Sonoma County General Sales Tax, Measure A (June 2015)

Voting on taxes
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local City taxes County taxes School taxes Property taxes Sales taxes Income taxes Other taxes
Measure info Amount: 0.25% Expires: 5 years Purpose: General

A general sales tax measure was on the ballot for voters in Sonoma County, California, on June 2, 2015. It was defeated.

If approved, Measure A would have authorized the county to levy an additional sales tax of 0.25 percent, increasing the county's sales tax rate from 8.25 percent to 8.5 percent. The tax would have been a general tax, with funds going into the county's general operating budget to be used for any legal government purposes. County officials estimated the tax would have raised $20 million per year in additional revenue. The plan for the revenue involved 44 percent -- $8.8 million -- going to the county and the remainder going to cities within the county. County estimates put the cost of conducting the Measure A election at $361,602.

County officials and other supporters said that, with the approval of Measure A, the county would have had the funds needed to repair and maintain the county's 12,383 miles of roads, which had been ranked among the worst roads in the area.

The specific purposes listed in the ballot question, however, also included transit services and public safety. Although Measure A was designed to allow the county discretion over the allocation of tax revenue, Sonoma County supervisors proposed a plan that put 10 percent of revenue towards the public transit system, with a focus on free transportation for college students and veterans, and the remainder towards road repair and maintenance.

Supporters argued that the tax would have allowed much needed road maintenance, safer and better transportation and faster emergency responses.

Opponents critiqued the measure because of its general purpose, arguing that, since the county sold the sales tax as a way to repair the roads, it should have fully restricted its purpose to roads. Opponents argued that there was no guarantee that the county would have used Measure A tax revenue for roads and might have diverted the revenue to pay off debt from the county's public pensions.

In California, a general purpose tax requires only a simple majority for approval, while a sales tax legally restricted to a specific purpose would have required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for approval.

Election results

Sonoma County, Measure A
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		52,630	61.6%
Yes		32,741	38.4%

Election results from Sonoma County Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:

“

Shall the people of Sonoma County enact a one-quarter percent sales tax for general governmental purposes such as public safety, local roads and pothole repair, senior, student and veterans transit and other essential services within the nine cities and unincorporated area for 5 years with annual audits made available to the public showing how all revenue was spent the previous year?

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of Measure A was prepared by the office of the county counsel:

“	The County of Sonoma has proposed a general transactions and use tax (sales tax) of one-quarter of one cent per dollar (0.25%). The tax would be levied for no more than five years unless extended by the voters. State law authorizes the County to levy a sales tax if the ordinance proposing the tax is approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors and the tax is approved by a majority of the voters who vote in the election. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the tax on November 4, 2014. If a majority of the voters in the County who vote on this measure vote “Yes,” the measure will pass and the sales tax will be levied. The revenue generated by this general tax, which is estimated in the accompanying Financial Impact Statement, would be deposited into the County General Fund and would be available for general governmental purposes, including public safety; local roads and pothole repair; senior, student and veterans transit; and other essential services. The revenue from the tax would be annually appropriated by the Board for general governmental purposes. The measure does not restrict the use of tax revenue to any specific purpose. The tax would be paid in addition to the current sales tax. Like the current sales tax, the tax would be imposed on all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated County for the selling of tangible personal property, subject to certain exemptions and exclusions identified in the measure. If approved, the tax will take effect immediately on June 2, 2015. The tax will terminate in five years unless a majority of voters extend or reauthorize the tax at a subsequent election.	”
—Jeffrey M. Brax, deputy county counsel

Fiscal impact statement

The following fiscal impact statement was prepared for Measure A by the office of the county auditor:

“	This measure would increase the sales tax collected in Sonoma County by one-quarter of one cent per dollar (0.25%) of taxable sales. Based on records from the State Board of Equalization for the period of August 2013 through July 2014, taxable sales throughout Sonoma County amounted to $8,180,562,340. Applying a 0.25% additional sales tax to that amount would yield approximately $20,451,406 in additional revenue to be apportioned annually by the Board of Supervisors. Over the five-year life of the measure, given current taxable spending in the county, the county would receive additional funding in excess of $102,250,000. Expenditures: Funds raised under the measure will be used for general governmental purposes. Annual audits showing where the revenue was spent will be conducted and made available to the public. In accordance with the Elections Code, the scope of this fiscal impact statement has been limited to the measure’s effect on revenues and expenditures. It does not address larger countywide fiscal issues such as the measure’s effect on the overall County economy.	”
—David E. Sundstrom, CPA auditor-controller-treasurer-tax collector

Support

Supporters

A Vote Yes on Measure A campaign was created to urge voters to approve Measure A.

The following individuals signed the official argument in support of this measure:

• Craig S. Harrison, co-founder and representative of Save Our Sonoma Roads
• Dennis Rosatti, executive director and representative of Sonoma County Conservation Action
• Congressman Mike Thompson (D-5)
• Janet Orchard, member of Sonoma County Agricultural/Open Space District
• Al Terrell, chief of Sonoma County Fire & Emergency Services Department

The Vote Yes on Measure A website also listed the following organizations and individuals as supporters of Measure A:

Organizations and groups

• Accountable Development Coalition
• American Council of Engineering Companies of California, North Coast Chapter
• California Alliance for Jobs
• North Bay Association of Realtors (NorBAR)
• North Bay Labor Council
• North Coast Builders Exchange
• Northern California Engineering Contractors Association
• Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3
• Santa Rosa Firefighters Association
• Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce
• Save Our Sonoma Roads (SOS Roads)
• Sonoma County Alliance
• Sonoma County Bike Coalition
• Sonoma County Conservation Action (SCCA)
• Petaluma City Council
• Santa Rosa City Council

Individuals

• State Sen. Mike McGuire (D-2)
• Sonoma County Supervisor Susan Gorin
• Sonoma County Supervisor David Rabbitt
• Sonoma County Supervisor Shirlee Zane
• Sonoma County Supervisor James Gore
• Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo
• Santa Rosa Mayor John Sawyer
• Sonoma County Board of Education Trustee Lisa Wittke Schaffner

Arguments in favor

"Yes on A" campaign logo

Supporters argued that most of the revenue from Measure A would have been used to repair the county's ailing road system.

Craig Harrison, a representative of the Vote Yes on Measure A campaign, said, “In the beginning, we didn’t think we needed a tax increase, but we bit the bullet and decided it’s something we need because of how bad our roads are. We’re coming at this purely from a public advocacy point of view. We believe the additional tax revenue is going to benefit all users of our road system.”

While most of the support for Measure A came from those concerned about the condition of roads in the county, some supported the measure because of the other purposes proposed by county supervisors, including a free public transit program for students and veterans. Omar Paz, a student body leader at Santa Rosa Junior College, said, “This is substantially alleviating the huge burden students face every day when going to college, with fees and tuition and rising rents. This is also about helping people achieve an education who might not be able to, from low-income areas of the county.”

Richard Jones, president of Sonoma County Vet Connect, said, “So many veterans are homeless and don’t have money to buy a bus ticket to get to their medical appointments or to their job if they have one, so this is helping us immensely. I would hate to raise taxes, but this is getting veterans the services they need.”

Official arguments

The following was submitted as the official argument in support of Measure A:

“	Anyone who’s driven a car, taken a bus or ridden a bicycle in Sonoma County knows exactly why we need to vote Yes on Measure A – because it will provide funds that can repair our city streets and rural roads, reduce traffic congestion, increase transit services for seniors, students and veterans and create local jobs. Vote Yes on Measure A to help save money. It can cost ten times as much to repair a road when it has deteriorated over time. Vote Yes on Measure A to hold elected officials accountable. Measure A provides for audits conducted every year to show how the money is being spent. And if we’re not satisfied, the tax expires in five years. Vote Yes on Measure A to improve safety with faster emergency response times and safer routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. Vote Yes on Measure A to increase transit services for our seniors, students, veterans and the disabled. And that means more safety for those who need it most. Vote Yes on Measure A to protect our environment. Better roads and more transit means less traffic and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Measure A is supported by virtually every group in the county including business groups, environmentalists, farmers, Sonoma County Conservation Action, North Bay Labor Council, the Santa Rosa Firefighters Association, police and local city councils. Please join all of us and thousands of your neighbors who are voting Yes on Measure A	”
—Craig S. Harrison, Dennis Rosatti, Congressman Mike Thompson (D-5), Janet Orchard and Al Terrell

Editorials

• The Press Democrat editorial board wrote an article urging voters to approve Measure A, arguing that the roads in the county were desperately in need of repair and that Sonoma County didn't receive adequate gas tax funds from the state, since gas tax allocation was based largely on population. The board also argued that enough safeguards and watch groups were in place surrounding the tax to keep the county accountable and ensure that funds were actually spent on roads. An excerpt of the editorial is below:

“	If we had our druthers, this would not be in question. This would be a specific tax, one that spelled out how the funds would be allocated, adding assurance that they would not be siphoned off for some other purpose. But given the recent failure of such measures — including one in November that called for a mere one-eighth-cent increase to help the county’s floundering libraries — we’re persuaded that’s not an option. As such, given how Measure A is structured, we encourage voters to support it when it comes time to vote.	”
—The Press Democrat editorial board

Opposition

Opponents

Michael Hilber, the secretary of the Redwood Empire Tax Committee, signed the official argument in opposition to this measure.

Timothy Hannan, president of the Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association, signed the official rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure A.

Arguments against

Opponents argued that this measure was formulated as a general sales tax by the county to avoid the larger majority requirement and to allow them to use the funds for purposes that were less popular with the voters, such as pension debt, even though Measure A was presented by supporters as a way to fund road repair and maintenance.

Official arguments

The following was submitted as the official argument in opposition to this measure:

“	A very bad precedent is being set here. The County is seeking what is called a “General Tax” which requires only a simple majority vote to pass and which, under state law, provides unrestricted funds. Tax collected will not be restricted as to its use. The specific measure being voted on here is called County Ordinance 6088. It says the funds from the tax will, “deposit...into the County General Fund” and “shall be available...for any lawful expenditure.” In the past, such as with measure M, the County has chosen a “Specific Tax” to place on the ballot. Those require two-thirds, or 67%, majority vote to pass and importantly restrict how the money raised will be used. Elected officials are required to specify in the ballot measure on what projects and programs it will be spent. Obviously the County chose this route because it is easier to pass requiring only a simple majority. We have elected officials taking the easy way out. This began as a “roads tax” and has morphed over time to one that specifies “public safety” and the standard catch-all “essential services.” This does not guarantee road repairs and has prompted concerned voters to label it “bait and switch.” It is also well known the County has a generous employee pension plan that has a significant funding deficit. Probably it is fair to say the drain the pensions have on the General Fund have a role in the County’s motivation to enact this new tax. The moneyed, wealthy elite of this county have a real penchant for regressive taxes. Vote No on this General Tax! We deserve guarantees as to how our money will be used.	”
—Michael Hilber, secretary of the Redwood Empire Tax Committee

The following statement was submitted as the official rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure A:

“	Don’t be fooled by empty promises that Measure A is a roads tax intended to repair aging and crumbling roads. The tax would be just another general purpose tax to be divvied up among the county and the cities where it may be spent in any manner county or city officials may choose. In fact, this tax is expressly slated to pay for a broad range of purposes including the catch-all “other essential services.” True, Measure A was first proposed last year as a replacement for declining gasoline taxes that are used for road maintenance. But the Board of Supervisors has since amended the language of the ballot measure to place public safety (read “salaries and pensions”) at the top of the list. The other listed uses are transparently pitched to appeal to various voter blocks. There are no assurances that any of the money will be spent for any of the uses listed. Is this new tax really necessary? As the economy rebounds from the recession, the county and cities have reaped substantially more tax revenues - property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes. The county has enjoyed a 6% increase in tax revenues this past year. Cities within the county have enjoyed similar growth in revenue. We do need our roads repaired, and quickly. We do not need ambiguous promises. Vote No on Measure A.	”
—Timothy Hannan, president of the Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association

Related measures

d Sonoma County Library Sales Tax Increase, Measure M (November 2014)

See also

• Sales tax in California
• Local sales tax on the ballot
• County tax on the ballot
• Sonoma County, California ballot measures
• June 2, 2015 ballot measures in California

External links

Suggest a link

• Sonoma County Elections Office website
• Vote Yes on Measure A website

Additional reading

• Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Curing the epidemic of decaying roads," May 29, 2015
• The Press Democrat, "Two views on Measure A: Yes," May 25, 2015
• The Press Democrat, "Two views on Measure A: No," May 25, 2015
• Rohnert Park-Cotati Patch, "Sonoma Co. Voters Will Consider Sales-Tax Hike June 2," May 18, 2015
• The Press Democrat, "Gullixson: The five biggest myths about Measure A," May 17, 2015