CAO’s Report Urges Ventura to Pay Its Share of Sales Tax

Hoping to avert a nasty showdown and persuade the city of Ventura to pay its fair share of sales tax, county Chief Administrative Officer Harry Hufford released a report Monday highlighting the benefits the city gets from being the seat of county government.

But Hufford may be too late.

Ventura County supervisors warned Monday that if the city follows through on its decision last month to withhold $572,000 in annual sales tax revenue and expects not to suffer any consequences, it’s dead wrong.

“We are ready to play some hardball here,” said Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Kathy Long. “It’s unconscionable that the city would have taken this action for a pittance in sales tax.”

The report says that city residents on the county payroll take home $102 million annually, the county pays $18 million in annual retirement pay to Ventura residents, and the county pays $2 million a year for property it leases from Ventura landlords.

Hufford said he hopes those examples will encourage the Ventura City Council to reconsider its decision. Facing a budget crunch, the city kept the money for its own projects.

Ventura’s decision counters an agreement from the 1950s in which local cities and the county agreed to exchange services for a portion of a city’s sales tax. The cities give up $3.30 per every $1,000 in sales tax to the county’s general fund.

Although Ventura’s sales tax contribution is a minuscule part of the $1.07-billion county budget, Hufford said he fears it will set a precedent.

“I have heard city managers say they don’t want to do this, but if Ventura does, they will face questions on why they shouldn’t,” Hufford said.

To counter that, the 19-page report shows how county government works for city residents.

It explains the role of the county clerk, the assessors, the Sheriff’s Department, health and immunization programs, and even the weights and measures department.

Hufford called the report a kind of marketing device for the county that focuses on what the county does for its cities.

“Our function is not generally popular, but it is an essential part of civil society,” he said.

He warned Ventura against “cannibalizing” revenue streams, pointing a finger at the state.

A report from the auditor-controller, released in May, shows that in the 1999-2000 fiscal year the county will lose about $54.3 million and the cities nearly $10 million in property taxes from the state’s using part of that money for education.

Since the 1992-93 fiscal year, Hufford said, the county has lost $353.5 million and the cities $60 million.

On Monday, proponents of an initiative that would return control of the sales tax money to local governments began circulating a petition to try and get the measure on the ballot.

Despite Hufford’s attempt to market the county, Ventura city officials show no signs of budging.

Ventura City Atty. Bob Boehm said there has been no rethinking of the council’s decision to keep the money.

As for the warning from supervisors that the city would pay somewhere down the line for this move, Boehm said, “It would be very unfortunate if they did that. They will have to pay the piper and that is the people.”

Hufford said the county is looking into its legal options but wouldn’t give details.

Long said if the city refuses to pay, the board would choose to locate any new county expansion in other local cities.

“You can bet it won’t be in the city of Ventura,” she said.

Supervisor Judy Mikels said the entire Ventura plan seems ill-conceived.

“It’s a slap in the face,” she said. “It’s a gamble. We are not going to roll over.”

Supervisor Susan Lacey, whose district includes part of Ventura, said it wasn’t wise for the city to endanger a good relationship with the county for a relatively small amount of money.

“We all work for the same group of folks,” Lacey said, referring to county residents. “I think there is a way to work this out where we can all come out ahead.”