Lawmakers, Wilson Edge Toward Accord

Gov. Pete Wilson and legislative leaders emerged from a series of negotiating sessions on the budget Friday, saying they were moving toward an agreement on a new state spending plan that they hoped could be put before both houses of the Legislature by Sunday night.

The breakthrough came when Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown all but endorsed Wilson’s proposal for shifting $2.6 billion in local property tax revenue to the schools and pledged to try to sell the plan to the 46 Democrats under his leadership in the Legislature’s lower house.

In return, Brown said he expects the governor to accept smaller reductions in health and welfare and higher education programs than Wilson originally proposed.

Senate Democratic Leader David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) was less enthusiastic about the governor’s proposal but said there was a good chance a budget deal could be completed by Sunday.

Brown and Wilson met twice Friday--once with Assembly Republican Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga and the second time with Brulte and Senate leaders Roberti and Ken Maddy (R-Fresno).

“We are encouraged,” Wilson told reporters. “I think we have found some common ground. We intend to pursue that.”

Brulte said the key was getting all five leaders in the same room for the first time this year to talk about the budget.

“I have said all along that as soon as the leadership sat down together, agreement would soon follow,” he said.

The five leaders plan to meet again this morning, with the hope of unveiling at least the framework of a budget agreement for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The Legislature’s constitutional deadline for passing a budget was Tuesday.

Brown said Wilson’s plan would not be as big a blow to local government as critics have contended.

He said a six-month extension of a temporary half-cent sales tax and the opportunity for voters in each county to make the tax a permanent local revenue source would soften the impact considerably. The state could further cushion the blow by relieving counties of several state-ordered obligations, he said.

The half-cent sales tax, which is scheduled to expire June 30, would be automatically extended in every county until Dec. 31 under Wilson’s plan. Voters would be asked in November to make the tax permanent. Counties in which the voters reject the tax extension would have to suffer the consequences, Brown said.

“The ones that do not pass it have chosen not to have their budgets reflect an increase in sales tax in their counties,” Brown said. “That’s legitimate. If you don’t want to raise taxes in your county and your people don’t want to cover the services, then that’s legitimate.

“The authority has always been requested by the counties: ‘Give us the authority to have a piece of the sales tax. We’ll collect it, impose it, relieve us of the mandates, and we’ll do the job.’ That’s what the governor’s proposal is designed to do.”

It remains to be seen whether the leadership can sell such an agreement to rank-and-file lawmakers, where resistance runs high to any significant reductions in local government revenue. Local officials fear the voters will reject the sales tax extension and leave them without the funds they need to run their programs.

“Obviously we’re concerned,” said Dan Wall, a lobbyist for the California State Assn. of Counties. “We’re exposed to the full jeopardy of failure or success of the sales tax. We will continue to have the role of performing all the big-ticket state programs on behalf of the state of California and it doesn’t look like we’ll have a hell of a lot of money to do that with.”

Under the governor’s plan, counties statewide would lose about $2 billion, but that cut would be reduced to about $600 million if the sales tax were extended in all 58 counties. Cities would lose $288 million. The remainder of the $2.6- billion transfer would come from redevelopment agencies and special districts, which offer everything from fire services to sewage treatement and cemetery management.

In one distribution of that proposed cut under consideration Friday, the city of Los Angeles would lose $76 million.

“Unacceptable--exclamation point!” said Ron Deaton, assistant chief legislative analyst for Los Angeles, when he saw the plan.

Los Angeles city officials had expected to lose no more than $35 million. Upon learning of the plan, the city’s lobbyists planned to turn to the Los Angeles legislative delegation--by far the largest in the Capitol--and urge them modify it.

“It’s terrible. It’s an enormous cut,” said Norm Boyer, the city’s chief lobbyist on fiscal affairs in Sacramento.

Mayor-elect Richar Riordan echoed their comments at a press conference, where he was joined by Mayor Tom Bradley, county Supervisors Ed Edelman and Mike Antonovich, Los Angeles City Council members John Ferraro and Marvin Braude and city Controller Rick Tuttle.

“I promise to make public safety and economy the top issues for the future,” Riordan said. “A reduction in our local property tax revenues by the state is a direct threat to my commitment. I find it, and the citizens of Los Angeles find it, unacceptable.”

The plan was unveiled late Friday by Assembly Local Government Committee Chair Mike Gotch (D-San Diego). Gotch described the plan as the fairest way to redistribute taxes statewide.

In Los Angeles County, the proposal would take $9 million from Long Beach, $2.8 million from Pasadena and from Pomona, $2.5 million from Torrance, $2 million from Glendale, $1.8 million from Santa Monica, $1.4 million from Inglewood, $1.3 million from Redondo Beach, $1.1 million from West Covina and $1 million from Downey.

Other cities in Los Angeles County would have lesser amounts taken. Figures for the loss from Los Angeles County were not available.

San Diego would lose $11 million. San Bernardino would lose $1.5 million. Oxnard would lose $1.6 million. Riverside would lose $1.3 million, while Corona would lose $1.6 million.

Gotch’s plan ran into harsh protests from rural legislators, who claimed that urban areas fared far better than rural California.

“We’re getting the royal shaft,” said Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Carnelian Bay), whose district includes a number of rural counties in Northeastern California.

Times staff writer James Rainey contributed to this article.