Supervisors Asked to Back Liquor Surtax : Proposition 134: A board member tells her colleagues that under-funded programs need the money. But four vintners say they can’t afford the levy.

County Supervisor Maggie Erickson wants fellow supervisors to take what she calls a rare action--a stand in favor of a ballot proposition to further tax alcoholic beverages.

Erickson has asked that the supervisors pass a resolution Tuesday urging support of Proposition 134, which goes to the voters in the Nov. 6 general election.

The measure would establish a surtax on beer, wine and liquor, equivalent to “a nickel a drink,” according to promoters. The additional revenue from the new tax would fund alcohol and drug abuse programs, along with health, mental health and law enforcement efforts.

The ballot proposition has drawn strong opposition from the alcoholic beverage industry in California, including several small wineries that operate in Ventura County.

Erickson said the measure, if approved, would generate $730 million statewide within the first year. Of that, $11.2 million would come to Ventura County.

Erickson supports the measure partly because hefty state funding cuts have stripped the county of needed funds to support local programs and services.

Because of the money Proposition 134 would bring to the county’s under-funded programs, “I believe it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a position on this measure, an action we only rarely take,” she said in a letter seeking the resolution.

The measure would increase the existing tax on beer from 4 cents to 57 cents per gallon, on most wines from 1 cent to $1.29 per gallon and on liquor from $2 to $8.40 per gallon.

The revenue would go into an alcohol surtax fund that allots 24% for alcohol and drug abuse treatment and prevention, 15% to assist victims of alcohol abuse, 15% for mental health programs, 21% for law enforcement and 25% for medical services.

In addition, federal administration and congressional proposals, still changing as legislators work out a federal budget package, call for up to another $1.27 per gallon in federal liquor tax increases.

The wine industry projects that surtaxes at the production level will translate into a $2-per-bottle increase at the retail level, causing sales to drop by 15%, said Jerry Vorpal, vice president of the Wine Institute, a San Francisco-based wine industry association.

Owners of four of Ventura County’s five small wineries, which produce about 20,000 cases of wine per year, told The Times this week that they cannot afford to pay the increased taxes.

The wineries now sell their wine at $6 to $15 a bottle. If prices are increased $2, they argue that they would be forced into a higher price bracket in competition with the better-known wineries of Northern California.

“If both of those taxes pass, we’re pretty well through,” said Charles Branham, part-owner of the Old Creek Ranch Winery in Oak View and a biology teacher at Ventura’s Buena High School. “It just really does a number on us.”

With area winemakers already operating on narrow profit margins, the higher cost of production combined with lower sales could wipe out the county’s wine industry, said John Daume, owner of the Daume Winery in the Las Posas industrial area of Camarillo.

“You know how I deal with that?” asked Daume, who boasts of “winemaking in the French tradition” to produce 2,500 cases a year at his winery. “I take the key to my winery and put it in an envelope and say, ‘Come and get it; it’s yours.’ ”

The county’s largest winery, the Leeward Winery in Ventura, generates enough sales at 13,500 cases per year to absorb the higher taxes and lower revenues, said winemaker Brooks Painter. But money will be tight.

“The wine industry is not a big money-making industry,” he said. “If we could have raised our prices before now and maintained sales, we would have.”

Ed Pagor, owner of the Rolling Hills Winery that produces about 2,000 cases per year in a Camarillo industrial area, complained that Ventura County winemakers would lose sales to lower-priced imports from Chile or Argentina, which now are $6 to $9 per bottle.

Adam Tolmac, who owns Ojai Vineyards, regarded as the smallest of the county’s wineries, could not be reached for comment

Supporters of the proposed tax increase include the Ventura County and state chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the California Council on Alcohol Problems and the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen.

They argue that the majority of Californians who drink infrequently or moderately will pay no more than an extra 35 cents a week if the state tax passes. And the money is vitally needed for alcohol abuse and other programs, they say.

Proposition 134 proponents say it is precisely the small wineries, such as those in Ventura County, that will be least affected by the tax hike.

“Our tax is a nickel a drink, which adds up to about 27 cents per bottle,” said Kermit Newman, deputy campaign director for Yes On 134. “If you’re a small winery putting out a nice bottle of wine for $9, people are not going to stop buying it if it costs $9.27.

“Wine industry studies show that the big low-end producers such as Gallo are going to be the hardest hit. If you put out a $2 wine, the tax is going to be over 10%. If your bottle costs $10, the tax is going to be about 2.5%,” Newman said.

Moreover, Newman said, about three-fourths of the wine produced in California is exported out of state and wine exports are not subject to taxes.

“Alcohol causes a tremendous damage to our communities and it’s about time that the people who use alcohol pay for the consequences,” Newman said.

Times staff writer Santiago O’Donnell contributed to this story.