County, Local Cities in Line for $2.6 Million

After years of state raids on their treasuries, Ventura County and its 10 cities are getting some money back.

The state will make payments totaling $1.6 million to local governments--money that can be used on such items as filling potholes, stocking library shelves and providing raises. Another $1 million is expected to arrive in the spring.

But local governments are hardly grateful.

The dollars represent a fraction of the estimated $300 million lost by the county, municipal governments and special districts since the state began shifting property taxes seven years ago, officials say. Although the state is flush with a surplus, Gov. Gray Davis and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have made no promise to stop the transfers, which continue to the tune of $72 million a year locally.

“This is a pennies-on-the-dollar return from the state,” said Marilyn Lueck, who oversees finances for the city of Ventura. “We don’t treat it as serious consideration for our loss.”

Ventura will get about $250,000 compared with the $7 million it has lost since 1993. County government is in line for about $1.2 million, but it has lost $256 million in property tax revenue.

Others view the distribution as an indication Sacramento is finally giving serious thought to a revamp of state and local governments’ tangled financial relationships. The bill that authorized the distribution to counties calls for a review of revenue agreements and a possible constitutional amendment that would return more money to local budgets.

“I take it as a signal from the Davis administration that this is an issue that they agree needs attention,” said Larry Siegel, a lobbyist for the county. “They weren’t prepared to address it in depth this session, but it looks like it will be higher on the forefront next year.”

A Davis administration spokeswoman said the governor called the outlay “an initial step to restore fiscal independence for local governments.”

Davis will consider helping counties and cities further by offering matching funds or partnerships in coming years, spokeswoman Hilary McLean said.

But he will not commit to returning the property tax dollars, she said.

“The governor has to look at the competing priorities he is faced with,” McLean said. “You never know when the state is going to face an economic downturn.”

The county Board of Supervisors will take the first step to receive the money through approval of a resolution at Tuesday’s meeting. Documents prepared by county Auditor Thomas Mahon show the state annually takes $50 million in property taxes from the county, $9.2 million from cities and $11.6 million from special districts that provide fire, water and sewage services.

Any action that begins to reverse that trend is welcome, Supervisor Frank Schillo said. The county’s budget is already about $2 million in the red, even though the budget year began just four months ago, Schillo said.

“We’ll take anything we can get and go after more next year,” Schillo said.

Local governments’ share of the first $75 million statewide distribution is $1.6 million. Camarillo is slated to receive $136,566, Fillmore $29,311, Moorpark $65,729, Ojai $18,208, Oxnard $351,520, Port Hueneme $50,185. Santa Paula $60,167, Simi Valley $241,823 and Thousand Oaks $261,142.

The state began taking billions of dollars in property taxes in 1992 to meet its obligation to public schools. The massive shift was approved by the Legislature and then-Gov. Pete Wilson to cover a $14-billion deficit in the state budget.

Boom times are back, but the state has been reluctant to return property tax revenues to cities and counties. But that may be changing, Siegel said. Term limits have resulted in new faces in the Legislature, many of whom cut their political teeth as city council members or county supervisors.

They are more sympathetic to the plight of local government, Siegel said. Last month a Superior Court judge in Sonoma County ruled property tax transfers were not legal. If the suit brought by Sonoma and other counties survives appeal, the state could face a bill of $10 billion to $12 billion.

That puts pressure on state lawmakers to craft new revenue-sharing agreements with local government, Schillo said.

“The state has crippled our ability to provide services,” the supervisor said. “Now that the state is flush with surplus, they should give it back. There should be no argument about it.”