Orange County Democrats and Republicans are strangely similar when it comes to managing local public budgets. 

Neither likes to tell taxpayers much when it comes to overspending.

Especially when law enforcement blows past budgets. 

This past month, during the last quarterly budget update of the fiscal year, county officials unveiled a stark number. 

Overall, the County of Orange overspent their approved yearly budget estimates by nearly $30 million, mostly from salary and benefit spending at the Sheriff and District Attorney. 

According to records accompanying the request for added funding, Sheriff Don Barnes overspent by $20,594,301 due to “higher than budgeted salaries and employee benefits, including overtime and costs for dual-filled positions required to meet current year operational needs as well as due to the reopening of the James A. Musick facility.”

District Attorney Todd Spitzer’s overspending also was driven by an increase in salaries and employee benefits of $5,977,739, along with a hike in services and supplies of $1,627,797.

The agency required an increase in Net County Cost –  local tax coffers – of $7,162,357, “due to higher than budgeted salaries and employee benefits, unbudgeted investigator leased vehicles and Body Worn Camera contract expenses,” according to budget records. 

Both Spitzer and Sheriff officials also noted that another reason fueling the need for more local tax money is that revenues from a countywide sales tax – known as Prop 172 and approved by voters years back – is not keeping pace with trends. 

Increasing Pay as Cost of Living Rises

Spitzer engaged on the overspending issue when asked through a spokesperson and held himself accountable for the financial decisions made by county supervisors, including himself. 

“I support our employees and the Board of Supervisors’ decision to approve raises as I did while I was a member of the Board,” Spitzer wrote. 

“When making the decision to approve raises, every supervisor understands there will be increased costs associated with those salaries and benefits and the County CEO and the Board must build those increased costs into the County budget,” he said. 

Spitzer also highlighted how Orange County’s the fifth most expensive housing market in the country alongside increasing costs of living and the raises are needed to “remain competitive in attracting and retaining its public servant workforce so that we can continue to carry out our job to keep Orange County the safest large county in California.”

While Barnes didn’t speak directly to the overspending issue, his Sheriff Department finance staff did take numerous questions and spoke directly to the reasons for increased funding. 

Officials confirmed the extra salary and benefit costs are related to the most recent three-year salary contract for deputy sheriffs approved by the board of supervisors two years ago. The third year of salary increases under that contract takes effect July 1. 

Sheriff’s finance officials said the budget increases shouldn’t necessarily be seen as overruns, noting that a recent trend in budgeting at the County of Orange has been to go with lower numbers during the June budget hearings and then publicly adjust final spending numbers in the last quarterly update of the fiscal year. 

Sheriff officials said that approach – which they noted began under now-Interim CEO and previously budget department head Michelle Aguirre – actually works to put more budgetary pressure on law enforcement officials because it forces a public adjustment late in the fiscal year. 

A Confusing Budget Process

I sought comment from Aguirre through a county spokeswoman about that approach, which, much like the concept of “dual-filled positions” at Musick jail, seems gimmicky to me. 

“It’s a combination of things but it most certainly is not a budget gimmick,” Aguirre wrote me back through the county spokeswoman.  

“The budget is a plan based on projections and assumptions at the time,” Aguirre added. 

Echoing Sheriff and DA officials, Aguirre noted that Prop 172 revenues came in weaker this fiscal year.

“This contributed to the additional funding request in April,” Aguiree noted. 

She also provided more detail that I didn’t see in the accompanying budget document.

“Additionally, the State is not providing sufficient Realignment revenue to cover the cost of the Sheriff providing court security – a $19M shortfall in that revenue source, which is negatively impacting the County’s General Fund,” Aguirre wrote. 

I also reached out to county supervisors – who all voted to boost net county cost expenditures largely to meet heightened law enforcement salaries and benefits –  but got a weaker  engagement rate. 

Except for one. 

Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, who abstained from voting on the increases, did speak to the issue saying he didn’t get enough information to be able to vote one way or the other. 

“The item as presented did not provide me with sufficient information to make a well-informed decision,” Sarmiento wrote me back. 

“I can’t speak for other offices, but I was disappointed in the lack of detail for monies already expended,” Sarmiento wrote. “Overruns, especially at a time when our County is experiencing hiring freezes and diminished service delivery, should be carefully scrutinized rather than easily forgiven.”

When asked about Sarmiento’s concerns, Sheriff officials said they offered supervisors private briefings if needed, adding that both they and DA officials were also at the Apr. 22 public meeting and prepared to discuss any questions or concerns from supervisors.  

Sheriff officials also said no supervisors raised concerns before the meeting.

Sarmiento disputed their take. 

“After a thorough review, we have no record of the Sheriff reaching out to our office to discuss the issue,” Sarmiento wrote me back on Thursday. 

“The department may not have received formal questions from Board offices, but with a budget overrun of over 20 million dollars and with the impacts to the County budget that we are currently facing, proactive outreach is what was needed,” Sarmiento wrote. 

“That is why I directed staff to make changes in the budget process to ensure proactive and detailed notice and discussion are provided to the Board when departments see looming cost overruns such as these,” Sarmiento added, noting, “our office continues to have an open-door policy to all department directors to discuss budget augmentations.”  

Sarmiento spoke publicly to the issue during the Apr. 22 public meeting, noting when a department faces possible overruns, that information should be shared with the Board of Supervisors in advance of any hiring or contract spending in order to balance those interests against other County priorities.

Most of the $9.5 billion annual budget spent by county supervisors are mainly pass-through funds for programs from the federal and state government, mainly for health and social services. 

Yet much of public safety spending – especially salary and benefits to run jails, patrols, prosecutors and special operations – comes out of local tax coffers. 

That sets up a unique challenge.

County supervisors historically grant local law enforcement raises just ahead of facing election, an action that typically bodes well for them, both with public safety unions and voters.  

But when it comes to managing the impact of those raises on county operations – like the impact on funding for the county health care agency just before the pandemic – there’s significantly less public attention. 

Other Cost Overruns

Now, other county departments also overspend, evidenced by the budget update documents. 

But because of the way the county budget is structured, many are able to recover costs. 

Agencies like the Registrar of Voters, the County Counsel, the Treasurer Tax Collector, County IT and Human Resources all over spent. 

Yet according to public budget documents, nearly all of them were able to cover overspending by charging more to users – a move public safety agencies can’t do for regional services like jails. 

For example, the Registrar of Voters had more special elections, driving up costs. So they charged more and broke even, according to budget records. 

Same for places like the County Counsel and other internal agencies like County IT and HR.

The Treasurer Tax Collector, and to some degree the DA, also charged more but weren’t able to cover all increased spending with that move. 

Sarmiento also added a twist that should be interesting to follow at the next quarterly budget update after supervisors consider spending plans for the next fiscal year at public hearings later this month. 

He requested that going forward, each department experiencing a shortfall resulting in new Net County Cost overruns needs to provide a memo outlining key details (such as new positions added including their levels, specific supplies purchased and associated costs) and for department heads to meet with board offices and provide reasons for overruns.

The issue raises an interesting twist for keeping a realistic eye on public budgets.

In most years, residents and elected officials only focus on the county budget during the annual budget hearings, which are coming up at the end of the month. 

And even that annual budget review seems to have become lighter each year since I first began covering the County of Orange back in 2004 for the OC Register, budget coverage I’ve headed up each year since helping found the Voice of OC in 2009. 

Aguirre disputed that, saying, “Today, there is a more concentrated effort on educating the public and responding to their questions on an individual basis than before.”

The county budget process “now requests and incorporates public comments into the budget process, has dedicated public workshops and has participated in town hall meetings, when requested,” Aguirre wrote, adding, “We have also incorporated a Citizens’ Guide to help with providing the essential information.”

Yet she also acknowledges what I see as a weakness in the public budget hearings, noting “by the time we get to the hearings we’ve typically resolved issues because we’ve been working together to resolve them months in advance.”

And despite whatever depth comes at the hearings later this month, there’s a harsh reality confirmed by these most recent quarterly budget disclosures. 

Under state law, county supervisors are required to produce a balanced budget by July 1, the start of the new fiscal year. 

Yet the sad fact is that the county budget doesn’t seem to stay balanced very long.