Last fiscal year, Goleta tax revenues amounting to $8.1 million were retained by the county rather than the City of Goleta itself. This resulted from a “revenue neutrality agreement” negotiated with Santa Barbara County prior to Goleta’s incorporation.
So what is revenue neutrality?
Twenty-five years ago, if a new city incorporated, all taxes generated within the city went into its treasury. But in 1993, the State was in fiscal crisis — an all too frequent condition — and it solved its problem by hijacking local revenues, primarily from counties, to finance programs such as education. To soften the blow to county revenues that would occur when a new area became a city, a law was passed that required any income generated by a new city over and above the cost of city services that the county would no longer have to provide had to be shared with the county so that the incorporation was “revenue neutral” and did not financially harm the county.
Margaret Connell
Prior to Goleta incorporation, the county was taking in about $5.5 million in revenue from the area within the proposed city boundaries over and above the amount it was spending there on services such as road maintenance, parks, public safety, and planning. These additional funds were used for countywide services — the courts, public health, and other social programs. In order to get approval to move forward with Goleta incorporation, the proponents, GoletaNow!, had to negotiate a revenue neutrality agreement with the county. By the terms of this agreement, the county was to receive 50 percent of property taxes, 50 percent of sales tax and 40 percent of hotel bed taxes. Ten years after incorporation, in 2012, all bed taxes and 20 percent of the sales tax would revert to the city, but the county would continue to receive 50 percent of property tax and 30 percent of the sales tax in perpetuity. This agreement was part and parcel of the Goleta Cityhood proposal, which was approved by the voters in 2001.
With escalating property values in recent years, the amount of revenue retained by the county has increased each year, way beyond any increase in the cost of providing services. In the 2008-2009 fiscal year, this sum is expected to reach $8.2 million, or 34 percent of revenues generated by the city. No other newly incorporated city in the state has such a high percent of revenues going back to its county. Additionally, all other new cities have a point at which revenue sharing comes to an end, the termination period varying from seven years in Orange County to 30 or more in Sacramento County.
It is true that circumstances are not the same for all cities. Goleta has a couple of rich revenue producers: Bacara Resort and Spa and the Camino Real Marketplace with its big box stores. Other new cities may not have had this kind of disparity between the amount of revenues generated and the cost of basic services. This would be reflected in a lower percentage revenue share going to their counties. Nonetheless, far from being held harmless, Santa Barbara County is clearly benefiting from Goleta’s financial health.
In 2003, after Goleta’s incorporation, the state issued guidelines for revenue neutrality agreements and stated that these agreements should provide for “a process of adjustment after incorporation in order to account for unforeseen economic or legislative events significantly affecting the flow of local revenue.” Since 2001, state finances have been in turmoil, and, in addition, the escalating housing market has resulted in a bonus to the county with its 50 percent share of the city’s property tax revenues.
It is now fair to ask whether the county should benefit financially from new development in Goleta when most of the impacts and cost of services fall on the city. There are many beneficial programs the city would like to fund — recreation programs for young people and seniors, enhanced public safety and even its own city hall. The county, of course, can also make good use of these funds for services it provides directly to Goleta residents and others. It is a question of finding the right balance.
The Goleta City Council has opened a dialogue with the county on negotiating changes in the current agreement, beginning with a meeting at the end of March between two City Council members and two County Supervisors. The Council has also discussed the possibility of a ballot initiative or even litigation, though council members have expressed some reluctance to take that route.
Six years have passed since Goleta’s incorporation. It is time to take a new look and see if what was fair in 2001 needs to be amended to address conditions in 2008.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
She's neglected a key point: the City of Goleta `cherrypicked' high revenue parcels, like the Costco, Bacara, and the Fairview/Calle Real business district. These are shopping/spending areas that serve a much larger area than just the City of Goleta.
Lots of residential areas *not* in the City of Goleta have to live with the impacts of these businesses. Some of those same residential areas argued hard for inclusion in the City of Goleta in 2001, and all polling data indicated that the City vote would have passed with those residential areas included in the City.
But the City of Goleta didn't want to take those residential areas because they did not provide the rich revenue of a Costco or the Calle Real malls. Because the City did not take those areas, the County made the City agree to transfer revenue (intended for transfer back to those residential areas) in perpetuity.
That is totally fair. What is not fair is the City now trying to wriggle out of its commitment and seize the revenues that should be benefitting the residential area the City neglected in 2001.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't forget that Goleta intentionally left out Isla Vista in it's city incorperation process. The County is responsible for IV and it's issues while the surrounding city wants nothing to do with it. Lest we for get that before Costco the UCSB bookstore was the highest sales tax generator on the South Coast. They shot themselves in the foot from the begining and did thier best to defer all potional problems to others, now they complain about revenue agreements that were made to offset the cost to the rest of us. Stay in Goleta city limits and never leave if you have such a narrow minded take on reality. As soon as you leave you are useing "County facilities" that the rest of us pay for.
Sandon71 (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The City needs a good aggressive attorney to determine whether a litigation strategy has any merit. Otherwise it is probably stuck with the "Agreement" it made. If a legitimate litigation approach exists, the City should pursue it.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sevendolphins needs to remember that ALTHOUGH shopping/spending areas like Costco, Bacara, and the Fairview/Calle Real business district serve a larger area than the City of Goleta, only Goletans pay for the trash on the streets around these areas, and deal with the traffic and added air pollution from these. I can't imagine Mesa people dealing with the impact from a Costco.
Sandon71 needs to check the logic behind Goleta city line choices. These were chosen to omit those near the Patterson border who did NOT want to become Goletans, who prefer to hope for SB City inclusion. Isla Vista was omitted because the huge services burden would prevent most Goletans from voting for incorporation, and wisely so - these costs should be born by UCSB. We Goletans continue to be walked all over by their policies that impact our daily life without one iota of input from we who are most affected. Heil, UCSB! (GCity Council wake up and fight back!)
We deal with SB's airport pollution and traffic too!
ruralwannabe (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Goleta doesn't live up to its agreements why should anyone else live up to their agreements?
If it wasn't fair the City, and the voters, should not have approved it in the first place.
Sour grapes is poor public policy.
wingnut (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ruralw.... sorry, everyone in Isla Vista has to put up with the traffic impacts of Costco too... Isla Vista has about 1,000 kids, many of whom can no longer ride their bikes to Dos Pueblos High School because the Costco traffic is so awful. Over 4,000 folks from IV signed a petition to join the City of Goleta in 2001.
Isla Vista is a money-making operation for Santa Barbara County, prior to accounting for the revenue neutrality agreement; check the financial analysis done in conjunction with the Goleta Cityhood proposal. It is a complete fabrication that Isla Vista is some sort of service hog. The County maintains that fabrication simply to get more dollars out of the UCSB students.
Isla Vista Elementary School is one of the oldest elementary schools in the GUSD. Most of the kids have nothing to do with UCSB. Why do you think UCSB should pay for them?
Goleta should keep paying its portion to the County in perpetuity; it is the cost of their exclusion of IV. It is embarassing that Margaret Connell and others are trying to break their word made in 2001.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment