Bennett: Is Glass and Barrett's sales tax measure plan a move to kill Rainier?

It appears the city council is going to have a pretty animated discussion this coming Monday evening over whether or not to put a sales tax on the ballot, the shape and form of that ballot measure, how much to ask for and how long it should last.

The last time they met, it appeared they may well have been at an impasse. A proposal under consideration would need six of the seven council votes to put it on the ballot, and two members balked.

Now, typically, one would expect the more conservatively inclined to dig in their heels and oppose a tax measure, while the more liberal ones in the pack would support. But this time around, the gang of five in support represents the moderate and conservative wing, and the two heel draggers are the remnants of the council’s one time “progressive” majority.

“What’s happening?” you might well ask. Well, this is what makes politics a spectator sport. Fun to watch, intriguing to figure out.

The first thing to keep in mind here is that the council is not considering imposing a tax; it is considering allowing the community to decide if there should be a penny tax on taxable sales to support local needs. Next, look at which project could be a major beneficiary of this tax, and you’re close to an answer. The Rainier under-crossing, Petaluma’s phantom cross-town connector, would stand a very good chance of being completed if the measure, as proposed, were to pass.

Fought for decades by the “progressive” bloc for reasons often hard to articulate, Rainier has finally been designed, has an EIR, and is ready to build. But, this is a pricey project, and there is no money in the city’s coffers.

Mayor David Glass and Councilmember Teresa Barrett are saying that the additional sales tax revenue intended for Rainier construction should be locked in, not spent anywhere else, and suggested that there should be a separate half-cent sales tax dedicated to Rainier and road repairs along with a half-cent measure for general purposes.

Sounds good on the surface, and it responds to voter concerns about giving the city a blank check, but is the argument sincere? It can just as easily be argued that the move by Glass and Barrett is a ploy to block funding for the freeway under-crossing.

A measure dedicating funding for a project such as Rainier needs approval of two-thirds of the votes cast, and in Petaluma, for decades in general elections, that has been a number city government simply cannot get. A couple years back, a measure to impose a tax to support parks and recreation failed. Before that, a tax to support fixing our decaying roadways failed. Both were put forth by citizen’s groups, not politicians, both needed two-thirds approval, and both failed.

So, it is a pretty good gamble by Glass and Barrett that a Rainier ballot measure requiring two-thirds vote is going to go kerplop.

This notion of the pair’s intent was supported by the fact that the city manager told the two that money can be dedicated to Rainier after the vote. Once approved, the city can purchase bonds based on the tax, get the money needed for construction, and pay it off from the tax revenues over time. But of course, the mayor already knew that, since he has long represented himself as an expert in municipal finance.

In any case, the mayor and his colleague were not swayed.

Their proposal is to go for two half-cent sales tax measures; one dedicated to Rainier, the other a general sales tax that requires a 50-percent-plus-one majority to pass. It seems to me that both would be doomed to fail, the Rainier vote because of the two-thirds provision, and the general tax because, by taking out Rainier and road repairs, that money could go to things that did not receive strong support from the public and are not related to infrastructure.

So, for the political junkies amongst us, Monday night should be fun. You can watch on TV from the comfort of your home, and best of all, it should be in prime time.

(Don Bennett, business writer and consultant, has been involved with city planning issues since the 1970s. His email address is dcbenn@aol.com.)