Lawmakers Offer 2 Alternatives to Highway Bonds

Two alternatives to Gov. George Deukmejian’s $1-billion transportation bond issue were being pushed in the Legislature Thursday. Proponents were encouraged by a slight edge in the vote against the governor’s measure as the close ballot count continued from last week’s election.

In the Senate, a package of bills called for a 6-cent-per-gallon increase in the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and lifting the constitutional limit on government spending to raise $1 billion annually for four years.

In the lower house, Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda), chairman of the Transportation Committee, said he plans to push for passage of a separate $3.3-billion revenue bond measure for transportation.

But prospects seem bleak for passage of either alternative to Proposition 74. Deukmejian already has rejected similar plans and holds out hope that his bond measure will win, although it was losing by 2,808 votes with as many as 50,000 ballots yet to be counted. Because of the closeness of the vote, the outcome will not be known until all ballots are counted, and some ballots have yet to be submitted by the counties. The final tally will not be known until July 5.

Tom Beerman, the governor’s assistant press secretary, said that until all the ballots are tabulated next month the Administration does not “have any proposals to put forth.”

At a Capitol news conference, Sens. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) and John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove) announced the plan for the alternatives being raised in the Senate. One part of the package would ask voters to lift the limit on state spending by $1 billion. That would be tied to a companion bill to raise the current 9-cent-a-gallon fuel tax by 6 cents and increase truck weight fees for large trucks.

Traditionally, the state has financed its highways and transit systems on a pay-as-you-go basis, using gasoline taxes and highway user fees to generate the income needed to build and repair the transportation system. Proposition 74 would instead allow the use of bonds, thus allowing quicker financing.

Garamendi and Kopp, who is chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, maintained that the final count of Proposition 74 will show that voters last week rejected bond financing for transportation projects. However, they voiced optimism that voters would approve their proposed increase in the gasoline tax.

Said Garamendi: “We’re offering voters a referendum on California’s future--either we build the transportation systems we need or face economic paralysis and transportation gridlock just a few years down the road.”

But in an interview, Assemblyman Katz described his legislation as the only comprehensive proposal to finance transportation projects. Under this plan, the $3.3 billion in revenue bonds he seeks would be spent over five years, allowing the speed-up of construction projects. A year ago, the Assembly approved a similar Katz proposal for $1.5 billion in bonds but it stalled in the Senate.

To pay off the bonds, Katz’s latest proposal would set aside a portion of the existing gasoline tax, increase fines for moving violations by $5, close a loophole that allows commercial airlines to avoid paying tax on jet fuel, raise vehicle registration fees by $1 and increase weight fees on commercial vehicles.

Katz said that he is optimistic that the governor will see his measure as a “reasonable” alternative to Proposition 74.

But Deukmejian spokesman Beerman maintained that Katz’s proposal “calls for an eventual increase in the gas tax and therefore the governor is opposed to it.”

As for the Kopp-Garamendi proposal, Beerman said, “the governor remains opposed to any gas tax increase and this proposal . . . represents an increase in the gas tax.”