Sonoma County road tax proposal Measure A in hands of voters
The fate of the most significant single bid in a generation to repair Sonoma County’s crumbling road system - identified as one of the worst in the Bay Area for the past decade - will be decided in a June 2 special election that asks voters whether taxpayers should pony up more money to pay for a public good that most people use every day.
The proposed sales tax increase, advanced by the Board of Supervisors and backed by an uncommon alliance of labor, business and environmental groups, amounts to a political gamble. Supporters are stressing what they say is a critical need to ramp up road spending before repair costs become insurmountable. Their bet is that they can convince voters that elected officials representing the county and its nine cities will spend the money as they say they will - on roads and related transportation programs, and not on other pressing needs, such as rising public employee compensation costs.
The vote comes amid high-profile attempts by the county to rein in skyrocketing expenses for employee pensions - up more than 500 percent since 2000 - and to win back public trust in the fiscal management of local government.
The ballot proposal, Measure A, would increase sales taxes across Sonoma County by a quarter-?cent for five years . If approved, it would go into effect immediately.
Supporters, including road repair advocates, the county’s largest organized labor coalition, its most influential business advocacy group and the largest local environmental organization, say the county’s roads are in dire need of a big financial investment, and that everyone stands to benefit from much-needed infrastructure fixes. They argue the tax increase will add more jobs to the local economy and improve travel for motorists, cyclists and public safety responders.
Opponents, primarily taxpayer watchdog groups, say the measure lacks guarantees the new revenue will go to roads. They also question whether the tax increase is even needed, with local government coffers in the best financial shape since the recession.
Supervisor David Rabbitt, who is pushing hard for Measure A’s passage, says it represents the best way to shore up road funding and head off a deepening fiscal crisis.
“We can’t afford to wait any longer,” Rabbitt told about ?25 people at a public forum last month in Petaluma. “If we do, the roads are going to be gravel and it’s going to cost 10 or 15 times as much - it doesn’t make sense.”
The tax measure is being put to voters about five years after county public works officials raised the specter of a failing road system in the unincorporated area. At the time, they warned the Board of Supervisors that the county had only enough money to fix a small fraction of the county-governed 1,384-mile system, a shortfall that would leave much of the rest of the network to degrade into gravel. Amid public uproar, the Board of Supervisors rejected that plan. But while it has made some short-term upgrades over the past few years covering nearly 200 miles, the county has struggled to come up with a long-term blueprint to overhaul its network. For several years now, officials have signaled some sort of tax increase would be needed.
Measure A would generate $20 million in the first year, with annual revenues expected to rise by 3 percent thereafter. The proceeds would be split, with 44 percent - or about $8.7 million - going to the county, and the remainder divided between the nine cities, based on population and road miles. The measure needs a simple majority to pass.
Because the initiative is a general sales tax measure, and not specified for roads, annual revenue would be deposited into each jurisdiction’s general fund, and could be used for any government purpose. County supervisors and elected officials from Petaluma and Santa Rosa have publicly stated that they intend to spend the money on roads. The county and Santa Rosa have specified that 10 percent of the revenue would be allocated to transit-?related programs, including free county bus fare for college students and military veterans.
The seven other cities have not taken formal positions on the measure, but their elected officials have said they intend to also spend their portion of the tax revenue on roads and related transportation infrastructure projects.
County officials have acknowledged they chose a general tax measure over a specific measure earmarked for roads because they doubted whether they could secure the required two-thirds majority for a dedicated tax.
That decision has riled Measure A opponents, as has the way the ballot proposal is worded. It allows for funding to be spent on “general government purposes such as public safety, local road and pothole repair, senior, student and veterans transit and other essential services.”
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: