City Officials Decry County Library Tax Plan

City leaders across Ventura County were skeptical and outright critical Thursday of the county supervisors’ plan to impose a special tax on property owners to pay for library service.

Although each of the cities served by the county Library Services Agency can choose whether to join the special benefit assessment district, many mayors and council members complained that the public should vote on any new taxes.

“It’s wrong to try to circumvent the vote of the people,” Fillmore Mayor Roger Campbell said. “The benefit assessment district should go to a vote.”

At a meeting of the county Council of Governments on Thursday, elected officials listened to a 50-minute briefing on a survey concluding that voters would support the assessment plan backed earlier this week by a majority of the county Board of Supervisors. The proposal could raise more than $5 million a year specifically for the libraries.

No decision was made by the Council of Governments, although members pledged to take the information back to their respective boards.

Even so, many elected city officials polled by The Times oppose the plan to tax landowners $33 a year per parcel--at least without a vote of the people.

“If you approve the assessment district, you’re just going back to pre-Prop. 13 days, when if bureaucrats decided they needed more money, they just put it on your taxes,” Moorpark Councilwoman Eloise Brown said.

Most city officials acknowledged that the library system needs help because the agency has seen its budget cut by more than $4 million in recent years. But some said the system needs to be completely revamped, while others said it should be run by volunteers.

“It’s a precious resource that we’ve let dwindle to an unacceptable level,” Moorpark Mayor Paul Lawrason said. But that doesn’t mean he supports the tax. “I think it needs to go to a vote. I don’t favor it being put in place legislatively.”

*

The supervisors voted Tuesday to lay the groundwork for the benefit assessment district, acknowledging that it could be overturned if an anti-tax measure on the statewide ballot this November passes. That initiative would require a popular vote on such assessments.

The board’s decision came on a 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Frank Schillo and Judy Mikels dissenting. Supervisors Susan K. Lacey, Maggie Kildee and John K. Flynn said proceeding with the tax will allow the county to continue planning on a future revenue source for libraries. A study now underway will help define the proposed district.

The board members also pointed to the recent telephone survey as evidence that the tax is supported by residents. Survey results showed that--after being informed about the libraries’ desperate needs--71% of respondents said they would pay $35 a year to support the system.

An analyst in the county chief administrative office concluded earlier that the Board of Supervisors has the authority to impose a benefit assessment district without a vote of the public.

But, analyst Terry Dryer told supervisors, the district could be overturned if 50% of property owners affected oppose the new tax.

*

In addition, councils in the cities served by the county library system--Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, Ventura, Moorpark, Camarillo and Fillmore--would have to approve the new tax before any landowners in the city would pay the assessment.

“There’s no way that I would approve a benefit assessment district,” Simi Valley Councilwoman Sandi Webb said before the countywide meeting. “If we were to have a benefit assessment district, it would have to go to the voters.”

Webb said the county supervisors proposing the tax should rethink their positions. “I think they’re nuts,” she said. “They don’t have the votes to put it through. They should have gone to the November ballot with it.”

At a meeting of the Camarillo City Council late Wednesday, council members complained bitterly about the proposal.

“I have a real problem putting a tax on the people without asking the people,” Councilman Stanley J. Daily said.

Councilwoman Charlotte Craven was disappointed that county officials have excluded cities from the process of funding the library system, which has seen its budget cut sharply in the last five years.

“We’re going to be the ones with the blame” from angry constituents, Craven said. “If they [county supervisors] want us to be involved, they should involve us from the beginning.”

Ventura Councilman Jim Monahan complained that the county is not doing enough to cut costs and streamline services at the 16 library branches serving the area.

*

“The system we have needs some overhauling,” Monahan said. “The head of the library system is making well over $100,000 a year, and that’s pretty heavy duty.”

What’s more, Fillmore’s Campbell said, the benefit assessment proposal clouds a separate plan pitched by Schillo to turn administration of the libraries over to the cities and schools.

“This is just confusing the whole library issue,” Campbell said. “It’s a shame that these three supervisors are harming the chances of a vote passing, and harming the chances to keep libraries open.”

Times correspondent David R. Baker contributed to this report.