Sonoma County cuts check for road repair and presses case for tax increase

Sonoma County supervisors on Tuesday approved $22.4 million in new spending over the next two years to fix 89 miles of rural roads - a repair job that county critics note will still fall far short of what’s needed to make a difference for the crumbling local road network.

The roads slated for repair - byways considered the most heavily traveled and critical for tourism and business activity - were selected using a formula taking into account daily vehicle trips, pavement condition and extent of use by bicyclists, buses and public safety vehicles.

The segments include Chalk Hill Road east of Windsor, Warm Springs Road in Sonoma Valley, Bodega Avenue outside Petaluma and Graton Road leading into the west county hills.

The planned upgrades, expected to be under construction this summer and next, are part of the county’s move to dedicate more local tax dollars to roads. Since 2013, the county has fixed 109 road miles with about $18 million from the general fund - the main discretionary source for the Board of Supervisors, supporting mostly public safety and administrative programs.

“We’ve paved a lot of roads in the last three years, and I’m excited we’re doing more, but if we don’t kick in more capital we’re going to face more significant problems down the road,” said Supervisor David Rabbitt.

Rabbitt and other county officials took the occasion Tuesday to restate their case for a tax increase to more fully tackle the region’s road woes. The county has placed a five-year, quarter-cent tax measure on the ballot for June 2. The sales tax measure would raise $20 million in the first year for the county and its nine cities, with revenue estimated to grow by 3 percent annually.

Without the extra funding, the road-repair price tag for the county and its nine cities may only grow as local roads - already among the worst in the Bay Area - further deteriorate, officials said. Bringing just the county-governed 1,382-mile network up to good condition could cost an estimated $954 million over the next 20 years, according to the county.

“At the end of the day, it’s about a higher level of investment now, so we don’t have to spend as much money constantly rebuilding our roads,” Rabbitt said.

County officials have pledged that revenue from the proposed sales tax measure will be used to repair to local roads. But because the proposed measure is a general sales tax, meaning the revenue could be spent on a wide range of public services, government watchdogs and taxpayer advocates have sharply criticized the proposal.

“Supervisors are asking us to trust them, and to believe that this general use tax will be used for roads, but we just don’t think that’s a credible argument,” said Dan Drummond, executive director for the Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association, which announced its formal opposition to the tax increase Monday.

With less than three months to go before voters head to the polls, the county and its allies are hoping to combat those concerns, ramping up a campaign to secure majority support for the tax measure. Two campaign consultants - Rob Muelrath of Santa Rosa, and Grant Martin from the San Francisco-based firm Storefront Political Media - are leading fundraising activities, public polling and voter outreach.

A coalition of business, environmental and labor groups are backing the measure. They include the Sonoma County Alliance, Sonoma County Conservation Action, , the North Bay Labor Council and the Operating Engineers Local No. 3.

County officials are also mounting a separate, but parallel, public education and voter outreach effort, for a cost of $40,000. They are hoping to inform would-be voters about road conditions and the division of tax dollars that could pay for the fixes.

Petaluma is the only city so far to have taken a formal position on the sales tax measure. The City Council last month backed the tax increase.

If the sales tax measure passes, the county and the nine cities would divide the proceeds based on population and road miles, and each jurisdiction would decide how to spend its portion of the funds. The county would get 44 percent of proceeds, with the remaining 56 percent split by cities. That works out to roughly $8.7 million for the county in the first year, with the remaining $11.3 million for cities to share, though county officials pointed out that the formula has not been finalized.

“We’re going to take less than half,” Rabbitt said. “Does everyone wish they had more money? Obviously, but the cities’ portion is nothing to sneeze at.

The county and Santa Rosa have both endorsed spending 10 percent of the revenue on public transit passes.

The Sonoma County Transportation Authority, which oversees other tax measure funds for transportation, would likely oversee the new revenue.

The Santa Rosa City Council, which previously expressed resistance, is expected to take up the issue this spring. Mayor John Sawyer this week said he personally supports the measure.

“As a taxpayer and as a user of our county roads, I’m an advocate for the tax,” Sawyer said. “We have reached a point where there is so much frustration around the quality of our roads, so I think people are ready to dedicate funds to fixing them. But I also think it’s important to define using it specifically for roads.”

Language added to the sales tax measure earlier this month ignited wide debate on exactly how any future revenue might be used. The controversial county revision included a sentence that added the words “public safety” to the list of spending priorities for the tax measure, leading off a list that also included “local roads, pothole repair, senior, student and veterans transit and other essential services.”

The move ignited sharp criticism from taxpayer advocates, who voiced concerns that the money could be spent on the Sheriff’s Office, or to pay down county pension liabilities.

Susan Klassen, the county’s transportation and public works director, said the language was added to ensure that during road projects, construction crews can upgrade sidewalks to meet federal accessibility requirements and stripe bike lanes while doing pavement work, for example.

“We wanted to make sure we had the flexibility to pay for costs not just for asphalt, but for complete streets,” Klassen said.

But the explanation hasn’t satisfied the county Taxpayers’ Association and the Redwood Empire Tax Committee, which also announced its opposition to the tax measure Monday. The groups submitted formal opposition to the county Registrar of Voters asking for their position to be placed on the ballot.

“The supervisors have said all along that they’re going to use the money to replace lost gas tax revenue, but now they’re talking about public safety and students and veterans - we believe that undermines their credibility with voters,” Drummond said.

He also criticized the county for the $362,000 cost of the June special election.

Leaders with the road advocacy group, Save our Sonoma County Roads, which supports the measure, said they have been assured that the tax money will be spent on roads.

Craig Harrison, co-founder of SOS Roads, said he supports the tax measure in part because it can help increase collaboration between the county and cities during construction projects, and lead to more repairs.

“There are situations where a county road comes into a city, and when the jurisdiction changes, the construction often stops because of funding,” Harrison said. “So we’d like to see better sharing of resources, and maybe joint contracts, to get more of these roads fixed.”

You can reach Staff Writer Angela Hart at 526-8503 or angela.hart@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @ahartreports.