Rabbitt defends county sales tax measure despite city’s opposition

A week after the Petaluma City Council formally opposed the county’s proposed sales tax measure, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday to move forward with it anyway, adding yet another tax hike for voters to consider this November.|

A week after the Petaluma City Council formally opposed the county’s proposed sales tax measure, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday to move forward with it anyway, adding yet another tax hike for voters to consider this November.

The county’s quarter-cent general sales tax increase would go towards road improvement, generating an estimated $20 million in its first year. Forty-four percent of that revenue would go to the county, and the other 56 percent would go to cities within the county’s jurisdiction via the same allocation formula that was used for Measure M, the county’s 2004 tax increase for roadwork, which calculates population and mileage within each city.

But from a political perspective, the county tax competes with Petaluma’s own one-cent general sales tax measure, which also could help improve roads within the city and is estimated to bring in $10 million per year. The competing taxes - both of which will appear on the upcoming Nov. 4 ballot - prompted council members to vote unanimously last week for a resolution of nonsupport of the county’s tax initiative.

Second District Supervisor David Rabbitt said the county tax would give Petaluma about $1.9 million to use on local roads every year. He said the city’s nonsupport for the measure is perplexing because the county’s tax revenue would increase the amount of roadwork funded in Petaluma.

“I think the measures can complement one another and not compete with one another,” Rabbitt said. “I think the voters are smart enough to look at what they believe would be the best use of funds, and what they believe is the best measure going forward.”

But City Manager John Brown and council members voiced concerns last week that voters would be confused by the two measures, and that county money would be insignificant compared to the city’s sales tax revenue.

“The concern that I have is that it’s not sufficient, what’s offered to us, to take care of our roadwork needs here,” Brown said. “It confuses the issue as to whose measure is going to get work done and whose measure isn’t.”

Brown added that city surveying done in June showed that only 8.8 percent of people polled would vote for a county measure if Petaluma had a measure as well.

Vice Mayor Gabe Kearney had several issues with the county’s sales tax proposal, such as the disproportionate distribution of its revenue. Historically, he said, Petaluma seems to get the short end of the stick when it comes to countywide services.

“Fourteen percent of the sales tax would be coming from the City of Petaluma, yet only 9.5 percent of it would be redistributed back to Petaluma,” Kearney said, referring to the $1.9 million Petaluma would receive. “That seems to be a common case with the county.”

Rabbitt said the county is looking at the bigger picture by spreading funding for roads into unincorporated areas as well as cities.

“There are a lot of people who live surrounding Petaluma, not inside the city limits, that spend a lot of money in Petaluma,” Rabbitt said. “Those who live on the other side of the city boundary are as much a part of that community.”

If both sales tax measures were to pass in November, Brown proposed that the city could use its share of the county’s tax revenue to work on widening Highway 101 through town, as well as secondary uses such as cross-highway projects and traffic signal optimization to reduce congestion.

Councilmember Mike Healy agreed with Brown’s proposal to direct potential revenue from the county to highway widening.

“It is disappointing to me that (Highway) 101 is not being treated as a regional project,” Healy said. “Petaluma is being invited to pay for it, but nobody else is going to.”

At last week’s council meeting, Brown explained that Sonoma County is limited to a 9.5 percent tax rate, and the local jurisdiction with the highest tax rate dictates how much room is left for the county’s tax measures. In June, Cotati increased its sales tax to 9.25 percent, which leaves the county with a quarter-of-a-percent that it can seek.

Mayor David Glass said he has advocated for the county to extend Measure M, rather than raising the tax rate.

“I would encourage the county to get creative rather than max out the tax rate,” Glass said, “because if this measure were to pass, we’ll then be at the cap in the county, and everything from that point forward would have to be funded with some kind of other tax.”

But Rabbitt said extending Measure M won’t be an option for at least two more years, due to a lack of bonding capacity. Seeking an additional tax, he said, was the county’s only option to fund road improvements.

“There’s no money available through Measure M probably until 2016 or 2018, depending on what the economy does,” Rabbitt said. “When bonding capacity returns, it would be really worth pursuing. But right now, it’s not an option.”

(Contact Allison Jarrell at allison.jarrell@argus courier.com)

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.