An ‘Assessment’--or a Tax?

Beyond the immediacy of election news in Orange County lies an emerging political and fiscal challenge in this young year. Residents suddenly are finding themselves on the spot to pay more for city and school services that they once thought were part of the established package of property and other taxes and special fees.

Elected officials in some cities and jurisdictions, such as Irvine, are under new pressure to justify requests for more revenue. They had better be prepared to explain why they can’t make do with what they have as they seek ways around limits imposed by initiatives.

For homeowners and parents of schoolchildren, the lesson of the hour seems to be that you get what you pay for--but maybe only that. And for one city’s political and bureaucratic leadership, there is a reminder for those in government that a tax by any name stirs the hackles of those who must pay.

This battle over fees for services that were once thought to be basic highlights a changing relationship between citizens and those who tax them.

There was a time when art, music and street lights were staples of everyday life.

Today, they are beginning to look more like “options” on a car, the equivalent of choosing headlights as extras from a dealer.

Citizens baffled by this fundamental shift will understand readily what this is all about if the bottom line on their property tax bills goes up because a new “assessment” has been tacked on. But the underlying relationship between state revenue and local services that prompts this crisis is very complex.

It is shaped not only by ballot initiatives and legal interpretations in their aftermath, but also by the changing fortunes of the state economy.

Irvine is feeling the pain at the local level in city and school services as a result of budgetary problems that have to do both with what happens in Sacramento and because of its own local choices on how to tax and spend.

Witness an e-mail campaign started by a group of parents in January, asking $100 for each of the Irvine Unified School District’s 24,000 students as part of an attempt to make up for more than $5 million in recent cuts.

In 1999 and 2000, already on notice that the city faced drastic cuts in extras such as art and music, city voters were asked to pay a parcel tax to close the gap. Those measures failed, but the state’s financial position continued to deteriorate and there were fewer contributions to the Irvine Public Schools Foundation.

In January, the bottom line caught up with the district. It closed an elementary school, cut science, art and music programs and increased class sizes. Ahead lies the prospect of teacher layoffs.

In the Saddleback Valley Unified District, a similar fund-raising effort seeks $50 from each district family to address $8 million in cuts. One hundred eighty-six nonunion teaching jobs and music and science programs were cut.

These are districts that have prided themselves on excellence. Suddenly, individuals must decide whether to pay extra for what once were basics. But if excellence has a price, at least the more affluent communities have the opportunity of making a choice. Poorer districts may not be so lucky.

Nowhere is the new definition of what is “basic” more evident than at the city level in Irvine.

Property owners currently are reviewing mail ballots that give them until April 9 to decide whether to increase their property assessments for maintenance of parks, sidewalks and street lights. Some are grumbling already.

Most voters are unschooled in the nuances of such citizen limits on taxation as Proposition 13 and the provisions of Proposition 218. Now the choices are coming home to roost.

City officials inclined to go to voters to keep the streets paved may be able to ask once for an extension of an existing assessment, as is happening in Irvine, but surely there will be limits to taxpayer patience.

Already one council member is insisting that the city make tougher choices itself before going back to the well.

In the school district, there are rumblings of recall for some board members. And with the requests for more money for bond measures and for school programs, sooner or later something has to give.