; we couldn’t get support here in Ventura County. It was surprising to me to speak to the other chiefs and how they were not aware of Prop. 172, just would see it show up in their budgets. I detailed it for them,” said Chief Gonzales, who recommended that the city hold off for about six months on pursuing the issue.



Site Search

E-Subscribe

Subscribe

E-SUBSCRIBE
Call 805 525 1890 to receive the entire paper early. $50.00 for one year.

webmaster