Sonoma County supervisors faced with spending decisions after tax measure’s defeat

The overwhelming defeat last week of Measure A - the proposed quarter-cent sales tax increase that Sonoma County officials touted as the best shot at repairing the beleaguered local road system - has put county supervisors on a collision course over government spending, with some pushing for more money to fund basic infrastructure while others jockey for increased investment in health and human services.

Supervisor David Rabbitt, the strongest proponent of the tax measure, which could have nearly doubled the county’s ?$10 million annual general fund contribution for road repair, says the Board of Supervisors needs to recalibrate its spending priorities and bolster the amount of discretionary dollars it spends on roads.

That stance, however, puts Rabbitt at odds with several other supervisors, who argue that they’ve already earmarked a hefty chunk of money for roads. Other policy initiatives, including funding universal preschool, building affordable housing and raising wages for county contractors and affiliated workers to $15 per hour are equally critical, those supervisors contend.

“Investing in programs that benefit the lives of children and working families is important to this board, so there is going to be some impact on the general fund … but we think it’s important that everyone has access to food and shelter,” said Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Susan Gorin, a strong voice for safety-net spending.

With millions of taxpayer dollars in play across a broad range of county services and programs, deliberations on county spending are set to take center stage next week as the Board of Supervisors begins its hearings to approve a budget for the next two years.

The proposed $1.43 billion budget for the 2015-16 fiscal year calls for $423 million in spending from the general fund, the main source of discretionary dollars, supporting mostly public safety and administrative departments as well as other initiatives and programs backed by the Board of Supervisors. County officials were hoping, through the money that would have been generated by Measure A, that they would not have to dip deeper into that pot to pay for overhaul of the 1,384-mile county road system, long ranked as one of the worst in the Bay Area.

But voters, in rejecting the measure by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent, sent a strong message about tax-driven policymaking that is likely to complicate county spending decisions in the days and months ahead.

Rabbitt, who served as the county face of the sales tax initiative, said he plans to lobby for increased discretionary dollars to be allocated for roads, beyond the ?$10 million now coming from the general fund. Bringing the county network back up to good condition could cost an estimated $954 million over 20 years, according to transportation officials.

“We’ve paved more roads in the last two years than any time in the past, and I’m proud of that historic investment we’re making in our road infrastructure,” he said. “With Measure A gone, we need to look for ways of boosting it. … Things like preschool and housing are important investments, but the question is whether it’s our responsibility, or the state and federal government’s.”

The debate about how to spend taxpayer money is part pragmatic, part ideological. On one hand, it comes down to maintaining core functions of government - public safety, street maintenance, sanitation and water service. On the other, it’s about how government spending can help improve the lives of Sonoma County residents, including the low-income and disadvantaged. With Measure A’s loss, the differences among supervisors in that spending debate are set to be cast into greater relief as they decide on a long list of other services and initiatives competing for county dollars.

In addition to preschool, housing and living wage proposals, that list includes: an expanded effort to address homelessness; a potential funding boost for county fire services; advance payments to reduce the county’s long-term pension obligations; and spending to support a new independent auditor’s office to oversee county law enforcement - a recommendation advanced by a citizen taskforce formed after a sheriff’s deputy shot and killed 13-year-old Andy Lopez in 2013.

All five supervisors have voted to make road funding a priority. But Shirlee Zane, Efren Carrillo and Gorin have signaled they wouldn’t halt other initiatives to step up funding to fix roads.

“We always have to ask hard questions about our priorities, but we’ve spent $40.8 million on roads from our general fund over four years,” Zane said. “I believe our No. 1 priority has to be helping the eroding middle class - I’m very concerned we’ve become a county made for tourists and the rich. We have to do more to take care of our most vulnerable populations.”

Zane said the county should focus on lobbying Sacramento lawmakers to increase long-declining gas tax revenues allocated to Sonoma County. That allocation is based on a formula that can disadvantage counties such as Sonoma, with a high number of road miles but relatively small population compared with urban counties. Attempts to revise it have been deadlocked in Sacramento for years.

But “other than that,” Zane said, “I don’t know where we get the money. Do you take it away from our other board priorities? I don’t think so. Our economy is growing, and we need to make sure people can afford to live here. That means building affordable housing and workforce housing, taking care of our homeless and addressing the poverty gap between the rich and the poor.”

Zane also supports county funding for universal preschool, and last month pushed successfully to increase the county’s annual contribution for preschool slots to $300,000.

Supervisor Carrillo, in an interview last week following Measure A’s loss, emphasized the need to fund preschool programs that would open enrollment to all 11,000 of the county’s 3- and 4-year-olds. The payoff, Carrillo said, will come in higher graduation rates, improved health outcomes and a stronger regional workforce.

“I strongly believe the best investment we can make is in education,” Carrillo said. “I disagree that preschool is not a core function of government - I believe it’s fundamental for our future quality of life.”

Supervisor James Gore also backed spending on universal preschool in a board meeting last month, saying at the time that “there could be no more important investment than this.” Measure A’s failure, however, could require a change of focus, he suggested. If the county doesn’t step up discretionary funding for roads now, taxpayers will face even steeper costs in the future, he said.

“It’s tough,” Gore said. “We’re dealing with a legacy issue and we’ve put away millions of dollars to pay for it. But if basic services like roads aren’t taken care of, people aren’t interested in hearing about your innovative ideas.”

Gore, elected in November as the newest member of the board, said he “heard all about potholes and roads and water” on the campaign trail.

“I’m not going to forget that,” he said.

In the election’s aftermath, road funding advocates have sought to paint the ballot-box defeat not as a rebuke of road-repair spending but as a referendum on trust in government. They attributed the loss to voters’ fears that the tax revenues - up to ?$100 million over 5 years for the county and its nine cities - would go not to roads but to other government purposes, as was allowed under Measure A when it became a general sales tax proposal. A specific tax, dedicated to road repair and requiring a two-thirds majority to pass, could have faired better, advocates said.

“People believe that roads are something we should be putting front and center. They just didn’t want this tax,” said Craig Harrison, co-founder of Save Our Sonoma Roads, an advocacy group that supported Measure A. The county’s roads are failing, he added. “We need to correct that, and we believe that keeping up our infrastructure is one of the basic missions of government.”

Other allies in the pro-Measure A campaign also are pushing for a shift in county budget priorities.

John Bly, executive vice president of the Northern California Engineering Contractors Association, which backed Measure A along with other development, labor and environmental groups, said he couldn’t recall a recent county board with such a long list of ambitious policy initiatives.

“The commitments they’ve already made to them is alarming,” Bly said. “I think supervisors are missing the message voters sent them when they turned down Measure A, and that message was ‘You’ve got enough money to take care of roads, you just need to manage it better.’”

However, Alice Chan, a liberal Democratic Party activist who leads the Coalition for Grassroots Progress, said the board would be making a mistake if it dropped a living wage proposal to boost road funding.

Chan split with many of her Democratic allies when she criticized Measure A as a regressive tax, claiming it hit poor people the hardest. She has sided with supervisors who are advocating for passage of a $15 per-hour wage for ?5,500 county contractors and other employees who do business with the county. The Board of Supervisors is set to take up the issue again on Tuesday.

“Making sure employees have a living wage is the most important thing supervisors should be looking at,” Chan said. “Preschool and roads don’t get people out of poverty. Paying them a wage they can live on does.”

Gorin, the board chairwoman, said the tension reflects the tight spot supervisors are in heading into next week’s budget hearings.

“We don’t have a lot of excess revenue,” Gorin said. “So we’re in a tough position. Losing Measure A was a bummer. We’re trying to figure out where to go from here.”

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