Government Overhaul Gains Support : Reform: Constitution Revision Commission’s proposal to allow local agencies to merge gets a favorable review at public hearing. However, representatives of special districts oppose the idea.

A sweeping proposal to overhaul local government in California won general support during its first legislative hearing Tuesday, but many key groups withheld any formal endorsement until they learn details of how the plan would work.

There was little dispute among the witnesses appearing before the Assembly Local Government Committee that the state’s multilayered system of 7,000 governmental units has become dysfunctional, with demands for services far outstripping their ability to raise money.

The bankruptcy of Orange County and the deep fiscal plight of Los Angeles County repeatedly were cited as extreme examples of fiscal woes facing local government throughout the state.

The commission is recommending giving local voters broad new authority to create “charter community” governments, with taxing power, to provide a wide variety of local services. But when William Hauck, chairman of the California Constitution Revision Commission, was asked if he believed the proposal was politically feasible, he said, “I haven’t the faintest idea.”

But Hauck added that if reform efforts were abandoned just because they ran into political opposition, “nothing is going to happen.”

The local government reform plan has been developed by the Constitution Revision Commission over the past year as part of a broader attempt to modernize state government.

The goal is to put the reforms before voters in a series of proposed constitutional amendments on the 1996 general election ballot. Other dramatic changes proposed include the merging of the two houses of the state Legislature into a one-body, or unicameral, legislature.

The reforms would have to win approval of two-thirds of the members of both the Senate and Assembly to get onto the ballot.

Hauck, in explaining the commission’s concept of the new “charter community” government, said the idea is to allow local voters to fashion their governments in ways that best fit the needs and financial resources of their areas.

With voter approval, the charter community could combine various functions of a city government, a county, one or more school districts and a variety of special districts. Or several counties with common problems or goals could form their own charter government to deal with broader issues such as transportation or air quality, the plan’s proponents said.

The major incentive to do so would be that the new governments could collect their own taxes at the local level and spend them without dictates from state government in Sacramento.

But the plan ran into skepticism among members of the committee.

Assemblyman Steven T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes) said that local governments have the power to join forces now to attack common problems through municipal annexations or joint powers agreements.

With the commission’s plan, he said, “I see us creating another level of government. We already have cities and counties and districts. Why create another layer?”

Commission Vice Chairman Donald Benninghoven, who also spoke on behalf of the League of California Cities, countered: “There would be less government. There would be more understandable government.”

The plan got significant support from the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, a coalition of business and labor groups that has been studying its own reforms in state and local government.

David Booher, a consultant on that study, said there is nothing more important to businesses in deciding to remain in California than the creation of a stable and workable system of local government.

The most outspoken opposition from the 14 interest groups appearing came from representatives of the 5,000 special districts in the state that deal with everything from firefighting to mosquito abatement. Eliminating many of those districts--usually by folding them into city or county government--has long been a major goal of municipal reformers.

Michael C. Glaze of Oroville, speaking for the association of special districts, insisted that no district should be eliminated until it was proved that another government unit could do the job better.

The problem in California is not too many governmental units, just that there is too much government, Glaze said.

Assemblyman Thomas M. Hannigan (D-Benicia) responded: “This testimony is why there is no chance for change. Your vision is narrow.”

Assemblywoman Marilyn C. Brewer (R-Irvine) said “you’d better be a part” of the reform process or the Legislature might take unilateral action against such districts.

The Constitution Revision Commission holds the last of its fall hearings in Sacramento on Thursday. The group will then write a final proposal to be submitted to the Legislature this winter.