Growing County Struggling for State Funds : Legislature: Lacking the clout of more populous regions, the area has trouble getting funds for courts, welfare and health services.

When Ventura County officials head to the state Capitol, they say their top priority is to appeal to increasingly stingy state officials for a larger slice of revenue for vital programs.

“In general terms, when I think of Sacramento, I think ‘please send money’ ,” said Ventura County Supervisor Susan Lacey.

Indeed, Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia), whose district includes Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley and Camarillo, said Ventura County officials “are always up here with a tin cup.”

But county officials who lobby in Sacramento face an uphill fight.

As one veteran lobbyist, who asked not to be identified, put it: “In the great scheme of things,” Ventura County doesn’t have much “pop” to influence lawmakers, especially those from other parts of the state.

Among the reasons cited by lawmakers, lobbyists and county officials are the county’s relatively small, five-member legislative delegation; the unwillingness of larger, more urban counties to surrender money; and geographic isolation from Sacramento that reduces the county’s visibility in the Capitol.

County Administrative Officer Richard Wittenburg, a former county lobbyist, acknowledged that it is “hard to compete with Los Angeles” because it is represented by more than 40 legislators.

Sen. Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara), whose district covers parts of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties, agreed that “the more numbers you have” in the Legislature “the more potential influence you’ll have.”

But the county--the state’s 11th largest with about 637,000 people--would face the same financial predicament even if its delegation doubled, asserted Fred Silva, chief fiscal adviser to Senate President Pro Tem. David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles).

In the long-term, Ventura County cannot squeeze more money out of the state “without stealing it” from other counties or changing the provisions of Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax initiative, Silva said.

But legislators have been wary of tinkering with a property tax-sharing formula put into law after the passage of Proposition 13. At the time, the Legislature, in effect, cemented into place the way the money was being split up by counties.

As a result, Ventura County government receives 28 cents--5 cents less than the state average--of every dollar, which in the last fiscal year amounted to $93.6 million, according to the state Board of Equalization. The remainder of property tax revenue is divided among cities, schools and special districts in the county, such as flood control or fire districts.

When the formula was established, some counties--especially the largest ones--had larger mental health and social programs than smaller counties such as Ventura, which established the disparity, said Peter Schaafsma, a state analyst whose office conducts budget reviews for the Legislature.

Over time, he said, the gap has widened. Now, Ventura and other growing counties want to expand vital services, “but the state won’t give them the funding,” Schaafsma said.

According to Elizabeth Hill, a legislative analyst who reviews the state budget for lawmakers, the state provided $100 for each Ventura County resident for programs including courts, welfare and health in the 1987-88 fiscal year. By comparison, Santa Barbara County received $146, Los Angeles County $148 and the statewide average was $145 per person in the 1987-88 fiscal year, the last one for which statistics were available.

Sen. Davis dismissed these differences, saying the state’s 58 counties are not necessarily entitled to an equal share of money from the state because they have varying needs. For example, he said, suburban Thousand Oaks does not need as much money to help the homeless as Oakland’s inner city.

But Ventura County’s Wittenburg said the state has increased the burden on county government to provide services, such as health care for the poor, while failing to supply adequate funds. “The mandates of the state have put all counties in jeopardy,” Wittenburg said.

Despite the inequities, county officials and lawmakers say their situation is less severe than such financially strapped counties as Butte in Northern California, which is on the verge of financial collapse. And area lawmakers say they have met with some success at chipping away at the problem.

For example, a 1988 funding package was designed to address the way trial courts are financed. It provided more than $200 million in extra state money to counties, financed 109 new judgeships, including one municipal judgeship in Ventura County, and provided a windfall to cities that levy little or no property tax.

The bill by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) gave Ventura County a special break because it has a higher percentage of residents--40%--living in the no- and low-property-tax cities, such as Thousand Oaks and Camarillo, than in any other urbanized county.

Because the county would have had a higher share of property taxes redirected to these cities, Brown inserted a provision in his bill to ensure that Ventura County benefits to the tune of about $5 million a year. It was designed so that the county’s “resources wouldn’t be drained,” said Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria), whose district includes Oxnard, Fillmore and Santa Paula.

But about six weeks ago, auditors for state Controller Gray Davis discovered that the provision had been canceled by another law. Now, O’Connell and Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) are seeking passage of a bill to restore the original agreement. It has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting action by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Otherwise, the county could lose an estimated $700,000 this year, according to Wright’s office.

In the long run, Hart said “the real answer” to Ventura County’s predicament is to revise the property tax system. With that goal in mind, Hart earlier this month won passage of a Senate resolution to establish a commission to develop alternatives to the present system.

The aim of the commission is to find ways to maintain the protection given homeowners by Proposition 13, to adequately finance essential public services and to reduce or eliminate inequities among counties.

“What I hope is we can figure out better ways to have greater discretion for counties,” Hart said.