Bigger Share of Gas Funds for North May Be Sought

In a move that could renew old North-South battles over highway funding, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown said Tuesday that he may seek more revenue from a proposed gas tax increase for Northern California highways and mass transit.

The San Francisco Democrat, speaking off the cuff after a California Teachers Assn. rally, said that as the revenue split is proposed, it appears the North would be shortchanged on these priority projects.

If his analysis proves correct, Brown said, he will seek legislation forcing a redistribution of the new tax revenues.

Brown, who was one of the architects of a complex plan to increase the gasoline tax and modify the state’s spending limit, is the first top state leader to express qualms about the proposal. By demanding changes, Brown could upset the delicate compromise that was crafted last year by legislative leaders and Gov. George Deukmejian.

The proposal calls for a 9-cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax, which would be used to help finance a 10-year, $18.5-billion program to improve the state’s transportation system and reduce congestion. Because the tax increase would create more revenue than the Legislature could spend under current restrictions, the gas tax increase is tied to a constitutional amendment that would modify the state spending limit.

The gas tax cannot go into effect unless voters approve the spending limit amendment next June.

As planned, 60% of the new tax revenues would go to Southern California and 40% to Northern California. Brown does not quarrel with the overall split but he notes that of the North’s 40%, most is allotted for highway maintainance and only a small portion is designated for new highways and mass transit. The South, on the other hand, would receive most of its share for highways and such projects as light rail.

Although Brown said at the rally that he considers the breakdown unfair, a spokesman for Brown hastened to add afterward that the Speaker had not meant by his comments to indicate that he was openly opposing the proposed new tax.

“He just thought it (the formula) was a done deal,” the spokesman said. “He’s under a lot of pressure from city and county officials in his area and he wants to look into it. “

However, key legislators in both houses disagreed about a possible solution to Brown’s concerns.

Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco) said problems with the formula could be addressed easily in new legislation but Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said Southern California lawmakers would not be willing to support any change that would take money from their area.

“If there are to be changes, they will not come at the expense of Southern California,” Katz said. “One thing the North has to remember is that the vast amount of the sales tax being raised to help the Bay Area is coming from Southern California. That’s something that can’t be overlooked when we discuss these proposals.”

A quarter-cent sales tax increase went into effect Dec. 1 to help pay for repairs and rehabilitation to areas damaged by the Oct. 17 earthquake.

Katz said the planned allocation of funds is reasonable, but Kopp said he didn’t think it was fair that maintenance funds be considered in the formula, especially when his area was being hit with additional costs because of the earthquake.

“I’m pleased that Speaker Brown recognizes that we have a problem,” Kopp said. “To me it’s a solvable problem. I think (Brown’s comments) are a healthy sign because this is the major issue as far as I’m concerned.”