S.D. County to Again Seek Half-Cent Sales Tax Hike : Budget: This time, the increase to fund criminal justice needs would be an ongoing tax.

SAN DIEGO —  A divided San Diego County Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to once again ask voters for a half-cent sales tax increase for criminal justice needs, but this time without a promise that residents will ever completely stop paying the levy.

In a 4-1 vote, the supervisors agreed to go back to the ballot in November with a measure that would generate an estimated $125 million annually for jails, courthouses, a crime lab, a communications complex, officers to run those facilities and more cops for municipal law enforcement agencies.

But, unlike a similar 1988 measure that was approved by voters and then struck down by the state Supreme Court, the supervisors established no “sunset” provision on the proposed new tax. Instead, it would be reduced to an ongoing quarter-cent levy when the board itself determines that sufficient money has been collected to build the facilities the county needs.

Supervisor George Bailey, architect of the new measure, said a continuing stream of revenue from the tax would be needed to staff the new facilities and meet local law enforcement needs, as well as to ensure the county’s ability to borrow money for construction.

“I’d rather be up front and say we don’t know how long it’s going to take,” Bailey said. “When we have these under control, then we will reduce it from one-half to one-quarter cent.”

But critics, including a reluctant Supervisor Susan Golding, said the absence of a sunset clause makes the almost impossible task of gaining two-thirds voter approval significantly more difficult.

Golding joined the majority in placing the measure before voters, but said she “will not personally be able to support the measure” without a sunset provision.

Steve Frates, executive director of the San Diego County Taxpayers Assn., said, “I find it very, very implausible that the citizens of this county would accept a provision that would result in long-term tax obligation without seeing more fiscal discipline on the part of a rather profligate county government.”

Only Supervisor John MacDonald dissented, saying the chances of winning passage of the levy are far too slim to justify the $50,000 cost of placing it on the ballot and campaigning for it. The measure, submitted to voters twice before, has never won more than 50.7% approval. The current version would be voted on during an economic slump that is accompanied by increased unemployment and higher taxes approved by the Legislature last year.

“As a pragmatist,” MacDonald said, “I think it’s a waste of time and money.”

Dick Rider, the Libertarian Party official whose lawsuit killed the 1988 measure, used virtually the same words.

“It’s dead,” he said of the measure, which has yet to be formally placed on the ballot. “It’s a waste of time. There’s no way on God’s earth that they can come up with a two-thirds majority.”

The supervisors are scheduled to vote today to formally place the measure on the ballot.

In December, the California Supreme Court struck down the 1988 measure, approved by a 50.6% majority, which would have generated $1.6 billion over 10 years. The court ruled that the county had violated a requirement of the 1978 tax-cutting initiative, Proposition 13, that says special taxes must receive a two-thirds vote to pass.

More than $370 million in revenue and interest generated by that levy still sits in a bank account, awaiting a decision by a state appellate court on whether the county can spend the money or must refund it to taxpayers. The account is earning about $2.5 million in interest each month.

The new measure targets those funds, saying they would be spent on construction of new facilities if the court awards the money to the county. Sales tax money would be added.

The supervisors also specifically left themselves the chance of winning approval of the measure by only a simple majority. One provision of the ballot measure mandates that if a state constitutional amendment is passed this fall allowing imposition of new taxes with a bare majority vote, the county sales tax could be approved by that margin, even though both would appear on the same ballot.

The board postponed placing on the ballot an initiative backed by the county Deputy Sheriffs Assn. that mandates minimum staffing levels in county jails and on the streets of unincorporated areas. The board will take up the measure, which has qualified for the ballot via the signature-gathering process, on Tuesday.

Another county measure, designed to block new demands for services--like the deputies initiative--that do not include money to pay for themselves, is scheduled to be discussed today.

Nevertheless, the deputies association supports the sales tax measure, officials said Tuesday.

With San Diego County jails among the most crowded in the nation and with many courthouses dilapidated and overburdened, 50% of the new sales tax would be devoted to “provision and construction” of 10 criminal justice facilities, including the East Mesa jail (which is built but largely vacant because of money shortages); a central booking facility; downtown and North County courts; East County and South Bay regional centers; a regional crime lab, and a regional emergency communications complex.

Another 25% would be spent on “operating expenses of new and existing county justice-related facilities.” The remaining funds would be distributed to local law enforcement and crime prevention programs in the county’s unincorporated areas and cities on a per capita basis.

Bailey has said that the outlay to municipalities was added in an attempt to win support from local leaders for the measure.

Several speakers, including Sam Knott, father of a woman killed in 1986 by a California Highway Patrol officer, urged the board Tuesday to add provisions that would distribute money to crime victims programs, but no action was taken.