A Voter Deal to Avoid the Orange Aura : L.A. supervisors must offer a ‘contract’ of reforms to deal with the county’s fiscal crisis.

Los Angeles County supervisors, to avoid the mistakes of their Orange County counterparts, should establish a contract with taxpayers in dealing with the county’s fiscal crisis.

Orange County officials had been advised to present a package of reforms to the voters: the sale of specific assets; the privatization of certain services; cost reductions from layoffs or the consolidation of departments, and, as part of the contract, a tax increase to get over the hump while the alternative revenue devices were put in place. The supervisors ignored that recommendation and attempted to solve the county’s financial woes with a ballot measure for a sales tax infcrease only. The voters concluded that this was simply business as usual, and they rejected it.

Voters want guarantees that budget reform and restructuring will be done if they are to consider new taxes. Last year, professors Jeffrey Chapman, John Kirlin, and Peter Asmus of USC reported that the “total amount of money now available to California governments is larger, even adjusted for growth in population and inflation, than before Proposition 13 passed.”

The problem with Los Angeles County is that spending has exceeded revenue by a greater rate.

For example, when the recession roared into California starting in 1990, eating at the ability of taxpayers to provide revenue to government, county employees were enjoying raises in the range of 7.25% to 30%--this at a time when state employees were limited to 5% increases, if they got a raise at all.

Also, during this time, one “service” that was generously increased was pension “spiking.” This extraordinary practice allows former county executives to get more each year in retirement pay than they earned in their best-paying year on the job.

County supervisors must now show good faith with the taxpayers by offering dramatic reforms on doing business.

Learning from the experience of their neighbors to the south, the Los Angeles County supervisors ought to put together a “contract” with the taxpayers: Reforms of past budgetary errors like pension spiking will be joined by further attempts at privatization, consolidation of departments, sale of assets and attempts to convert some of the money earmarked for Metro rail construction for county general fund purposes.

The supervisors are seeking authority from the state for revenue-raising power. This must be granted only within the context of overall reform. If taxing authority is granted by the state, it should be accompanied by the elimination of mandates that set local government spending requirements, provisions that strip supervisors of flexibility.

Specifically, the supervisors want the power to tax alcoholic beverage consumption--a tippler’s tax. As an emergency tax, this is better than others because it is not universal: If you don’t drink, you don’t pay. People living in difficult financial circumstances can avoid the tax. It is not like putting a tax or assessment on property with a lien attached, punishing a taxpayer who can’t afford to pay. The supervisors are considering such a measure--a special assessment for the county library system.

If the state grants the authority for a tippler’s tax, county voters should get a say on whether such a tax becomes permanent. The tax should appear on the ballot in the next available countywide election, the primary next March., to avoid the cost of a special election.

Thus the county would be assured of the tax for one fiscal year while spending reforms are implemented. After a March vote, four months before the next budget is due, the supervisors will know if they can count on the continuation of the tax or if they must immediately look for more savings.

By that time, a court decision on Proposition 187 will probably have been rendered, which could profoundly affect the dollars spent in the budget on illegal immigrants.

The vote next March should be a contract with Los Angeles County taxpayers, to allow the voters to confirm the changes in operating the county and the restructuring of the budget, along with voting on the tax.

Business as usual in the running of government, as Orange County has proved, is no longer acceptable.