May 12, 2007

San Jacinto (Riverside) CA bans safe and sane fireworks

Reporter's notebook

By CHARLES HAND/The Valley Chronicle
Agustin Gutierrez

http://www.thevalleychronicle.com/articles/2007/05/11/news/07nnotebook.txt

Forbidding fireworks

A fix to a hole in the law prohibiting fireworks in San Jacinto has been introduced.

Though state law prohibits some fireworks, officers have found devices smaller than those covered by the law, said Police Chief Kevin Vest.

Riverside County adopted a more comprehensive ban last year, and the proposed city law is based on that.

At the moment, the only city law prohibiting the use of fireworks applies only in city parks, Vest said.

Vest said the major reasons for banning the possession, use, or storage of fireworks in the city are that 45 percent of the injuries from fireworks are sustained by those younger than 15, that they can be dismantled to make larger explosive devices, and that the area has repeatedly seen extreme fire danger and extended fire seasons.

People also sometimes fail to understand the danger of large explosions from the storage of small fireworks in quantity, Vest said.

May 4, 2007

Permanent Injunction Placed On Firefox Enterprises (fireworks co.)

NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 4, 2007
Release #07-181

CPSC Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: Scott Wolfson, (301) 504-7051

CPSC Wins Major Court Victory Upholding Authority to Protect Consumers
From Illegal Sales of Firework Components
Permanent Injunction Placed On Firefox Enterprises

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A federal court affirmed that the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has the authority to stop the sale of
chemicals and components used to make illegal, dangerous fireworks. This
is a major victory in CPSC's continuing effort to protect consumers from
injury and death caused by illegal explosives.

On December 6, 2006, the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill, Chief U.S. District
Judge for the District of Idaho, granted summary judgment in favor of
the government's claim that Firefox Enterprises Inc., of Pocatello,
Idaho, sold chemicals and components to consumers that were used to
manufacture illegal fireworks.

On April 30, 2007, Judge Winmill entered a permanent injunction against
Firefox and its owners, prohibiting them from selling certain chemicals
and components used in illegal fireworks. The Judge also imposed
shipping and strict record keeping requirements on the defendants and
authorized the CPSC to make surprise inspections of Firefox's
facilities.

"This court ruling is a victory for consumer safety," said CPSC's Acting
Chairman Nancy Nord. "There are far too many injuries and deaths from
the manufacture and use of illegal fireworks. By taking strong action
against individuals and companies that sell chemicals and components to
make these dangerous devices, CPSC can stop illegal fireworks from being
made and keep consumers safe."

An investigation by CPSC found that between November 1999 and May 2005,
Firefox, an Internet retailer, was selling and shipping in hundreds of
separate transactions, chemicals, tubes, end caps and fuses. These
chemicals and components when assembled comprise M-80s, quarter-sticks,
and other illegal fireworks. The court held that Firefox's actions
violated the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations in its illegal
packaging and shipping of the chemicals.

CPSC, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Consumer Litigation worked cooperatively on this
case.

May 3, 2007

Perchlorate settlement with Former Fireworks Factory

Deal will clean Santa Clarita Valley aquifers
By Valerie Reitman, Times Staff Writer
May 3, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-water3may03,1,3991180.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

Perchlorate contaminating the Santa Clarita Valley's underground water supply is to be cleaned up under an estimated $100-million settlement of a federal lawsuit against former and present owners of a shuttered munitions and fireworks factory announced Wednesday.

The suit was filed by four area water agencies in November 2000 against Whittaker Corp., Remediation Financial Inc. and Santa Clarita LLC over pollution at the 996-acre site known as the Whittaker-Bermite plant, which for decades operated in the heart of Santa Clarita.

Five public wells were shut in 1997, about a decade after the plant closed, after the perchlorate contamination was discovered.

Perchlorate compounds are used in the manufacture of explosives, munitions and rocket fuel.

Under the agreement, a treatment plant will be built to clean up pollution in two local aquifers.

The facility will be at Bouquet Canyon Road, next to the Castaic Lake Water Agency pump station. The agency was a plaintiff, along with the Newhall County Water Agency, the Santa Clarita Water Co. and the Valencia Water Co.

The settlement is still subject to federal District Court and Bankruptcy Court approval. The current site owners filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

Two potential buyers — SunCal Cos., a builder, and Cherokee Investment Partners, which specializes in redeveloping polluted properties — have proposed buying and developing the site with homes and businesses after soil cleanup is complete.

April 26, 2007

"Show Me the Spending" coalition

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:55:33 GMT
From: "National Taxpayers Union"
To:
Subject: Tell State Politicians: Show Me the Spending!

Dear LAAG:

State governments dole out billions of tax dollars every year through grants, contracts, and other forms of spending. Where's the money going? Our newly formed "Show Me the Spending" coalition believes you have a right to know.

The National Taxpayers Union and our coalition partners are working to pass legislation in all 50 states requiring a so-called "Google government" website that would allow you to see how the state government is spending your hard-earned money. Please help us now by visiting the coalition's homepage, www.showmethespending.org , and telling your legislators to "Show Me the Spending!"

As you may know, last year President Bush signed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act into law. Originally sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the bipartisan legislation is creating a searchable online database that the general public can use to track hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grant and contract expenditures.

Taxpayers deserve this kind of openness from state government too. The cost would be small, and the result would help to hold all elected officials accountable for state spending. While more than a dozen other states have limited versions of disclosure websites for grants and/or contracts, only one (Kansas) has created the kind of cohesive, comprehensive database envisioned in the federal legislation.

Providing an easy-to-use tool like the searchable website would enable you and your fellow residents to make sense of how your tax dollars are being parceled out, and make your own determinations of government's spending priorities.

The coalition's new website, www.showmethespending.org , features a constantly-updated legislative status center for all 50 states, model legislation for officials, research on the benefits of state spending disclosure, and a grassroots action center that gives citizens like you the ability to petition your legislators.

Conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between ought to agree that transparency of and public access to government information is vital to the health of our political system. Wherever you stand on the issues, please click over to www.showmethespending.org and speak out today!

Sincerely,

John Berthoud

--------------------------------------------------

Please forward this message to at least 3 of your friends and
get them involved today!

http://ga1.org/join-forward.html?domain=ntu_action&r=27xnuWY1f4j9

April 21, 2007

L.A. County violated state's open meetings law

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-secrecy21apr21,1,6492712.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Legal experts say L.A. County violated state's open meetings law
By Jack Leonard and Susannah Rosenblatt
Times Staff Writers

April 21, 2007

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, long criticized for conducting public business behind closed doors, violated the state's open meetings law earlier this week when members privately selected a headhunting firm to find a new top manager, according to several open-government experts.

The board unanimously voted during a closed meeting on Tuesday to negotiate a recruitment contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates. Legal experts said the state's Ralph M. Brown Act requires such discussions to be held in public.

The board's decision was made as the district attorney's office investigates a separate allegation that supervisors violated the Brown Act three weeks ago. Prosecutors launched their probe after a member of the public complained that the board tried to discuss in private the federal government's decision to continue funding for Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital.

"I think their track record as to recognizing their responsibility to the public is really a miserable one," said Rich McKee, an open-government activist who has successfully sued the county and other public agencies for violating the Brown Act.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who chairs the board, said he and his colleagues relied on the advice of their county counsel, who told them their actions were legal. He noted that supervisors ultimately discussed the hospital funding issue in public.

"I think that the board has expended a lot of time, energy and resources to comply with the Brown Act," Yaroslavsky said. "It doesn't mean that you're perfect, but I think the county has done a far better job than it has done in the past and a far better job than many local government entities are doing."

The controversy comes at a time of growing concern about secrecy in California government. Open-government activists complain that a recent Supreme Court decision has prompted closings of police disciplinary hearings, and an attorney general's opinion has limited the information prosecutors can release about criminal cases.

There are few sanctions for public agencies that break the state's open meetings law. Prosecutors rarely file charges against public officials accused of discussing public matters in secret. The usual remedy is for prosecutors or members of the public to file suit to invalidate the vote. A judge can order the guilty agency to pay a plaintiff's legal fees.

County supervisors have a mixed record on Brown Act compliance. In 2001, they voted in closed session to instruct lawyers to block a ballot initiative that sought higher wages for workers who cared for disabled people. McKee and The Times sued. A state appellate court ruled that the board broke the law and tried to conceal it.

In 2004, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley concluded that supervisors violated the law when they met privately and decided to close the trauma center at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. The Times sued again.

But a Superior Court judge disagreed with Cooley, ruling that the board was justified in privately discussing the trauma unit's fate as it grappled with threats from federal health inspectors to pull about $200 million in funding.

In the most recent episode, county supervisors met Tuesday morning to privately discuss the choice of a recruitment firm to find candidates to replace Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen. Earlier this year, the county offered the CAO job to two candidates, only to be rejected by both.

Some supervisors had criticized the county's approach to finding candidates. So, though the board rarely interviews recruitment firms, Janssen said supervisors wanted to be involved. Officials from two headhunting firms spoke during the meeting before the board made its selection, Janssen said.

The Brown Act prohibits elected bodies from privately discussing issues that involve an independent contractor, unless the contractor is working as a county employee.

County Counsel Raymond G. Fortner Jr. said the county's decision complied with state law because the recruitment firm will perform work similar to that of a county human resources employee. "They're doing essentially what county staff are doing or can do," Fortner said. "It's a short-term, temporary item."

But several 1st Amendment lawyers said they doubted such an explanation would hold up in court and described the board's action as a violation of the law.

"I think that the county counsel's position is dead wrong," said James Chadwick, a partner with Sheppard Mullin in San Francisco. "It's one of the clearer examples of a violation of the Brown Act that I've heard."

Terry Francke, author of a book about the Brown Act and general counsel for Californians Aware, a nonprofit open-government group, agreed.

"If they knew they were going to talk about independent contractor recruiting firms," he said, "they should have recognized right away that that should have been in open session."

jack.leonard@latimes.com

susannah.rosenblatt@latimes.com

Ontario CA increases "safe and sane" posession fine to $1,000

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_5692002

Fireworks fine pricey
Ontario approves $1,000 penalty to streamline process

By Jason Newell, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/17/2007 11:36:57 PM PDT

ONTARIO - Buying, using or transporting fireworks in the city is about to become a whole lot more dangerous - for wallets, that is.

Starting next month, the city will slap a $1,000 fine on anyone caught with the devices, which are outlawed within city limits.

The City Council approved the stiff penalty Tuesday night, hoping to reverse what officials said was a surge in fireworks-related emergency calls in recent years.

"This gives us a solid tool to begin to combat these flagrant violators," Mayor Paul Leon said before joining the unanimous vote.

Like most cities in the Inland Valley, Ontario has banned the possession or use of all fireworks, even the so-called "safe and sane" variety - which don't explode or leave the ground.

Across the region, only Fontana and Chino permit the "safe and sane" types, though Fontana has agreed to ban them starting July 5, 2008.

Currently, people caught with fireworks in Ontario already face fines of up to $1,000, but the city has to go after the offenders in court.

The new policy cuts the judicial system out of the process, making it easier and less time-consuming for the city to hand out fines and collect the money.

The policy will be a stronger deterrent to what has become a growing problem in recent years, Ontario Fire Chief Chris Hughes said.

"Last year, especially, was extremely busy for us," he said.

Since the start of 2006, emergency dispatchers in Ontario have received more than 700 calls about fireworks, including more than 400 complaints in July 2006 alone.

Each time, police and firefighters have been tasked with responding to the calls, investigating, seizing any fireworks and handling any medical emergencies - at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers.

Additionally, firefighters have had to extinguish about 20 brushfires caused by fireworks during the past year alone, Hughes said.

While many of the fireworks that end up in Ontario come from Nevada and Mexico, plenty of them are purchased right next door in Chino, Hughes said.

Many Ontario residents don't know that they're breaking the law when they bring fireworks from Chino into the city, he said.

"That's part of our challenge," Hughes said. "When people do go to the fireworks booths in Chino, they (need to) know that they can't bring them across the border."

As part of the changes approved Tuesday night, the city will spend about $15,000 a year on signs, banners and other materials to publicize the city's fireworks rules.

"A big part of it is education - letting people know that it is illegal in Ontario to use any fireworks," City Manager Greg Devereaux said.

The city expects the fines to offset at least a portion of the education campaign, officials said.

The changes approved Tuesday night will head back to the City Council for final approval May 1, then take effect two weeks later.

Staff writer Jason Newell can be reached by e-mail at jason.newell@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-9338.

State delays perchlorate hearing for 2 months

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_perch18.3bf7e41.html

10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, April 17, 2007

By JENNIFER BOWLES
The Press-Enterprise

A hearing to determine those responsible for the Inland region's most significant water pollution problem has been delayed once again.

Tam Doduc, chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board, postponed the hearing for two months to give attorneys more time to file rebuttals. The hearing's aim is to assign blame and cleanup responsibility for a massive underground plume of perchlorate, a rocket fuel ingredient linked to thyroid ailments, that has tainted 16 wells in Rialto and Colton.

The hearing, which was set to begin May 8, will now start July 9 and run an additional five days through the month, said William L. Rukeyser, a spokesman for the state water board. The hearing will be held in the Rialto area, Rukeyser said.

Regional water-quality officials, who have been investigating the case, say they believe the lengthy plume was mainly caused by three companies that have used a 160-acre industrial lot in northern Rialto. Pyro Spectaculars Inc., a fireworks company, currently uses the site. Two defense contractors -- Goodrich Corp. and Emhart, which is a subsidiary of Black and Decker -- used the site in the 1950s and 1960s. All three companies have denied any role in the pollution.

Community activists said they were disappointed to see another delay.

"As long as there is no cleanup plan, the water supply to the residents is in danger," said Davin Diaz, who is with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. "We were all looking forward to some type of closure, and it just keeps feeling like it's dragging on."

Rukeyser said the agency wants all parties to have a chance to present and defend their case so there will be no grounds to appeal any decision reached by the state board.

"We as well want an expeditious conclusion to this process," he said. "But, we also want to make sure that there are no arguments or claims that anybody was in any way deprived of due process."

Reach Jennifer Bowles at 951-368-9548 or jbowles@PE.com

April 19, 2007

Lake Elsimore CA ban on fireworks is strengthened

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_sfirework11.409a020.html#
10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, April 10, 2007

By MARY BENDER
The Press-Enterprise

LAKE ELSINORE - The city's ban against fireworks, including so-called safe and sane varieties, had long been condensed to a single, generally-worded paragraph in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.

On Tuesday night, the City Council tossed out that old version and replaced it with Riverside County's longer and more specific fireworks ban, which will become law in Lake Elsinore when the ordinance takes effect in 30 days.

The City Council introduced the seven-page ordinance at its March 27 meeting. On Tuesday, the council adopted it unanimously and without comment.

"This gives us the tools to provide better enforcement," city spokesman Mark Dennis said after the meeting.

The fireworks ban imposes fines ranging from $500 to $1,000 for anyone convicted of using, possessing, storing, manufacturing, selling, transporting, igniting, discharging or exploding any fireworks, whether they be illegal varieties or others sold in many Southern California cities.

Offenders also could face a one-year term in Riverside County jail if convicted.

Further, under the ordinance, a property owner also will be held responsible if he or she allows people to engage in any of the banned activity on his or her property.

The ordinance will be in place by summer, when fireworks usage peaks.

Earlier this year, the Western Riverside Council of Governments urged local cities, including Lake Elsinore, to incorporate Riverside County's detailed fireworks ordinance into their own municipal codes, Dennis said.

The new regulations will enhance the "preservation of the public peace, health (and) safety," the ordinance states, citing the danger of injury, especially to children. "Fireworks are often stored without safety precautions in residential neighborhoods," it said.

"Fireworks often come from countries where safety regulations for making fireworks are not as stringent as those for fireworks manufactured in the United States," the code states.

The ordinance spells out specific ingredients that are banned, including arsenic sulfide, phosphorous and boron, and types of fireworks that fall under the new prohibitions, including skyrockets that "rise into the air during discharge," Roman candles or similar devices that "discharge balls of fire into the air," chasers that "dart or travel about the surface of the ground during discharge," and any sort of firework made to explode in a manner unexpected by the user.

The ordinance allows a few categories of people to use fireworks -- most notably licensed pyrotechnic operators who have been granted a permit from the fire chief and the sheriff to stage a public fireworks display, such as those sponsored by cities on Independence Day.

On the permit application, the pyrotechnician must detail the site where the fireworks will be discharged and make a diagram of the area, showing the location of trees, telephone lines, buildings, roads and spectators.

Reach Mary Bender at 951-893-2103 or mbender@PE.com

Lomita CA plans to extinguish fireworks this Fourth of July

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/7077331.html?showAll=y&c=y

Lomita plans to extinguish fireworks this Fourth of July
They already are illegal, and officials promise to get tougher. A new ordinance will make violations punishable by fines and jail.

By Nick Green
STAFF WRITER

Last year Lomita Mayor Mark Waronek stood at a friend's house in Rolling Hills Estates on Independence Day looking down on the city.

Despite a ban on fireworks enacted in Lomita in 1986, the night sky above it was ablaze with cascading showers of sparks.

"I was amazed, it looked like Fallujah," Waronek said. "It's like a war zone. ... It was an eye-opening experience, it really was."

So eye-opening, in fact, that Monday, at the urging of Waronek, Lomita approved an aggressive ordinance that toughens the punishment for anyone using fireworks in the city. In the past sheriff's deputies have simply confiscated fireworks. Now violators will be slapped with a misdemeanor and face six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.

To enforce the tough ordinance, a Fireworks Eradication Team consisting of four sheriff's deputies and four plainclothes officers or volunteers will fan out across the city citing offenders and confiscating fireworks.

"We're serious -- there's a new sheriff in town," City Manager Tom Odom said. "If we catch you, we're going to prosecute you."

The tough new stance against fireworks marks a complete turnaround for the mayor, who last year urged the City Council to discuss lifting the ban so charitable groups could once more cash in on the sale of fireworks.

But that effort fizzled rapidly.

Odom noted in a report to the City Council on Monday that municipal employees receive a "barrage of complaints" every year over illegal fireworks.

"Animals go crazy, kids get hurt and it has just become a real problem -- it puts senior citizens on edge," Odom said. "Based on the complaints we get, there are more citizens against them than for them."

In the South Bay, only five cities -- Carson, Inglewood, Gardena, Hawthorne and Lawndale -- still allow so-called safe-and-sane fireworks.

Lomita's ordinance will be officially adopted in 30 days and become law 30 days after that, just in time for fireworks season.

The strict ordinance is essentially an admission that previous efforts to stop people setting off fireworks in the city have failed.

The city formerly attempted to educate residents on the dangers of fireworks by focusing on the fire danger created.

Last year the city spent just $1,069 on fireworks enforcement; this year that bill will rise to about $20,000.

Lomita plans an all-out public relations blitz to discourage fireworks.

Electric signs along roads, public service announcements on cable, warnings in utility bills and other measures will alert the public about the new ordinance.

Parks personnel will set sprinkler start times to 9 p.m. from July 1 through July 7.

And the Fireworks Eradication Team will prowl city streets from 8 p.m. to midnight around the holiday looking for people who dare to wave so much as a sparkler around.

"The main thing is enforcement," Waronek said. "I love fireworks, but you've got to do it in a safe-and-sane manner. I'll go to another city and enjoy the Fourth of July."

nick.green@dailybreeze.com

April 17, 2007

LA County $21 Billion (thats billion) budget starts July 07

When you think of "B"illion dollar budgets you think federal, not county level. Once again robing Peter to pay Paul. The Supes must be saying to themselves "Perhaps we can work some magic again and push all these tough issues onto the next administration or at least until we can scurry out of office". We love the part about the falling property tax revenues for 2007-08. We have not seen the bottom yet and they plan for a 6% increase. Full speed ahead! Oh and don't forget about that Measure B we passed a few years back..remember that?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-budget17apr17,1,6732162.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
L.A. County to boost public safety funds
Its budget earmarks money to revamp jails, add deputies to streets and target gang crime. But the healthcare deficit remains a challenge.

By Jack Leonard and Susannah Rosenblatt
Times Staff Writers

April 17, 2007

Spurred by the last year's increases in home prices, rising property tax revenues will help fund a boost in public safety spending in the coming fiscal year as Los Angeles County seeks to refurbish its aging and dangerous jail system, put more sheriff's deputies on the streets and target gang crime, officials said Monday.

The 2007-08 proposed budget, unveiled by Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen, also earmarks money to redesign juvenile camps, overhaul camp management and upgrade security in an effort to fix the county's troubled juvenile detention system. The U.S. Department of Justice has demanded improvements to the county's three halls and is investigating conditions in its probation camps.

Janssen's $21-billion budget plan, which would take effect July 1, most likely marks his last as the county's top fiscal officer. Janssen officially retired in January. But after a failed search for his replacement, he agreed to remain for the rest of the year.

The budget is a far cry from Janssen's first in 1997. At the time, the county faced painful job cuts as it struggled to cope with a ballooning deficit in its health system and the aftermath of a recession.

Still, Janssen, known for his fiscal caution, raised some warning flags Monday about the county's future finances, citing the looming healthcare deficit and concern over the cost of retired employees' healthcare benefits. In addition, he said the slowdown in home sales will undoubtedly cut into rising property taxes. He estimates a 6% increase next year rather than this year's 10%.

"We have challenges," Janssen said. "I think we've demonstrated over a number of years now our capacity to deal with budget challenges, so I'm not exercised or concerned about whether or not we're going to be able to deal with those challenges."

The most intractable problem remains the public healthcare system's deficit, which is projected by some county estimates to reach $794 million over five years. The new budget does not cure the problem. Indeed, Janssen said that he employed "very optimistic assumptions" in drafting the healthcare budget and that the gloomy financial forecast could eventually lead to cuts in health services.

Supervisor Don Knabe said in a statement he was concerned that the health department's fiscal outlook was "quickly reaching a day of reckoning," and he voiced concern about the uncertainty of federal funding.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky underscored the fragility of the health department's finances, but said the county had previously been able to cobble together needed funds with a combination of federal, state and county dollars.

"Every year we get to the brink," Yaroslavsky said, "we're able to patch things together."

The health department will receive $190 million to help complete a state-of-the-art medical center that is replacing County-USC Medical Center in East L.A. along with upgrades at two other county hospitals.

Similar construction funds have been put away for the county's beleaguered jail system, which has been beset over the last few years with violence and overcrowding that forced the Sheriff's Department to release inmates early.

The budget includes $245 million to add much-needed jail beds to house inmates, including barracks for women at the Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic, and to refurbish the empty Sybil Brand Institute jail for women in Monterey Park. It will take several years to finish the project.

Under Janssen's plan, the Sheriff's Department also could add 165 deputies to patrol jail corridors and hallways where inmates have taken advantage of limited security to attack one another. An extra $16 million will pay for a redesign of the aging Men's Central Jail.

Melinda Bird, senior counsel for the ACLU of Southern California, said that she welcomed the proposal but that the jails need even more deputies.

"Our inmates-to-deputy ratio is far too high," she said. "It contributes to violence, inmate rape and generally poor and unconstitutional conditions."

Sheriff Lee Baca applauded the budget for adding more than 100 deputies to patrol unincorporated areas of the county, which suffered staffing cutbacks during lean times a few years ago.

"With this additional amount, it's quite a recovery," Baca said. "It should be exactly where we were before, and it could be beyond it."

Gang suppression efforts will also receive an additional $6.4 million.

But Supervisor Mike Antonovich said the extra funding was not enough, given the scope of public safety problems.

"This budget severely shortchanges the Sheriff's Department's ability to properly address the gang problem and jail security," Antonovich said in a statement.

Like most public agencies, the county has done nothing to deal with the growing bill it will face in future years for retiree health benefits. Rather than putting money away, the county simply pays the cost of retiree benefits each year ($377 million this year).

The projected cost over the next few decades is likely to be a lot more. A grand jury estimate two years ago put the figure at $9 billion. But Janssen, whose office has conducted informal estimates in preparation for a more comprehensive study due in the next month, said that figure could be low. "I'd be happy if it wasn't more than $14 billion," he said.

The county, he added, must quickly put money aside to meet its commitments. He suggested starting with $400 million in surplus pension funds and $17 million from next year's regular budget.

Janssen is expected to present the budget to the Board of Supervisors today. Hearings start May 9.

jack.leonard@latimes.com

susannah.rosenblatt@latimes .com