COUNTY SEEKS CUT IN GENERAL RELIEF.

Byline: David Bloom Daily News Staff Writer

Arguing it's too poor to take care of its poorest residents, Los Angeles County is asking the state for permission to cut general relief grants by a fourth, from $285 to $212 a month.

The proposal would save the county $78 million over the next year, officials said.

County Supervisor Deane Dana, for one, said the cash-strapped county has been left with few options as it looks for ways to reduce a projected $1.1 billion shortfall in next year's budget.

"We've cut the sheriff, we've cut everyone as far as we can go," Dana said, referring to the county's $12.5 billion budget. "But when you're headed for a negative (fund balance) you've got to look for it (savings) anywhere you can get it."

Legal advocates for the poor, who prevailed in court last year after the county imposed a unilateral reduction in general relief in 1993, said the county could find a way to maintain funding for general relief payments.

". . . They definitely could find the money," said Richard Rothschild, director of litigation for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, which led a group of legal aid organizations in challenging the unilateral cuts in 1993.

The California Commission on State Mandates is expected to consider the county's request for new general relief cuts during a hearing Friday at the county Hall of Administration, just a few blocks from the Skid Row streets where many of the 90,000 general relief recipients live on the street or in transient hotels.

In its 500-page application to the commission, the county argues that it is being forced to cut the grants due to its own dire fiscal straits.

The county has laid off about 3,000 health and other workers in recent months, and made substantial reductions in virtually all its operations, said county Chief Administrative Officer Sally Reed.

Cutting the grants by 25 percent will save the county $25 million in the last third of this fiscal year, which ends June 30, and $53 million in the next fiscal year, Reed said. Any commission waiver is only good for 12 months.

Ironically, one of the county's largest potential expenses might be $160 million that advocates of the poor say the county owes general relief recipients.

The county unilaterally cut the grants between September 1993 and September 1995, arguing it could count the medical care it provides to general relief recipients as an "in-kind contribution" that counted toward the $285 grant total.

The county valued that contribution at $73 a month, and took it out of the grants as a way to save money back in 1993, when it was encountering serious budget problems.

Legal aid organization challenged the cuts, winning at the appeals court level. The state Supreme Court refused to review the case last summer, leaving the appeal court decision intact and forcing the county to restore the grants to the $285 level on Sept. 1, 1995.

Though no court date has been set, Rothschild said the advocates will attempt to force the county to reimburse general relief recipients for the money lost while the cut was imposed.

The California Commission on State Mandates could make a decision on the new proposed cut during the hearing Friday, or take it up a meeting set for Jan. 16 in Sacramento, said Kirk G. Stewart, executive director of the panel.

The commission has approved similar applications from Lassen, Sacramento and Alameda counties, but a preliminary injunction has held up the cut's implementation in Alameda County, Stewart said.