Wilson Seeks Financial Relief for Counties : Legislature: Governor expands special legislative session to include Los Angeles County. He calls for bill on unfunded mandates.

Responding to pleas from cash-starved Los Angeles County, Gov. Pete Wilson on Wednesday expanded the agenda of the current special session of the Legislature to include all California counties facing a fiscal crisis as they try to assemble budgets for the 1995-96 fiscal year.

Most of the 58 counties are facing budget deficits, but with the exception of Orange County, none is as complex or severe as that facing Los Angeles County, said Dan Wall, deputy director of the California State Assn. of Counties for revenue and taxation.

Wilson called the special session in February to deal with the Orange County bankruptcy. Los Angeles County’s problem, a $1.2-billion budget shortfall, is not directly related to the Orange County issue, which was triggered by the failure of high-risk investments.

But Wilson aides said it was more convenient to add the fiscal problems of all the counties to the Orange County session than to call a separate special session. The use of the special session allows legislators to expedite the legislative process, as approved bills become effective in 90 days rather than next Jan. 1.

Wilson said in a statement that it was important to enact legislation that would relieve counties of state-mandated costs--such as giving flexibility in paying general assistance--and allow them to develop “new alternatives to dealing with revenue shortfalls.”

Los Angeles County officials, who face budget-cutting proposals as severe as closing the huge County-USC Medical Center, generally applauded Wilson’s action, which was requested by Supervisors Deane Dana and Mike Antonovich.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said the county is not seeking a state bailout, but wants the Legislature to provide county supervisors with more “tools to raise money on our own, within our county.”

“But there is a long way to go,” Yaroslavsky added. “Calling a special session and enacting legislation during that special session are two different things.”

As the magnitude of the Los Angeles County problem evolved, Wilson warned county officials not to expect a bailout. He did, however, suggest relieving counties of some of the spending they are forced to make by state law, but without financial compensation from the state.

When he first ran for governor in 1990, Wilson said one of his priorities would be to ease the burden of the so-called unfunded mandates.

However, Wilson infuriated local government officials in recent years when, faced with his own budget crises, he shifted billions of dollars of local property tax revenues to the state treasury to pay for education and other state programs.

In Los Angeles, Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, a Democrat who served with Wilson in the state Assembly a quarter-century ago, said, “I’m glad to see that Gov. Wilson is paying attention to this because he is the problem.”

Burke said supervisors “need to get up there [to Sacramento] right away and meet with our delegation. We need to make sure we are part of whatever is the solution.”

Antonovich welcomed Wilson’s proclamation, saying: “We don’t need new taxes. We need reform and a redistribution of the existing tax rates to meet those needs. Furthermore, we need the state to repeal unfunded mandates. If a mandate cannot be fully funded, it does not belong on the books.”

Wilson’s proclamation called on the Legislature to consider giving the counties “flexibility in general assistance and mandate relief that provides counties increased flexibility, control and savings at no cost to the state.”

Wall, of the county supervisors association, said he believes the wording gives the Legislature broad latitude in fashioning a relief package. Wall said his organization will work with all counties to develop a relief package to present to the Legislature.

Times staff writer Josh Meyer in Los Angeles contributed to this report.