Proposals for Forming Tax Districts Come Under Fire : Government: Officials seek sources of money amid the state’s budget problems. The strategy is described as a way to circumvent Proposition 13.

As state funding continues to dwindle, Ventura County officials are pushing to tax property owners for programs ranging from fire department services to mosquito abatement efforts.

Although officials say they need the alternative funding sources to offset sharp losses in money from Sacramento, the proposals to form benefit assessment tax districts have come under heated criticism from county taxpayer groups.

“There has to be a better way to raise funds in the private sector other than these special districts,” said Michael L. Saliba, the new executive director of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. “It’s a way to get around Prop. 13.”

H. Jere Robings, a former Taxpayers Assn. executive director who recently started a new watchdog group called the Ventura County Alliance of Taxpayers, added:

“It’s unfair. Government needs to cut its staff and benefits first. If you are in hard times, you better start analyzing your own budget before you go after other people’s money.”

But county officials say the choice is simple: The public must either pay more for the services--or do without.

“We cannot provide the government services for the money people are used to paying,” Supervisor Maggie Kildee said. “If people don’t want the assessment district, then there should not be one. But then there won’t be the services, and that is always a dilemma.”

The Board of Supervisors will decide today whether the county’s environmental health officials should be allowed to tax property owners for mosquito abatement--a program that depends heavily on state funds.

If the proposal is passed, about 213,000 property owners throughout the county could be charged $1.12 annually for the services.

Government officials also are considering other assessments:

* The supervisors gave the Ventura County Fire Department the go-ahead last week to study the possibility of charging property owners between $50 and $100 annually for services.

* Library officials are exploring the possibility of setting up a special district to keep services afloat. The tax would cost property owners about $12 each annually.

* Ventura County’s three park districts--which lost nearly $2.5 million last year in state funding--are considering taxing residents to maintain and develop parks. No estimate on the cost to each household was available.

“What would you do if you lost 35% to 40% of your paycheck?” said Jerry Gladden, the general manager for the Rancho Simi Recreation District. “That’s where we are. We are doing cuts and we’re economizing, but you can only do that for so long and then the parks are going to be unsafe and unkempt.”

Supervisor Vicky Howard said she can understand the need for the special districts, but she is concerned that the taxes are becoming excessive.

Over the past few years, the amount of money collected for special districts has increased sharply. In 1990-91, for example, property owners paid $34.2 million in special taxes. This year, the amount is expected to top $40 million--accounting for nearly 9% of the property taxes in the county.

The taxes cover a variety of services, ranging from weed abatement programs to canal maintenance. Every city in the county has adopted some sort of special tax to charge residents for expenses.

“I look at this and I say we have a problem in the county,” Howard said. “When you start adding it all up, it really gets significant. . . . I envision having a tax bill that has 15 items on it. I think people are going to be upset and I don’t blame them.”

County Treasurer-Tax Collector Hal Pittman added: “We have not seen the last of Sacramento pulling away funds. But if you put the squeeze on the local people, they have no choice to raise rates and fees in order to survive.”

Currently, the county’s General Fund stands to lose $36 million in state money. State funding to the county’s library and fire services could be slashed by up to $27 million, decimating both department’s budgets.

Last year, the county weathered a $10-million loss in state funding--which prompted 200 layoffs and cuts in service.

“I just think we are beginning to see the magnitude of the cuts as more and more requests (for tax districts) come in,” Howard said.

To implement a special assessment tax district, the local jurisdiction must inform property owners of their intent to form a fund-raising district. If up to 51% of the residents protest the tax, the government officials must place the matter on the ballot. The measure must receive a majority of the votes to pass.

Robings said property owners often do not protest because the taxes “do not sound like much.”

“But once they are established, we can anticipate that they will only increase,” Robings said. “I predict that we will see an effort statewide to pass another initiative similar to Prop. 13 to limit special assessment districts.”