Supervisors Approve Tax Collection Fee : Budget: Public agencies will be charged the fee in order to raise revenue, but school districts say they will bear the brunt.

Despite accusations from an overflow crowd of school officials and parents that county officials were trying to balance their budget “on the backs of our children,” the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to charge public agencies $16.5 million to collect their property taxes.

The supervisors said they need to impose the administrative fee immediately to raise more revenue in an extraordinarily tough fiscal year, especially since the state is cutting revenues to the county by $22.5 million.

“We care about education,” Board Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez said. “We’re parents here, too--some of us grandparents. We’re all concerned about education, but the reality is we’ve been dealt a very severe blow from the state.”

The new fee will be taken out of the property taxes that the county collects for cities, school districts, community redevelopment agencies, maintenance districts, sanitation districts, library districts and other special districts.

But county schools Supt. John F. Dean said school districts will bear the biggest chunk of the burden.

According to Dean, Orange County’s 32 school districts will pay $9.7 million in the new fee, which is a loss in revenues of $660 per classroom, or the equivalent of salaries for 250 teachers, or 20% of the total amount budgeted for books, classroom supplies and other educational services at all the districts.

“Other agencies being assessed the fee can pass on those charges,” he said. “Schools are prevented, by law, from charging fees for services or supplies. Our 500,000 children are the losers. . . . Our only solution is to reduce or eliminate educational services to pay for having our taxes collected.”

Supervisors heard from Dean and about 20 other school board members and parents who said that school districts are already facing a budget crisis. They noted that Gov. Pete Wilson already has proposed a $1.4-billion reduction in funding statewide for schools for next year.

Supervisors bristled at suggestions that they were not concerned about the county’s children.

“Have you ever stopped to think that the county is a partner with you in caring for children?” Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder said. “We take care of the children through our health programs and disease control. Diseases are not rampant in this county. We run the county’s Social Services Department. We run the County Health Department.”

“But we’re not left with much choice today,” she said before voting to impose the fees.

The county is imposing the tax collection fee through the same authority it used to impose a jail booking fee on cities for the cost of incarcerating their suspected criminals. The county expects to collect $2.1 million in the booking fee and $16.5 million in the new property tax administration fee.

While the state slashed money it allocated to each county, a bill adopted by the Legislature last year, SB 2557, allows counties to make up for the shortfall through certain new fees, such as charging for property tax collection.

The supervisors also reminded parents and school officials that the county’s budget crisis has hurt other county programs and services.

Helen Cameron, president of the Irvine Unified School District Board of Trustees, told the supervisors that with the passage of SB 2557, “you have been handed a fiscal hunting license to hunt on members of the community.”

For her district, Cameron said, the reduction in tax monies will mean classrooms will be cleaned only every other day. It will mean fewer media specialists, a reduction in science specialists and a $255,000 reduction for paper supplies.

The supervisors told the school officials that they should be taking their complaints to state legislators or to the voters to come up with more money for education.

Said Supervisor Roger R. Stanton: “I was appalled and share your disgruntlement with how the legislators have shabbily treated the schools and children. But quite frankly, there’s little we can do as a board. . . . We have been placed in a very awkward position. Taking a stand here doesn’t do any good.”

Nancy Hines, a parent from the Saddleback Unified School District, said the elementary school her child attends already faces the possibility of sharing a principal with another school. A further reduction in revenues will be critical, she said.

“The fee is wrong, and we all know it’s wrong,” she said. “A child’s education should not be taxed.”

Terry Sergent, who is both a parent in the Orange Unified School District and a county employee, added: “Let’s not balance the budget on the backs of our children. We are already witnessing a no-frills brand of education.”

The school officials urged the supervisors to hold off on voting on the increased fees because other legislative measures are pending in Sacramento that could protect the school districts from such fees. Also, school officials from throughout the state, including state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, joined forces in a lawsuit filed last month in a Sacramento Superior Court that challenges portions of SB 2557.

But the supervisors said that time was running short for them, too.

“Our backs are against the wall,” Supervisor Don R. Roth said. “I don’t think we have any opportunity to hold this up. . . . It isn’t us making the decision that we want to take funding from the schools. But we didn’t approve SB 2557. Your state elected officials did.”