Ojai council continues hearing on Casa Ojai Inn transient-occupancy tax appeal

The City of Ojai City Council on Sept. 16 agreed to continue an appeal hearing requested by Cameron Larner, owner of Casa Ojai Inn, over a tax collector determination that assessed unpaid transient-occupancy tax and penalties following audits covering June 30, 2020, through March 31, 2023.

The hearing originally opened with city staff describing procedures and the council chair reading the scope: the appeal challenges the assistant city manager’s decision under the Ojai Municipal Code, and the city bears the burden to prove the assessment’s validity. City staff told the council the determination at issue was dated April 8, 2025.

Council members said they had received a large volume of documents from Larner shortly before the meeting and that the packets arriving within 24 hours made it impracticable to review new material before issuing a decision. Council split over proceeding immediately or continuing; Larner asked the council to hear his “story” but objected to making a final decision without the council having time to review submissions. After discussion the council agreed to continue the hearing and re-notice it as a special meeting to allow time for review.

Under the conditions the council set, Larner agreed to consolidate and label his exhibits and to submit a single, succinct packet with an exhibit index at least 10 days before the rescheduled hearing. The council directed staff to provide electronic copies of exhibits to council members as part of the agenda packet and said the city may respond to any new materials Larner files if the hearing is continued. Council members discussed allowing the city the same opportunity to submit new briefing if Larner’s late materials raise new arguments.

City staff also reminded the council and Larner of two procedural limits: any written decision the council issues after the hearing will be the city’s final administrative decision, and if the council rules against Larner and he wishes to appeal, the Ventura County Superior Court would be the next step. Staff reiterated the “pay first, litigate later” requirement — the council’s order to pay any taxes, penalties or interest would need to be paid before filing an appeal in court, though Larner could seek a refund through the courts.

Larner told the council he had compiled a substantial record over roughly 18 months and said the short notice for some filings had been stressful; he agreed to prepare an annotated, single-document submission identifying essential exhibits and a short “what to read” summary. Council members also asked staff to minimize unnecessary printed copies and provide materials electronically where possible.

The council did not decide the merits of the tax assessment at the Sept. 16 meeting; rather, it continued the hearing to a later, specially noticed meeting and asked staff to return with clear written hearing procedures and a schedule that allows adequate time for both parties to prepare and exchange exhibits.

Ending: The council instructed staff to set the rescheduled hearing date as soon as practicable, to re-notice it with the 10-day exhibit cutoff, to include instructions for exhibit labeling and to provide public-records responses Larner had requested. The council will take oral presentations at the rescheduled hearing and then deliberate and issue a written decision, which will be the city’s final administrative determination in the matter.