City Lighting, Landscaping Taxes to Be Reconsidered

Arguing that some are paying too much, while others pay too little, a residents committee is asking the City Council to establish a new citywide tax system for public lighting and landscaping.

Currently, about 30% of Thousand Oaks home and business owners are paying to maintain the majority of Thousand Oaks’ public shrubbery, while about 77% are paying for all public lighting, according to the 18-member committee.

The proposal, to create citywide assessment districts for lighting and landscaping, would result in sharp cuts for those taxpayers--many of whom are now paying more than $140 a year.

But it would also result in new taxes of about $24 to $28 for many residents who are currently paying nothing--some of whom have no street lights or city shrubs in their neighborhoods.

“It was the fairest way that we could come up with,” said committee Chairman Otto Stoll, who added he would have to pay an additional $24 under the proposal. “I can’t think of any other way to do it that could be more equal.”

But critics say the real beneficiary would be the city, which would save as much as a half-million dollars that it now spends on lighting and landscaping.

“This is another creative gimmick by city management to get more money,” Councilwoman Elois Zeanah said. “That’s all this is.”

For the assessment districts to become a reality, the concept would first have to be approved by the City Council, then by two- thirds of Thousand Oaks voters in November. The council, which will discuss the issue later this month, is divided over the committee’s recommendation.

Councilwomen Zeanah and Jaime Zukowski are opposed to the districts, arguing that it is wrong to tax everyone for a service only some enjoy.

“It is not fair for several reasons,” Zeanah said. “In essence, it’s taking from the poor to give to the rich. It’s going to hit the older sections of the community so the newer sections can pay less.”

Mayor Andy Fox and council members Mike Markey and Judy Lazar said last week that they were in favor of at least considering the new system, arguing that nothing could be more fair than to have everyone pay their share, since all Thousand Oaks residents benefit from lighting and landscaping.

So, what is considered a fair share? The committee anticipated that residents in areas with no public street lights or city-planted shrubs and trees would not be happy about paying for those services in other neighborhoods, and came up with a tiered tax system.

Under the proposed system, everyone would pay a base amount to maintain the street lights and shrubbery at the city’s gateways and main thoroughfares.

However, only those who lived or owned businesses in areas with public lighting or landscaping would pay an additional fee. Apartment and condominium owners would pay less than owners of single-family residences, and businesses would pay fees depending on their size.

Zeanah said that the current way of paying for public lighting and landscaping must not be too controversial because no one has ever complained to her about it. She believes the true purpose of the assessment districts is to create a new source of revenue for Thousand Oaks.

“This is another form of a hidden tax,” Zeanah said. “I’m tired of having a new tax assessed on the citizenry every time I turn around. We’re a wealthy community already. We don’t need new taxes.”

Indeed, the assessment districts would help ease the burden on Thousand Oaks’ general fund, which currently contributes about $1 million a year for lighting and landscaping, according to city officials.

Under the committee’s proposal, only 33% of the landscaping budget and none of the lighting costs would be paid for with general fund money--an estimated savings of $400,000 to $500,000 for the city.