Pro/Con: Measure A — sales tax

Measure A: Shall the people of Sonoma County enact a one-quarter percent sales tax for general governmental purposes such as public safety, local roads and pothole repair, senior, student and veterans transit and other essential services within the nine cities and unincorporated area for 5 years with annual audits made available to the public showing how all revenue was spent the previous year?

Pro: Voters should approve a “Trust but Verify” tax

The condition of many of Sonoma County’s roads and streets is deplorable. Almost two-thirds of county roads are poor or failed. Crumbling roads cost motorists $800 per year in worn or flat tires, bent rims, ruined suspensions and lousy gas mileage.

Recently residents nominated 57 roads and streets to be named “worst” on the Road Warrior blog, describing them as “meteor-blasted moonscapes;” “worse than a third world goat path;” and a journey “on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.” Especially bad roads had potholes circled with spray paint and labelled “no fishing.”

Measure A, which raises the sales tax by 25 cents on a $100 purchase, is an opportunity to achieve an integrated road system where all pavement is in good repair. It will raise $20 million per year, over half of which will improve city streets. Repairing roads today instead of letting them completely deteriorate will save money because repairs may cost ten times more if we do nothing now.

Measure A requires annual audits that show where each dollar is spent. While revenue is needed for 20 years, requiring re-approval after five years enhances accountability. If revenue is diverted, voters will not renew the tax. The proof will be in the pavement.
There are no practical alternatives to a sales tax increase. Our situation results from a perfect storm caused by a decline in the purchasing power of gas taxes by half and decades-long neglect by the county. Neither Congress nor the legislature seems interested in increasing gas taxes. We are on our own.

For over three years SOSroads has been asking supervisors to improve funding of our county roads. During the past three budget cycles the current supervisors have greatly increased funding and have improved 150 miles of county roads. Few city councils have made similar financial commitments.

Some are concerned that the new revenue might not be spent on roads because it is a general tax that cannot be legally committed to roads. A general tax needs only majority approval. A specific tax, which could be devoted legally to roads, needs two-thirds approval. Two-thirds of Sonoma County voters rarely agree on anything.

We support additional pension reform, but in many respects the county’s hands are tied pending statewide developments in courts or on the ballot. Meanwhile our roads and streets continue to deteriorate and the cost of eventually fixing them escalates. This problem is not going away on its own.

If Measure A is approved, SOSroads will ask the supervisors to enter immediately into a contract with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority to administer the revenue. We will be watchdogs on how funds are spent. Ultimately if funds aren’t spent on roads, SOSroads will lead the opposition to renewing the tax and will oppose any supervisor who fails to put roads first.

Vote for Measure A because of its “trust but verify” features.

Craig S. Harrison
Michael Troy
Founders, Save Our Sonoma Roads

Con: Vote no on ‘bait and switch’ tactic

A very bad precedent is being set here. The County is seeking what is called a “General Tax” which requires only a simple majority vote to pass and which, under state law, provides unrestricted funds. Tax collected will not be restricted as to its use.
The specific measure being voted on here is called County Ordinance 6088. It says the funds from the tax will, “deposit…into the County General Fund” and “shall be available…for any lawful expenditure.”

In the past, such as with measure M, the County has chosen a “Specific Tax” to place on the ballot. Those require two-thirds, or 67 percent, majority vote to pass and importantly restrict how the money raised will be used. Elected officials are required to specify in the ballot measure on what projects and programs it will be spent.

Obviously the County chose this route because it is easier to pass requiring only a simple majority. We have elected officials taking the easy way out. This began as a “roads tax” and has morphed over time to one that specifies “public safety” and the standard catch-all “essential services.” This does not guarantee road repairs and has prompted concerned voters to label it “bait and switch.”

It is also well known the County has a generous employee pension plan that has a significant funding deficit. Probably it is fair to say the drain the pensions have on the General Fund have a role in the County’s motivation to enact this new tax. The moneyed, wealthy elite of this County has a real penchant for regressive taxes.

Don’t be fooled by empty promises that Measure A is a roads tax intended to repair aging and crumbling roads. The tax would be just another general purpose tax to be divvied up among the county and the cities where it may be spent in any manner county or city officials may choose. In fact, this tax is expressly slated to pay for a broad range of purposes including the catch-all, “other essential services.”

Measure A was first proposed last year as a replacement for declining gasoline taxes that are used for road maintenance. But the Board of Supervisors has since amended the language of the ballot measure to place public safety (read “salaries and pensions”) at the top of the list. The other listed uses are transparently pitched to appeal to various voter blocks. There are no assurances that any of the money will be spent for any of the uses listed.

Is this new tax really necessary? As the economy rebounds from the recession, the County and cities have reaped substantially more tax revenues — property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes. The county has enjoyed a 6 percent increase in tax revenues this past year. Cities within the county have enjoyed similar growth in revenue.

We deserve guarantees as to how our money will be used. We do need our roads repaired, and quickly. We do not need ambiguous promises.

Michael Hilber, Redwood Empire Tax Committee
Timothy Hannan, Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association