Panel Accepts Plan to Give $210 Million for County Courts

A conference committee reached bipartisan agreement Tuesday on a trial courts funding package that would give counties $210 million in extra state money, finance 109 new judgeships and provide a windfall for a small group of cities and counties.

But the legislative package drew immediate opposition because of a last-minute amendment that would make it more difficult for the Los Angeles Raiders to build a new stadium in Irwindale.

The amendment, attached to the legislation by Assemblyman Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles), would penalize Irwindale if it floats bonds to build the stadium by denying the city financial aid that would be given to other cities.

Trauma Center Rider

Another amendment to the trial court legislation added by Roos would provide extra money for financially strapped trauma care centers.

The extra money for trauma centers would come from an additional $1 that would be added to every $10 in fines levied by the criminal courts. Roos said he expects the provision to raise at least $20 million for Los Angeles County’s trauma centers.

The Raiders amendment was not debated openly by the conference committee, but when word reached the Assembly floor, opposition quickly developed.

Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), who supports Irwindale, attacked the amendment as “pork barreling” and said he would try to defeat the bill if the amendment is left in it. Mountjoy caucused privately with other Republican Assembly members, but no position was taken.

Assembly Republican Leader Pat Nolan of Glendale was instrumental in putting the package together during a series of day and night meetings with Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and other members of the Senate and Assembly.

At times, the entire package appeared on the verge of collapsing because of so many competing political interests.

Legislators want to provide more uniform financing of the court system. Counties in recent years have cut back on court services, as well as other programs, which some court officials say has contributed to congestion in the courts. Because of the complexity of the issue, lawmakers split the package into two bills, one for court expansion and a second for financial aid to cities.

Agreement on the proposed legislation came on a 5-1 vote, with Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside), the author of one of the bills, casting the lone no vote.

Presley said he was strongly opposed to giving the financial windfall to a small group of cities, so-called “no- and low-growth” property tax cities.

Financial aid to the cities was by far the most troublesome issue faced by the conference committee because some of the 100 cities in line for a windfall are among the most affluent in the state, such as Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, Irvine and Thousand Oaks.

The biggest opponents of financial aid to the cities were counties, who said they did not want to share the package. Both sides used teams of lobbyists to pressure the six-member conference committee.

Lobbyists for the cities began the negotiations seeking a funding plan that would give the cities $190 million after 10 years, the equivalent of 10% of all the property taxes collected within their boundaries. They argued that they have been cut out of all local government aid packages passed by the Legislature since 1979, when the state began giving cities and counties financial bail-outs to soften the impact of Proposition 13, the landmark tax-cut initiative.

They finally settled for a plan that would give them 7%, or about $97 million, of the property tax collections after seven years.

Formulas on the best way to split up the state money underwent numerous revisions as the conference committee worked through a thicket of political problems. Counties initially were promised $350 million by Gov. George Deukmejian in his budget proposal for fiscal 1988-89, but that figure was scaled back following a sharp drop-off of tax revenues in the spring. The reduced amount left larger counties that had been counting on the funds, such as Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego, in a financial pinch.

Counties generally were pleased with the compromise, believing that it was the best they could do under the circumstances.

The money technically would go to finance the court expansion, but the legislation means that counties would be freed from most of the responsibility for financing trial courts that they now bear.

Another obstacle standing in the way of the courts funding package is a $528-million appropriations bill that Democrats have put together in an effort to restore health and other programs vetoed from the budget in July by Deukmejian. Democrats have linked the bill to a revenue measure that would raise an extra $169 million by speeding up tax collections.

Because of opposition to the revenue and appropriation bills by Republican Deukmejian and his GOP allies in the Legislature, Democrats in the Senate say they will delay action on the courts funding bill until they vote on the bigger budget bills.

A competing proposal for funding the trial courts is included in the appropriations bill along with additional money for prisons, state universities and other programs.

The revenue and spending proposal was approved by a conference committee late Monday.

Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno calls it an “Alice in Wonderland” proposal that “is going nowhere” because of GOP opposition.

Several Democratic lawmakers have said they will vote against the trial courts funding legislation if Republicans vote against the revenue and appropriations bills.