Home › News › County News
Sales tax increases again in the works
Three measures being considered to fund cities' services, county's roads
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsVentura County is littered with the hulks of failed tax measures, but the lack of success hasn't stopped local officials from trying again.
There are now at least three measures to raise money through local sales tax increases under consideration in Ventura County. They follow two failed attempts over the past few years to pass a countywide half-cent sales tax for transportation and Ventura and Santa Paula's failed attempts two years ago to pass utility taxes to fund public safety.
The current effort furthest along in the process is in Oxnard. City officials are spending $150,000 on a "public education" campaign to inform people about a proposal for a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for vital city services. The City Council will have to decide by July whether to place the measure on the November ballot.
In Port Hueneme, the city is spending about $40,000 to determine whether voters would support a local tax to help with the city's looming deficit. City officials could try for the November ballot or a special election sometime next year, if they decide to go forward with the plan.
But the biggest proposal in the mix is the Ventura County Transportation Commission's talks of a third try at a countywide half-cent sales tax that could net about $60 million annually for highway and mass transit improvements. That's not likely to be on the ballot until 2010.
So far, no city in Ventura County has increased its local sales tax. In California, 59 cities have won increases to the standard state sales tax rate of 7.25 percent. State law caps increases at 2 percent above that level, which no city has reached. Some in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County are up to 8.75 percent, according to state figures.
Efforts by local governments to raise money through what's called "transactions and use taxes" have been around for a long time, but the current downturn in the economy and the massive state budget deficit could make them more likely in the future.
"It's going to be rampant throughout the state," said Nancy Lindholm, president of the Oxnard Chamber of Commerce.
She said local governments have been forced to find other sources of revenue because of the state's "failure to be fiscally responsible."
Michael Coleman, a fiscal policy adviser for the League of California Cities, agreed. "We'll see more and we know more are coming because of the recession and the long-term fiscal issues with the state," he said.
Coleman emphasized that cities, school districts, counties and other special districts aren't doing this for quick fixes. The measures often stem from long-term needs, like road improvements to alleviate traffic or more police officers.
'We're not alone'
The need for a two-thirds voter approval used to make passage of special taxes difficult. A change in the law in 2003 allowed cities and some counties to more easily get on the ballot add-on taxes for general purposes. Such measures require a simple majority approval.
That is what the city of Oxnard is now considering, saying the added $10 million a year would go toward "vital city services" in the general fund.
Since 2003, according to a paper by Coleman, this type of tax has become a popular and successful revenue-raising tool for cities.
Port Hueneme Councilman Jon Sharkey points to a system of financing services in the state that leaves local governments few alternatives for raising money. The system can also exaggerate good financial times and make bad times seem much worse.
"We're not alone. You know every municipality is facing this right now," said Sharkey. "When our costs go up, we're not like a business. We can't just go and raise our prices."
While cities and counties can increase fees for services and utilities, the money must go toward those services. A city cannot use money paid for sewage and water service to pay for its library or police department, for instance.
'Tough to motivate voters'
Before people will support a new tax, there has to be what Sharkey said former Gov. Jerry Brown once called a "felt need." Before people will pay more taxes for roads, highways and mass transit, they have to experience the frustration of sitting in traffic or driving over potholes, Sharkey said.
"It's very tough to motivate voters to look far ahead," he said.
Moorpark Councilman Keith Millhouse, who also serves on the Ventura County Transportation Commission, said efforts like the failed countywide transportation sales tax measure are often hurt by what many taxpayers see as a misuse of their money.
"We have to overcome the stigma created because of the waste in Sacramento," said Millhouse, who believes that until state Assembly and Senate districts are redrawn and incumbents are booted out, little accountability is likely.
He's also concerned that more local tax measures for things like police and parks might make it tougher to pass a countywide transportation sales tax.
"Local measures could potentially harm a countywide transportation measure, but I don't blame those resorting to a special tax to provide for basic services," Millhouse said.
Oxnard Councilman Tim Flynn, the only member of the council to oppose the city's public education campaign in support of a tax, said timing is everything when placing a tax proposal before voters.
Flynn believes there isn't a long-term financial plan for the city. Before the city asks voters to support a new tax, he wants to assure them the city has a plan for the future. Flynn said voters will support a tax only if they are sure it's going to what is most needed.
Herb Gooch, chairman of the Political Science Department at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, said voters might not welcome more taxes during these tough times.
"In light of what happened in Ventura (with the failed utility tax) and with the county transportation sales tax effort, one has to say to them good luck,' " Gooch said.
Posted by MakingWaves on April 14, 2008 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura didn't try to pass a utility tax. It was a quarter-cent sales tax specifically dedicated to Ventura's police and fire needs. It failed because as a dedicated measure, it required a 2/3 passage and it received 62 percent.
A general purpose sales tax measure (without funding dedicated to a specific need) only requires a majority vote. Many other cities have done this including Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Grover Beach and Inglewood.
Posted by ecarson1958 on April 14, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Instead of increasing taxes, why doesn't the government start elimanating jobs that were created when times were supposedly better? All other businesses lay off and cut back when income is reduced, why can't the government?
Posted by growlerboy on April 14, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As for the highway tax they tryed to pass a few years ago, a simular measure was passed years ago and all the money was supposed to go to improving the roads. But there was a loophole in the measure that allowed the state to rob the account when it was short of money. Thats exactly what has been happening since day one, not one dime has been spent on local roads. Thats why I voted against any more taxes for roads, the money just gets misspent.
Posted by KatieTeague on April 14, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a Republican, I generally hate increases in taxes but I have to say we need to do something about our traffic infrastructure. Darrin Kettle, the new ED of the Ventura County Transportation Commission makes a very compelling argument for supporting a tax increase for transportation. He is available for meeting with groups and I encourage everyone to educate themselves. It is for the whole county and the traffic improvements will make life easier for everyone.
Posted by RelaxPeople on April 14, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Instead of increasing taxes, why doesn't the government start elimanating jobs that were created when times were supposedly better? All other businesses lay off and cut back when income is reduced, why can't the government?"
-i dont know, why dont you ask the thousands of layed off teachers?
Posted by omie on April 14, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought selling all the farm lands and building new homes bringin in more traffic would bring in the extra revenue. What gives.. perhaps we should develope some more land and spread out more of our resources, so we can lay off more people because it can't be controled in the name of progress.
Posted by rebel123 on April 14, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd prefer to pay more sales tax to keep our schools afloat than this bunk.
Posted by Face on April 14, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When I lived in Orange County, because they had so heavily invested in Junk Bonds and thus became broke. They were able to get an emergency injunction against Prop 13 (in regards to maximum increases on homes bought after 1970 something). Allowing them to garnish property taxes based on the actual value of the home, and would increase their assessment based on a property reassessment every year. Property owners have always paid for their services, they should pay their fair share now in these times.
Posted by shaver_one on April 14, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ecarson: Are you kidding? When did the government, any government, EVER chose to limit their own?
Instead of trying to pass a new tax, why doesn't someone write a bill that would close the loopholes of the State taking County sales tax dollars? The State wants the counties to pay their own way, so the State should give back those monies that the counties had imposed on their citizens for that purpose. I'm not holding my breath for the State to act. So, the County should act instead.
Posted by growlerboy on April 14, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver_one: Exactly, its a bottomless pit. We can pass all the measures they want but if the money keeps getting misspent nothing will ever get done. Under the original agreement the State was to supposed have just borrowed the money. I've seen nothing to indicate when its going to be repaid. I don't have the dollar amount, probably in the millions. I'm not anti-tax, just anti-waste. And this is a perfect example!
Posted by smithjc on April 14, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
face99 must not own property. property owners ARE paying for services. prop 13 limited how badly they can be gouged. due to continual increases in taxes, folks were on the brink of losing their homes, just to pay the tax. increasing property tax is not the way to do it.
(i sold off my property, so i'm not "grinding an axe" other than insisting on the government learning to live within its means).
Posted by star on April 14, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
>>property owners ARE paying for services. prop 13 limited how badly they can be gouged.
Yeah, it did a great job protecting people who already owned property in 1978.
Two identical houses, right next to each other. One household pays $6700 per year in property tax, the other $500. It's not like the extra six grand buys you any better service from the police or fire department, or better roads. What, there's no gouging there?
Prop 13 was sleight of hand. It was sold as protecting homeowners, but its primary purpose to save utility and railroad companies hundreds of millions of dollars. Which it did. And so our state relies more on income taxes, which go up and down with the business cycle. It's always feast or famine in California -- and neither one allows for good government.
Posted by keepin_it_real on April 15, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is too much...why should us taxpayers have to pay for thier mistakes. I think they should be audited by a neutral party. I'm sure they could find alot of misuse of OUR hard earned money. Let go of some of those high paid jobs that aren't necesary and we all know they have 2 or 3 people doing the job 1 person can do.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.