Lawsuit Threatened Over Redevelopment Funds : Thousand Oaks: The county may seek to block extension of renovation zone if adequate money is not forthcoming.

Ventura County officials have set an end-of-the-year deadline for resolving their dispute with Thousand Oaks over a Redevelopment Agency that they claim has stripped millions of dollars from county coffers.

To assure adequate funding for fire protection, crime-fighting and other services, county leaders have pressed Thousand Oaks for a long-term commitment to send more than one-fifth of the Redevelopment Agency’s budget back to the county.

Unless they receive a satisfactory answer by Dec. 31, county administrators will file suit. The litigation would seek to block a Thousand Oaks City Council decision to extend the life of the Redevelopment Agency, said Daniel J. Murphy, an assistant county counsel.

“We have a whole series of objections,” Murphy said.

The Thousand Oaks Boulevard Redevelopment Agency works to spruce up the city’s downtown by spending property tax dollars on local projects, including landscaping, parks, storm drains and school facilities.

In theory, those projects boost property values along the boulevard. The Redevelopment Agency then reaps the increased tax revenue.

Although the county continues to receive a base-line amount of taxes, set when the Redevelopment Agency was formed in 1979, the city collects every dollar generated by the higher property values. The agency then sets aside 20% of its budget for affordable housing and funnels another 20% to the county’s general fund.

But county officials have long complained that the county allocation is skimpy compared to the sums Thousand Oaks has amassed for projects such as the Civic Arts Plaza or Hampshire Road greenbelt. They estimate that the Redevelopment Agency has cost the county $72 million in the last 14 years, and predict huge future losses if the city extends the project’s life.

Thousand Oaks officials are bound, by contract, to obtain the county’s written consent before making any changes in the agency’s charter. But a majority on the City Council ignored that and last month voted to extend the agency’s life to 2023, over the county’s objections.

City Atty. Mark Sellers justified that vote, arguing that the contractual obligation to secure county approval stood in the way of the Redevelopment Agency’s efforts to eliminate blight along the boulevard.

But Murphy said he does not buy that reasoning.

If the city does not boost its contribution to the county’s general fund and special districts, the county will sue for breach of contract, Murphy said. In the lawsuit, the county would also challenge the City Council’s decision to declare a four-mile stretch of the boulevard “blighted” and in need of refurbishment with property tax dollars, he added.

City and county negotiators have tentatively called a meeting for next week, and both sides said they hope to avoid a lawsuit.

“We’re still talking,” Councilwoman Judy Lazar said. “But it will not come easily.”

Every Ventura County city except Camarillo has at least one redevelopment agency for a total of 18 active projects. And the county has successfully used the threat of lawsuits to wring more money from several of them.

In the past five years, the county has sued the cities of Oxnard, Moorpark and Santa Paula, but settled with all three before trial. In one case, county and Oxnard officials reached agreement “on the courthouse steps,” Murphy said.

A lawsuit also forced fruitful negotiations with Thousand Oaks back in 1979, when the county objected to the city’s plans to start up a redevelopment agency along the boulevard. To avoid a legal battle, the city agreed to pay the county 14% of its redevelopment funds. That figure rose to 20% when the city expanded its Redevelopment Agency a decade ago, and now county leaders are asking for more than 20%.

Neither side will disclose exactly how much county officials want from the Redevelopment Agency, or comment on any other sticking points of ongoing negotiations.

Mayor Elois Zeanah and Councilwoman Jaime Zukowski have taken the county’s side in the redevelopment debate because they are philosophically opposed to redevelopment agencies.

They voted against extending the Redevelopment Agency, arguing that the council majority is selfishly hoarding tax dollars for local use, at the expense of regional services such as fire protection.

Zeanah said she hopes that the county does not back down from its opposition to the Redevelopment Agency, even if Thousand Oaks offers to share more of the agency’s property tax revenues.

“I would hope,” Zeanah said, “that instead of looking at the dollar signs, (county officials) would look at this . . . from a principled point of view.”