Proposition 172 Funds

The current method of budgeting the distribution of Proposition 172 funds to County government public safety is not transparent, either to the public or to the County agencies eligible to receive these funds. The CEO disagrees partially with this finding. The current method of budgeting for Proposition 172 funds is compliant with State law. Proposition 172 revenue is identified in the County’s budget book, in Budget Unit 1000, line item 821510. In an effort to be more transparent and assist the public and Public Safety agencies receiving funds, the County will change the format in the budget book to clearly identify the four public safety departments that receive Proposition 172 funds. The CEO incorporates by reference the Auditor-Controller’s response to F1.

This lack of transparency violates the spirit of the original proposition and could be easily rectified by a simple alteration to the format of the County budget. The CEO disagrees partially with this finding. The current method of budgeting for Proposition 172 is compliant with State law. Proposition 172 revenue is identified in the County’s budget book, in Budget Unit 1000, line item 821510. In an effort to be more transparent and assist the public and Public Safety agencies receiving funds, the County will change the format in the budget book to clearly identify the four public safety departments that receive Proposition 172 funds. The CEO incorporates by reference the Auditor-Controller’s response to F2.

The Auditor-Controller has been able to demonstrate the appropriate distribution of Proposition 172 Funds to municipalities within the County. However, the Auditor-Controller has been unable to demonstrate that the remaining Proposition 172 revenues have been entirely distributed to County public safety agencies as required. The CEO partially disagrees with the finding. The County Proposition 172 revenues are deposited into Budget Unit 1000 Non Departmental Revenues, line item 821510. From there the funds are distributed to the four Public Safety departments through their annual Net County Cost (NNC). The Maintenance of Effort (MOE) calculation confirms that the Proposition 172 funds have been properly distributed. To further assist the public and Public Safety agencies, beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016/17, a line item for Proposition 172 will be included in each Public Safety agency Budget Unit receiving Proposition 172 funds.

The failure to update the MOE calculation annually as required, has placed the County in a position of non-compliance with State requirements. The CEO disagrees with this finding. The MOE calculations performed by the Auditor-Controller have been prepared as required by State law. Each MOE calculation has shown the County is in compliance with State requirements. The CEO incorporates by reference the Auditor-Controller’s response to F4.