Irked Lawmaker Drops Key O.C. Recovery Bills

By ERIC BAILEY and RENE LYNCH

April 20, 1995 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SACRAMENTO — A state lawmaker Wednesday dropped several key bills designed to assist Orange County with its bankruptcy recovery plans, citing frustrations with the county’s failure to provide information and assistance to push the measures quickly.

Sen. William A. Craven (R-Oceanside), a moderate who had been among Orange County’s strongest allies as it tries to climb out of its financial crisis, blasted the county in a letter to Chief Executive Officer William J. Popejoy.

Although the bankruptcy and financial crisis has been a “paramount concern” for state lawmakers, Craven said, the county has failed to help speed legislation needed to avoid defaulting on more than $1 billion in bond payments coming due this summer.

“I realize that the county may still feel that it is in a state of crisis, but I realize as well that your legislative efforts need to be considerably improved and better coordinated than they have been to date,” Craven said in the terse letter that caught Popejoy and other county officials by surprise. “I’ve expressed my frustrations repeatedly and have found that despite assurances to the contrary, little has changed.”

Craven, whose district includes a large swath of south Orange County, said he will be “focusing my legislative efforts elsewhere and recommend that you seek an author other than myself for those bills you deem essential to the county’s financial recovery.”

Popejoy immediately phoned Craven after he received the letter and apologized for any miscommunications, said Paul Nussbaum, a Popejoy adviser. Popejoy asked Craven to reconsider, pledging that the county would do all it could to assist him, Nussbaum said.

“It’s very unfortunate and an issue of miscommunication and lack of coordination on our part,” said Nussbaum. “We are disappointed by the letter and we’re disappointed it was critical of our legislative efforts. But this legislation is too important for us to not attempt to improve our communications with Sen. Craven.”

Popejoy did not return phone calls seeking comment.

It remained unclear what information or assistance Craven needed. He was carrying several bills on the county’s behalf, including a controversial measure that would allow the county to avoid state environmental reviews of a trash hauling plan designed to yield $360 million in revenue.

The lawmaker was also expected to introduce a bill this week to help cement financing arrangements needed to assuage the concerns of Wall Street firms the county will solicit for financing.

Some observers said that Craven may have been under pressure by his South County constituents to back away from the trash-hauling bill, which he introduced earlier this month and which was set to be heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee next week.

Supervisor Marian Bergeson said she was unaware until Wednesday that Craven had any problems with county officials.

“I have an especially good relationship with Sen. Craven, and I hope he would feel comfortable with calling me at any time,” she said. “But I haven’t been able to get anything specific in terms of what he needed and didn’t get.”

Both Nussbaum and Bergeson said they are hopeful Craven will reconsider his stance, but they added that they would reluctantly seek another author for their bills if necessary.

“These are high-priority bills,” Bergeson said. “We will make certain that there is an author, and I hope Sen. Craven would continue to take that role. If not, we will have to find someone else who will.”

One county official who asked to remain anonymous questioned Craven’s comments, saying the supervisors have been working nonstop to get the legislation passed.

“What more can the supervisors do?” the official said. “They’ve gone up (to Sacramento) repeatedly, they’ve made themselves available to the Assembly and the Senate, they’ve met with (Assembly Speaker) Willie Brown. I’m not sure what more can be done.”

Craven’s legislation was only a small part of about two dozen other bills designed to help out Orange County. Among the others: legislation by state Sen. John R. Lewis (R-Orange) that would allow the county pay off $175 million in bond debt and collect an additional $60 million by shifting responsibility for collecting property taxes to a joint-powers authority; another Lewis bill that would set aside sales taxes and motor vehicle fees to pay off recovery notes; and a bill by Assemblyman Louis Caldera (D-Los Angeles) that would establish a finance authority to loan the county as much as $700 million.

Dennis Carpenter, Orange County’s lobbyist in Sacramento, characterized Craven’s decision to drop the legislation as “a bump on a ride downhill that’s been a series of bumps.” But he expressed optimism that new authors could be found for Craven’s bills.

“The most difficult part for me is this just isn’t Bill Craven’s style,” Carpenter said. “The man is a (former) Marine. You don’t leave the trenches under fire.”

Craven declined to talk at length about the letter. He would only say, “We can only do so much.”

Another Orange County lawmaker, who declined to be identified, called Craven’s decision “a big black eye for the county” and the latest sign of a growing split between the county’s state delegation and leaders of county government.

Last month, the Orange County delegation sent a stinging letter to Popejoy, voicing similar concerns about a lack of communication by the county. In addition, several of the county’s state lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the Board of Supervisors’ decision to hold a June 27 special election on a half-cent sales tax increase.

Craven’s top aide said that the senator has been troubled for weeks about the county’s recovery plan and the lack of any concrete contingency plans, as well as the inability to keep the 10-member legislative delegation up to speed on the recovery efforts.

“We’ve made repeated requests for information, the last a few weeks ago when we asked what has been done by the county to raise revenues in ways other than the half-cent sales tax increase,” said Scott Johnson, Craven’s chief of staff. “If they’re going to sell the sales tax, they not only have to sell the voters but also the legislators up here.”

Other officials suggested that Craven may have felt political pressure from constituents, who would see an increase in truck traffic leading to a dump site if a plan to import trash from San Diego, Los Angeles and other counties got the green light without the usual environmental reviews.

San Juan Capistrano Councilman Gil Jones said he was angry with Craven because the trash measure would have had a “disastrous” effect on one of the few cities that did not put its money in the county investment pool.

“That’s what really rubs us the wrong way, that they want us to pay for the money they squandered--I should say gambled,” Jones said, adding that businesses would have faced a crippling fee hike under the proposal.

“I’m glad to hear it,” he said of Craven’s decision.

Irvine City Manager Paul O. Brady Jr., a vocal opponent of the trash measure, said he believes that public pressure may have been behind Craven’s decision.

“There is enough concern in Orange County with respect to the impact, that this was probably brought about by the pressure,” he said. Craven “probably heard from his constituency that this was not in our best interest.”

Brady said his city was concerned about the negative impact of importing trash, including reducing the life span of landfills.

Johnson acknowledged that Craven was troubled by the trash hauling bill, which he called “highly controversial.” Noting that the bill’s language came directly from county officials, Johnson said “we perhaps would have drawn it a little more narrowly” so that the measure didn’t completely skirt California Environmental Quality Act regulations.

“Bill was their best soldier,” Johnson said. “But how can you help those who don’t help themselves?”