The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Jan 1, 2014 10:53 PM

Reforms imposed by a federal judge who found widespread racial profiling by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will cost taxpayers at least $21.9 million over the next 18 months, documents submitted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his top administrators show.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow’s ruling last May determined the Sheriff’s Office engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos through its immigration-enforcement policies.

The law-enforcement agency must now undertake a variety of measures — everything from beefing up staffing and technology to improving training and public outreach — to assure the practice is permanently stopped.

But that will come at a cost, Arpaio and his top staff recently warned the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors during hearings on their budget requests for fiscal 2015, which begins July 1.

The $21.9 million estimate includes several big-ticket items:

Salaries and employee benefits to launch a seven-member unit to implement changes recommended by the court order, plus five vehicles, six computers, supplies and fuel for the unit.

An electronic data-entry system, cameras for all patrol vehicles, and training for deputies to use the system to input data detailing the reasons for and lengths of their traffic stops.

Salaries and benefits for enough new supervisors to assure “effective supervision” for patrol deputies. No more than 12 deputies will be assigned to each supervisor, per the court order. The county will pay for seven additional sergeants, three additional deputies, and all their equipment, stun guns and radios.

After fiscal 2015, additional changes ordered by the court will cost an estimated $10 million annually, mainly in salaries, benefits and overtime hours for additional staff.

Costs to county

The Board of Supervisors sets the budget for all Maricopa County departments, agencies and elected offices. Recent budget hearings offered the first public estimates of the cost to implement Snow’s order.

“Now it comes upon our shoulders to make sure, budgetarily, it’ll be enforced,” said Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, a longtime critic of the sheriff’s immigration-enforcement policies and an immigration-rights advocate. “We’re going to have to squeeze the county as hard as we can. It’s going to be hurtful.”

The current fiscal year’s price tag will total about $7.7 million in operating and one-time court-order compliance costs. Savings from other areas of the Sheriff’s Office’s fiscal 2014 budget will go toward absorbing those costs, said Scott Freeman, the sheriff’s chief of administration.

For fiscal 2015, the agency has requested $14.2 million in both operating and one-time costs to comply with the order.

“We are deferring as much of this to next year as possible, to try and minimize the impact on the taxpayers this year,” Freeman said.

Maricopa County also incurred nearly $1.6 million in legal costs and expenses as of late December to defend itself in the case. That cost is expected to grow because the Sheriff’s Office is appealing the judge’s ruling.

The Sheriff’s Office is complying with the judge’s order while the appeal is pending.

“We disagree with a number of conclusions the court reached and will be challenging that,” said Tim Casey, Arpaio’s attorney. “At the same time, in good faith, we will be honoring the letter and the spirit of the court’s order complying with that. If something were to happen on appeal that changes it, we’ll cross that bridge (then).”

The agency has begun holding community-outreach meetings, as required by Snow to “rebuild public confidence and trust in the MCSO and in the reform process.”

The case sprang from a traffic stop by deputies in 2007 near Cave Creek. Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican tourist legally in the United States, was detained for nine hours. He later sued, claiming to be a victim of racial profiling.

His case eventually was certified as a class action, encompassing all Hispanic motorists stopped by deputies since 2007. The suit sought clear guidelines for deputies to follow during traffic stops, and the appointment of a monitor to assure the Sheriff’s Office operates within those guidelines.

Last October, Snow issued a ruling that outlined a series of requirements for the Sheriff’s Office. Among them are cameras in each deputy’s car, increased collection and reporting of traffic-stop data, increased training, a community advisory board, and an independent monitor to oversee the implementation of and compliance with Snow’s order.

Estimated compliance costs could change after the court appoints its monitor. The Sheriff’s Office is responsible for fees and costs incurred by the monitor, including any additional staff he or she decides to hire.

The cost also could grow if the county needs to upgrade its computer system to comply with the judge’s requirements for data collection and reporting.

Supervisors set to OK funds

Members of the Board of Supervisors said they have no choice but to follow Snow’s order — and pay the compliance costs. Payment details will be finalized through this spring’s county budget cycle.

“The board’s going to have to work with the sheriff’s department to figure out how to respond to the demands of the court,” said Supervisor Denny Barney, who is slated to be 2014 board chairman. “Otherwise, we subject the taxpayers to more sanctions and fees and costs. I don’t necessarily agree with the ruling of the court but I’m not the judge, I’m not the court.”

Wilcox said she wants the monitor to have the power to approve costs associated with compliance, and to work with the Board of Supervisors in overseeing implementation of the judge’s order.

“The monitor isn’t being appointed for nothing,” Wilcox said.

Sheriff’s administrators, the sheriff’s attorneys, the County Attorney’s Office and the county Office of Management and Budget have met in recent months to calculate and analyze staffing requirements and costs associated with Snow’s order, Freeman said.