Critics Accuse Thousand Oaks of Trying to Hoard Tax Dollars : Projects: An expansion of the city Redevelopment Agency is planned. But county officials say the money could be better used elsewhere.

Attacking Thousand Oaks’ plans to expand its downtown Redevelopment Agency, Ventura County officials on Thursday suggested that the city is trying to hoard property tax dollars for frivolous beautification projects.

Representatives from the county’s community college and fire protection districts joined the protest, arguing that the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Redevelopment Agency siphons millions of dollars from vital services by keeping tax dollars within the city.

To extend the Redevelopment Agency, the Thousand Oaks City Council is prepared to declare a four-mile strip of the boulevard blighted. But county officials scoffed at that claim, since small businesses along the boulevard generate as much sales tax revenue as The Oaks mall.

“As a resident of Thousand Oaks, I want it to be a beautiful city, but I have a problem with the concept of economic and physical blight here,” said Abbe Cohen, fiscal manager for the Ventura County Fire Protection District, which lost $1.2 million this year to the Redevelopment Agency.

Cohen joined seven other county and special district officials on the Fiscal Review Committee, charged with evaluating Thousand Oaks’ proposal to expand its Redevelopment Agency.

A three-member majority on the Thousand Oaks City Council wants to prolong a 14-year-old downtown rehabilitation project by doubling the amount of money the Redevelopment Agency is entitled to absorb from property taxes along Thousand Oaks Boulevard.

The agency will reach its current ceiling of $265 million in 2009--and then, by law, would have to disband.

But Mayor Judy Lazar and Councilmen Alex Fiore and Frank Schillo hope to extend the agency’s life until 2023 by doubling that cap. They would also like to generate quick cash for agency projects by issuing $120 million worth of bonds, to be paid off over the next three decades with property tax dollars.

Neither action would raise taxes. But they would ensure that tax dollars culled from boulevard businesses are used to improve the commercial strip, rather than bolster the county’s general fund.

“We are already doing much more than our share of providing funds for the county’s budget,” Schillo said. “All we want is a small amount back to spend here in our city.”

By expanding the Redevelopment Agency, the city will be able to spruce up the boulevard and fulfill longstanding promises to build a theater at Thousand Oaks High School and a stadium at Westlake High School, Schillo said.

So far, the agency has picked up nearly half the tab for the $64-million Civic Arts Plaza, helped finance 1,200 homes for low- to moderate-income families, and paid for a smattering of cosmetic improvements to shopping plazas downtown.

Yet county and special district representatives vigorously object to Thousand Oaks’ plans. Instead of using redevelopment money, they said, the city should fork over dollars from its general fund for boulevard face lifts.

As they made clear in Thursday’s heated 90-minute session, county officials view redevelopment agencies as a black hole. By declaring “blight,” cities are able to suck up property tax dollars that would otherwise subsidize county services, from prosecutors to crossing guards, they said.

Although the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Redevelopment Agency passes 20% of the property-tax dollars it collects to the county, and roughly 5% each to the school and park district, the bulk of the money stays in the city.

Since its formation in 1979, the Redevelopment Agency has diverted $72 million from county coffers, senior county analyst Mary Walsh said. The proposed amendments would divert tens of millions of dollars more.

“You’re asking a lot out of agencies that don’t got a lot to give,” Walsh told Paul Farr, the city’s redevelopment associate.

In a heated exchange with Farr, representatives of the special districts insisted that extending the Redevelopment Agency would pack a double blow.

Even as the districts lost funding, demand for services would escalate, the officials argued. Any successful revitalization project would spark development and create need for more schools, firefighters, water and recreational facilities.

“Everyone in this room gets hammered when you make your city more attractive to development,” said Jim Rupp of the community college district.

But Farr responded that the city’s intended projects--including installing benches and better landscaping along Thousand Oaks Boulevard--would not necessarily create growth.

And Schillo argued that the county and districts would receive their fair share in the end, because spiffing up the boulevard would enhance property values--and therefore boost tax receipts--throughout the city.

Thursday’s meeting, which also included representatives from the county’s Flood Control District and the Calleguas Municipal Water District, was the first step in a comprehensive analysis of Thousand Oaks’ proposed action.

Although it will issue recommendations, the Fiscal Review Committee has no legal authority to prevent the Redevelopment Agency from expanding. So far, Lazar, Schillo and Fiore have remained resolute, despite opposition from Councilwomen Elois Zeanah and Jaime Zukowski.