Enhanced Law Enforcement District budget exposes funding gap; committee approves smaller patrol force

The Enhanced Law Enforcement District (ELED) budget committee voted to approve a FY 2026–27 budget of $9,205,601, acknowledging a structural shortfall that will require the district to staff roughly 23–24 sworn positions rather than the 36 positions it supported when the levy was first adopted.

Sheriff Angela Brandenburg presented the district’s informational message and told the committee the office had reallocated staffing and drawn on a temporary general‑fund supplement in the prior year to maintain patrol coverage. Under Sheriff Lee Eby and finance manager Patrick Williams reviewed the proposed budget and the department’s updated analysis, saying current district tax revenues—growing at roughly 2.94% annually—no longer keep pace with personnel, indirect and materials costs.

Patrick Williams said the proposed ELED budget reflects personnel and materials expenses that the district must cover directly rather than having them absorbed by the sheriff’s general fund. He told the committee the FY26–27 figures represent a careful reconciliation of incentive pay, overtime, vehicle and fleet costs, and cost allocations that were not fully captured in earlier budget presentations.

Commissioners and committee members pressed staff on several technical points: how vacancies are accounted for (a vacant position retains a small month‑of‑funding carry), why the county’s general fund previously masked the shortfall, and how timing differences in cost allocations can make year‑to‑year comparability difficult. Commissioner Paul Savas recommended a focused review of historical subsidies and a clearer line‑item budget so the public and board can see exactly what the levy now supports.

Several members of the public urged continued patrol capacity in North County neighborhoods, and a former county operations manager and an area resident described the difference that deputies made for traffic enforcement and public safety. Finance staff and the county budget office described the legal and accounting structure that moved payroll into a county pass‑through fund (department 80) and explained timing delays that had previously obscured the full ELED cost profile.

After more than an hour of discussion and technical clarification, the committee approved the budget on a recorded vote. Members recorded their concerns and asked staff to supply clearer documentation on: the funded headcount (the approved budget lists 23 funded positions), the treatment of vacant positions and the month‑of‑funding carry, and a short work plan to present line‑item alternatives or potential ballot options if the board wishes to seek additional local revenue.

Next steps: the committee instructed staff to return with a line‑item breakdown of material and services categories (notably overtime, vehicle repair, fuel and incentive pay) and to quantify options for either county general‑fund support or a voter measure should the board choose to pursue higher service levels.