Port Hueneme Council to Consider Renewing Disputed ‘View Tax’

The Port Hueneme City Council tonight will take up its infamous “view tax,” beginning the annual renewal process of the property tax levied on condominiums built close to the beach.

Council members must first arrange for a public hearing on the tax and do not expect the same level of angry cries of unfairness as when the council initially proposed and passed the innovative beach cleanup tax in 1991.

But the most vocal beachside residents are expected to speak out on the issue at the upcoming public hearing that is required for renewal of the special assessment district that attaches an extra fee on those homeowners closest to the surf and sand.

Dorothy Blake said shoreline property owners deeply resent the beach cleanup tax because all Port Hueneme residents have access to the beach and should pay equal amounts.

“There is still anger every time they get a tax bill,” said Blake of the owners of the condos and homes near the shore. “It’s a matter of fairness.”

Blake, a resident of Surfside I condominiums, and seven other homeowners have filed a lawsuit challenging the fairness of the Beach Maintenance Assessment District.

Specifically, the homeowners believe it is unfair for the city to impose assessments only on the 1,252 parcels located in an area bordered by Surfside Drive on the east and west, the ocean to the south and Port Hueneme Road to the north.

Depending on their homes’ size and proximity to the beach, residents in the neighborhood are levied between $79 and $206 a year.

“The people haven’t forgotten it,” Blake said. “I get calls all the time asking when it’s going to court.”

The suit’s trial is scheduled in June, about the same time the council is expected to hold hearings on the tax’s renewal.

Despite the lingering resentment, Port Hueneme City Manager Dick Velthoen said the city has few other options to raise money that is sorely needed at a time when the Legislature is expected to make deep cuts in aid to cities.

In the case of the beach assessment district, Velthoen said, it’s either cut maintenance at the beach or find other general fund services to cut.

“If the city doesn’t have enough money to paint the facility, to clean the sand off of the streets and parking lots, pay lifeguards, or pick up trash . . . we very well could have a situation (where the city may have) to close the beach.”

Ventura County Assessor Jerry Sanford once called the assessment “double taxation,” saying that the benefit of living close to the beach had already been factored into the cost of the properties in the area when the homes were purchased.

But Velthoen said the benefits of living close to the beach have grown as the city spent millions of dollars since the mid-1970s on such improvements as Bubbling Springs Recreation Corridor and Moranda Park. These improvements, Velthoen said, have helped boost the values of homes in the area.

City officials contend that the beach maintenance assessment district is no different from other cities’ special taxes for parks and lighting. And they contend the assessment is hardly precedent-setting, citing the 1972 law that grants the city the power to levy such a tax.

Nonetheless, Public Works Director Jack Duffy said that before the 1992-93 renewal process for the district, the word view was excised from the city engineer’s report because of flak that the city was getting over the district.

“We excised one factor of the total assessment,” Duffy said. “There are people three blocks away from the beach who are in the district who have no view. It’s based more on proximity (to the beach) and the size of the unit.”

The view “was the only thing people talked about,” Duffy said. “They blew it out of proportion. They made it sound like everything was based on the view. It was being misused.”

Yet Blake and other residents believe the assessment is worth challenging in court because it is unfairly applied.

Ann Miller, a resident of a Surfside III condominium, said she sympathizes with the city’s need to recoup lost state money, but disputes how the lost revenue is collected.

“Do it evenhandedly,” Miller said, referring to the fact that the $144,000 collected for the 1992-93 fiscal year only falls on her neighbors close to the beach.

If the city rescinds the district in its current form, Miller said she would urge the group to drop the suit. “But that doesn’t seem to be a possibility.”

Only one member of the council, Toni Young, has taken a position against the tax. Young says she agrees with oceanfront property owners that it’s unfair to tax part of the city for a benefit enjoyed by everyone.

At the April 7 council meeting, Young was the only one to vote against renewing the special assessment district. Councilman Dorill B. Wright, who owns property in the district, abstained from the vote because of concerns over a potential conflict of interest.

Councilman Ken Hess said he had reservations about renewing the district and would like to see it expanded into a citywide park maintenance district. But he joined Mayor Orvene Carpenter and Councilman Jim Daniels in seeking to renew the assessment.

Velthoen bristles at the lasting impression among city dwellers that the assessment is a view tax. “The views aren’t being assessed,” Velthoen said. “And it’s not a tax.”

A recent California Supreme Court decision upheld the use of special assessments to pay for specific civic chores, he said.

“Taxes can be used for general purposes,” Velthoen said. “Assessments have to be used for specific purposes. The specific purpose in this case is to maintain the beach.”