Changing of Guard Tax : Bradbury’s Use of County Funds for 24-Hour Security Draws Gadfly’s Ire

For the past 14 years, the wealthiest enclave in San Gabriel Valley’s most affluent city had a real bargain: a 24-hour private security service paid for by Los Angeles County taxpayers. The tab: nearly $500,000.

But in these frugal times, and largely because of a city gadfly’s efforts, Bradbury leaders are taking the first steps to stop the funding.

“The people all over Los Angeles County are paying for this service. It’s outrageous,” said retiree Robert Penney Jr., who complained to the Bradbury City Council when he discovered that the city’s 1992-93 budget called for $54,000 in public funds to go to Bradbury Estates’ special maintenance district.

The Bradbury Estates homeowners formed the special tax district more than 20 years ago, assessing themselves $1 annually for every $100 of assessed property value to pay for the guard service.

When Proposition 13 changed the way property taxes were collected in 1978 and mandated an across-the-board tax rate, Bradbury Estates residents no longer could assess themselves to pay for the guards. In 1979, such special districts were rescued from insolvency by state legislation that gave them portions of the 1% property tax collected by counties.

The Los Angeles County auditor-controller’s office sends funds that are earmarked specifically for Bradbury Estates’ special district to the city several times a year. The city then distributes the funds to the homeowners association, which pays the guards, city officials said.

Bradbury City Atty. C. Edward Dilkes told the council on Tuesday that the $30,000 to $50,000 the city has received annually since 1978 for the special district is perfectly legal.

“My theory is that the protection of life and property is always a public purpose,” Dilkes said in an interview. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. The long-term question is whether this is the right way to spend public money.”

County officials defended the funding.

“What they use the funds for may be questionable, but I didn’t see any problem with the way the district” was changed to keep it solvent after Proposition 13 was passed, said Lyman Jeung, principal accountant with the county auditor controller’s office.

About 300 special districts and 700 other agencies receive funding from the county’s 1% property tax. Jeung said he was unaware of any other cases of property tax money being used to fund guards for a private community. However, his office does not keep track of how the special districts spend their allocations, he said.

“I haven’t heard of a case like this--it seems to be an anomaly,” said Jonathan Coupal, director of legal affairs for the Los Angeles-based Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

“It seems like a rather peculiar arrangement that came to be while a lot of people were looking the other way after passage of Proposition 13,” said Ron Roach, spokesman for the California Taxpayers Assn. in Sacramento.

“As long as these people assessed themselves, that’s one thing,” he said. “But this shouldn’t be funded out of a bigger pot that others are contributing to.”

Bradbury Estates is home to about 100 of the city’s 830 residents. The median household income for the city was $105,178 in 1990, according to the U.S. Census.

City officials say the special district was due for its regular five-year review this month. But it became an issue earlier this month when longtime resident Penney protested.

With little comment, the council voted unanimously Tuesday to stop allocating the property tax money they receive from the county to fund the Bradbury Estates special district. Council members instructed city officials to begin talks with the county on how the special district, which serves only Bradbury Estates, could be dissolved.

“We’re not attorneys up here and when (the county) said they would provide those funds we assumed we were entitled to them,” said Bob Ullrich, president of the Bradbury Estates homeowners association. “We recognize the fact that in this economic climate it’s not a good deal. If we need to get another tax district formed to assess ourselves, then that’s what we’ll do.”

About 20 residents attended the council meeting to find out why the city accepted the money for two decades.

“Common sense tells you that you don’t have a 24-hour private security guard (at Bradbury Estates) when the rest of the city only gets two hours of patrols” daily by the Sheriff’s Department, resident Rick Barakat said.

Mayor Audrey Hon said the city pays the Sheriff’s Department about $67,000 a year to patrol the city.

County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, whose district includes Bradbury, declined comment until he could review the matter. The dispute comes as county officials have proposed a 25% cutback in hospital, law enforcement and other services in light of an expected budget shortfall of more than $1.1 billion.

Bradbury officials say they don’t know why the county decided to keep paying for the guard service, which consists of someone sitting in a guard house 24 hours a day.

“I call it a mystery,” Bradbury City Manager Dolly Vollaire said.

“Nobody understands this because Proposition 13 made everything so crazy,” said Bradbury Councilman John H. Richards, who represents the district that contains Bradbury Estates. “We have never pleaded with anybody to keep this money coming.”

Jeung said Bradbury officials must negotiate with the county’s Local Area Formation Commission to work out the details of dissolving the district and decide whether the city is entitled to any of the Bradbury Estates special district funding.

Dilkes said he doubts that the city is due any of that funding. “I don’t think there’s any doubt that the city will lose all of that money,” he said.