Nov. Ballot Could Ask About Tax, Bond Issue : Government: County officials may put the transportation sales tax and a bond issue to buy Laguna Canyon land before voters at the same time.

To bolster support for a pair of pocketbook proposals, county officials are considering crafting a November ballot that would ask voters to decide on multimillion-dollar bond issue to buy land in Laguna Canyon at the same time they decide on a half-cent sales tax for transportation.

That proposal is outlined in an Environmental Management Agency progress report to be presented to the county supervisors today. It could result in broader support for both measures, advocates say, because it would give environmentalists a proposal for open space and developers the road program they have long been backing.

Although the plan could produce a ballot with proposals to attract an array of constituencies, officials concede that it could also put both measures at risk because voters would be asked about two costly proposals at the same time. Further, new taxes for jails and courts are also being proposed.

The report comes as local officials have been acknowledging that the county does not have the money to buy the 2,100-acre Laguna Laurel site, the focus of a raging controversy between the Irvine Co., which owns the land and wants to build 3,200 houses on it, and area environmentalists, who oppose the development. In addition, a March 21 letter from Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) that accompanies the report all but dashes any hopes of winning federal funds for such a purchase. “It’s my sense that the Senate would not look favorably on a new high-cost park in California at this time,” Cranston wrote.

A final recommendation on the Laguna Laurel ballot proposal is expected in two months. The board may vote to put an item on the ballot, but it need not take that vote until late this summer.

“We need to explore the idea of putting both of them on the ballot, but there’s a risk,” said Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, whose district includes Laguna Laurel.

If approved, the plan would let Orange County voters address two of the county’s most pressing concerns on a single ballot. The items would appear separately--and voters would consider them individually--but those who back approval of both measures could promote them as a package with the argument that they will address the needs to improve transportation and preserve open space. Both those viewpoints appear to enjoy broad popular support.

“I thought it was a good idea a year ago,” said Elisabeth Brown, president of Laguna Greenbelt Inc., an environmental group that has fought the Laguna Laurel project for years. “They can generate support from voters who think they might be solving two problems at the same time.”

Other observers were more skeptical, however. “I don’t think the crossover benefits would help either one that much,” said one political observer familiar the proposal but who asked not to be identified.

Together or separately, the proposals are likely to encounter opposition, as Orange County residents are among the state’s least willing to vote themselves new obligations. County residents have shown that they do not like the idea of increasing their taxes, and the story is the same for bond debt--the last time county voters approved a countywide general obligation bond was in 1957.

A bond requires approval by two-thirds of the voters; a sales-tax increase must have the support of a simple majority.

“I think it’s premature to propose a specific ballot measure, but we’re looking at this as a way of dealing with transportation and environmental issues at the same time,” said Environmental Management Agency Director Michael M. Ruane, the author of the report, “Purchase Alternatives for the Laguna Laurel Development.”

He said that Contra Costa County, in northern California, was successful in trying the simultaneous approach in a 1988 ballot measure, and that that anecdote is included in the report.

It is still not definite that the transportation sales tax will be on the November ballot, but plans are proceeding to bring that about. Most officials are predicting a rematch of the pro- and anti-Measure M forces of last year.

Riley commended the Environmental Management Agency for suggesting a way of addressing transportation and environmental concerns on one ballot but said that he was not yet prepared to recommend putting it on the November ballot. Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez also said that he was not ready to give it that kind of response.

“I want to proceed with the greatest caution,” Vasquez said. “We’re talking about the county’s indebtedness.”

After more than a decade spent planning Laguna Laurel, the Irvine Co. froze its plans for the project in December, six weeks after nearly 7,000 marchers demonstrated against it.

The supervisors in February proposed buying the canyon land to preserve it as open space, but finding the money to do that has been difficult.

One developer’s representative estimates that the property is worth around $100 million. Another consideration is that the Irvine Co., as part of the development agreement, said it would pay to complete a portion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor tollway; the tab for that could add up to between $30 million and $40 million, which the county would have to pick up if the development project is scuttled.

In its report, the county acknowledges that it does not have enough cash on hand in its harbors, beaches and parks reserve fund to pay for such a large project. Moreover, the report says, “preliminary indications are that federal and state funding may not be available.”

The report recommends pursuing bond financing, therefore, noting that “Orange County’s strong credit ratings and the long-term public-purpose nature of the project make it a prime candidate for fixed-rate general obligation bonds.”

Vasquez and others have warned against the trend for proposing bond financing, however. They argue that the county’s current low level of bond debt could become alarmingly high should too many public works projects be financed through bond issues.

An open-space proposal would probably get broader support if it took in areas besides Laguna Laurel, but to do that would be to propose even more bond debt.