Katz Wants to Use Gas Tax for Seismic Repair : Legislation: The assemblyman plans to propose spending up to $1 billion to quake-proof local structures. Some opposition is expected.

A prime author of a proposal to raise the state gasoline tax by 9 cents a gallon plans to ask the Legislature to set aside up to $1 billion of the new revenue to strengthen bridges against earthquakes.

Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said the money would be earmarked primarily for the seismic retrofitting of local bridges and only a “slight amount” for structures on the state highway system.

“I think the big item that’s out there is going to be the local streets and roads,” he said. “Los Angeles County alone has a $200-million need from a retrofit standpoint for city and county roads and it’s probably near that equivalent in the Bay Area.”

The 7.1-magnitude temblor that rocked Northern California Oct. 17 has sparked a frantic effort by government officials to upgrade bridges in earthquake-prone areas throughout the state.

The October quake killed more than 60 people, destroyed a mile and a quarter of the double-decked Nimitz Freeway in Oakland and collapsed a short section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

In a special session in early November, the Legislature ordered the acceleration of a sluggish state retrofit program and directed officials in the California Department of Transportation to work with cities and counties to expand their programs. It approved a quarter-cent sales tax increase and set aside $80 million for seismic bridge safety.

Officials said they hoped that money eventually would draw enough federal matching dollars for the funds to grow to $300 million. The 13-month sales tax increase became effective Dec. 1.

But Katz said that although money from the quarter-cent sales tax increase will cover many of the costs associated with retrofitting state highway bridges, it will not begin to pay the price tag for upgrading local bridges.

Twenty lawmakers from both political parties have already agreed to co-sponsor Katz’s proposal, but it faces potential opposition from his Senate counterpart, Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), who is chairman of the upper chamber’s Transportation Committee.

“I would look with jaundiced eye on it,” Kopp said.

He said a spending plan for the gasoline tax increase has been carefully constructed by Gov. George Deukmejian and legislative leaders and “that should be inviolate.” If additional money is needed for retrofitting, he said he would prefer that it come from different sources.

Katz said the funds he would earmark for retrofitting are already slated for local road and bridge rehabilitation. He estimated the need at between $750,000 and $1 billion.

“There are a lot of people who would like this money to go to new capacity but I’d like to make sure that the capacity we’ve got stays first,” Katz said.

Deukmejian and the Legislature have proposed the 9-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase to help pay for a 10-year, $18.5-billion transportation improvement program. The tax increase, however, cannot go into effect unless voters approve a constitutional amendment in June, 1990, that would modify the state’s spending limit.

“There’s a certain amount of money out of that $18.5 billion that goes to local government by formula and I’m suggesting that we may want to restrict some of that money, in other words earmark it for local streets and road earthquake rehabilitation,” Katz said.

Under his plan, earthquake rehabilitation would have first priority on the funds although they could be used for other purposes once that priority was satisfied.

A spokesman for the governor said Deukmejian has not reviewed Katz’s proposal yet but “certainly we’re open to any suggestions that he might have.”

Some lawmakers have privately expressed fears that if the gasoline tax spending plan and the proposed modifications in the state spending limit are reconsidered by the Legislature for any reason, it could give opponents an opportunity to press for more dramatic changes. They said any major change could unravel the delicate compromise that produced the proposals. The California Teachers Assn. and development interests have voiced concern.

The teachers’ group has complained that the changes in the spending limit would erase many of the gains education achieved from the passage of Proposition 98, the school finance initiative. The initiative requires that about 40% of the state’s general fund budget be spent on schools. Development interests have objected to elements of a congestion management program in the transportation plan, which requires them to play a major role in reducing traffic congestion.