800% Cost Hike Cuts 3 Measures From Elections

A boggling 800% increase in the amount of money the county of Los Angeles plans to charge the city of Los Angeles to consolidate ballots prompted a divided City Council on Friday to abruptly shelve three measures that had been planned for the June 7 primary.

The council’s action effectively kills an advisory referendum that would have asked San Fernando Valley voters if they favor a trolley line in their region.

Two other measures, meanwhile, will be delayed until the November, 1988, or April, 1989, ballots. Those are a $90-million bond issue to fund the Central Library and branch library construction projects and a proposed charter change that would allow an eight-vote council majority to set city salaries, rather than the 10 votes now required.

The council’s turnaround came after learning that ballot costs would run about $900,000, three times the city clerk’s original estimate. The big surprise came Thursday when the council was informed that the county, which administers the June 7 primary, proffered an estimated bill of $642,981 to consolidate that ballot--a whopping 822% increase over the November, 1986, fee of $78,223.

In the consolidation process, different local governments with measures up for a vote cooperate in placing the various measures on the same ballot.

Before receiving the county’s new price this week, City Clerk Elias Martinez had factored only a 10% increase, to $86,000.

In an interview, county Registrar-Recorder Charles Weissburd explained that higher costs were computed under a new, prorated pricing system that spreads total costs among participating municipalities, basing the shares on the number of voters and precincts. Under the old system, fees were computed on an added-cost-only basis, such as printing.

Outrage Expressed

The $642,981 estimate, Weissburd said, represents about 5% of the $12 million it takes to run a major countywide election.

Some City Council members, however, expressed outrage at the fees. Proponents of the trolley line referendum--Valley-area council members Michael Woo, Joy Picus and Marvin Braude--urged that the council proceed with the referendum.

“This is highway robbery!” Councilman Marvin Braude declared. “How can we say, we’re not going to hold elections because the county is holding us up?”

“To roll over and . . . (do) nothing is absurd,” Picus agreed.

Picus and Braude said the city should try to negotiate a better price or threaten the county with legal action.

But in the end, the council majority, which had previously supported the ballot measures, decided the rail measure was not worth the price. The library bond and charter revision, they agreed, could be delayed to the November or April ballots without dire consequences.

Earlier this month, the council voted 10 to 4 to put the referendum before voters. On Friday, which was the legal deadline for placing measures on the June ballot, supporters of the referendum could muster only four of the eight votes needed for final action.

Woo said he believes that he could have picked up enough votes to place the referendum on the ballot if three of his earlier backers had not been absent.

To a degree, the council’s decision reflected the soft support on the council for the advisory referendum. “Those who did want to have the referendum on the ballot were thrilled to have the opportunity to kill it,” Picus said.

Also at play was, Woo said, “a layer of mayoral politics.”

Indeed, Mayor Tom Bradley and Woo proposed the referendum after the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission asked elected officials for help in determining what trolley route, if any, has Valley support. Deputy Mayor Mike Gage worked to build a coalition in favor of the referendum. Some observers saw the referendum as a vehicle for Bradley to bolster Valley support behind a popular idea.

The commission acted after all five of its proposed east-west routes for the Valley line ran into strong opposition. However, polls have shown that the concept of rail transit is popular in the Valley. Officials hoped a favorable referendum would “forge a mandate,” Woo said, that would overcome parochial opposition.

But Bradley’s expected rival in 1989, Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, opposed the idea from the start. “I never thought the referendum was going to tell us anything that we didn’t already know,” he said, contending that there is already overwhelming support for a trolley line in the Valley.

Yaroslavsky, raising another high-profile issue, noted Friday that the $900,000 the city would save could pay for more police officers. Yaroslavsky and Bradley have taken turns in recent weeks promoting plans for more police.

Several council members suggested that the rail issue may be revived in another form--perhaps a selection of specific routes--on the November ballot if an initiative to block on-shore coastal drilling led by Braude and Yaroslavsky succeeds in qualifying for that ballot. The library and charter revision measures could also be placed on that ballot.

If not, the next opportunity would be during the next citywide election in April, 1989.