Lawmakers OK Restoring $430 Million to the Budget

SACRAMENTO —  After weeks of infighting and partisan wrangling, the Legislature early Thursday gave surprisingly easy final approval to a $430-million budget restoration bill and separate bills creating a new system of financing local trial courts in California.

The budget legislation was sent to Gov. George Deukmejian on unanimous votes in both the Assembly and Senate just before the Legislature adjourned for the year. Acting shortly after 3 a.m., the Assembly approved the budget legislation 74 to 0. The vote in the Senate was 33 to 0.

The $430-million budget package will provide more money for trial courts, health, higher education, prisons and other programs. It restores many of the programs cut from the $44-billion state budget by Deukmejian and the Legislature in the wake of an unexpected dropoff in tax revenues earlier this year.

Agreement Hammered Out

The way for easy passage was cleared when Deukmejian Chief of Staff Michael R. Frost and legislative leaders hammered out an agreement just hours before the Legislature was scheduled to adjourn for the year.

Deukmejian spokesman Kevin Brett said: “We’re very pleased. We got everything we wanted.”

Votes on two trial court funding bills generated a little more opposition, but not much. The two bills passed 66 to 5 and 72 to 1 in the Assembly. The votes in the Senate were 27 to 7 and 32 to 0.

One of the two trial court bills, carried by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), will give counties $206.5 million to support the trial court system and pay for the addition of 109 superior, municipal and appellate judges, along with support staff, to the court system to ease congestion.

The Brown bill also provides a financial windfall for cities that now receive little or no property tax revenues. The provision to help these so-called “no and low” property tax cities was added to the bill in a high-pressure lobbying campaign financed by city officials who believe that they have been shortchanged by the state over the years.

Along the way, other amendments were added to the Brown bill so that it became known as a legislative Christmas tree.

The legislation contains a controversial provision designed to make it more difficult for the city of Irwindale to float a bond issue to finance a new football stadium for the Los Angeles Raiders. It also provides that Alameda and Contra Costa counties transfer a portion of their court aid to provide operating revenues for the Oakland Zoo. And it allows counties to raise criminal fines $1 for every $10 collected to provide extra funding for emergency medical care facilities.

The Brown bill was so loaded down with extra political goodies that it ran into strong opposition in the Senate and failed to get enough votes for passage on the first roll call.

Most of the opposition centered on the extra money in the bill for “no and low” growth property tax cities. The money for the cities, to be phased in over seven years, will come from a share of property tax money now received by counties. At the end of seven years, cities will receive 7 cents of each $1 in property taxes collected in their cities.

Opponents of the city financial aid package pointed out that most counties in the state are struggling financially, while many of the cities benefiting by the bill are among the most affluent in the state. Among the 100 or so cities receiving aid under the bill are Irvine, Thousand Oaks and the desert communities of Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage.

In the end, Speaker Brown, noting the beneficial effect the legislation will have on the court system, called the trial court funding bill “the most significant piece of legislation we have moved through the two houses.”

The second part of the trial court funding package, carried by Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside), repeals earlier legislation dealing with the courts and sets out state requirements on counties choosing to accept the financial aid.

Counties have the option of not participating in the new state program if they decide that it is too costly to share their property tax revenues with cities.