No on Measure A

In Measure A, Sonoma County voters are being asked to approve yet another general purpose sales tax. Members of the County Board of Supervisors and others out on the stump are promoting Measure A as a “roads tax” that if approved would be spent 90 percent for road repairs and 10 percent for public transit items such as free bus passes for students, seniors and veterans. Unfortunately, the ballot language itself belies a different intent. The plain language of Measure A identifies a list of spending objectives starting with public safety and concluding with the troublesome catchall “other essential services.” Roads don’t even top the list.
Further, Measure A is a countywide sales tax, which means the county receives only 44 percent of the proceeds. The rest goes to the county’s nine incorporated cities. Best of intentions aside, most of the taxes are simply beyond the supervisors’ control. Tellingly, none of the cities have said how they would spend their share of the tax. Supervisors point out that Santa Rosa and Petaluma have endorsed Measure A. Well sure, and who can blame them? Measure A is free money for them as they cheer from the sidelines while the supervisors carry the ball on this one. Still, on the issue of how the money will be spent, the cities are silent.
There are other reasons for rejecting Measure A. First, additional tax money isn’t even necessary. The county has spent a noteworthy $40 million over the past four years to pay for road repairs and there is no reason we cannot continue doing so. Due to a steadily recovering economy, tax revenues are up an impressive 7.4 percent over last year. For the county alone, that means over $100 million in additional income annually.
Still, unchecked pensions remain the greatest concern. Supervisors tell us they have addressed the problem by negotiating greater employee pension contributions levels, reduced spiking opportunities and the adoption of two-tiered pension plans that push the real cost of excessive pension benefits on to the next generation of workers. And while it is true that those efforts have had modest positive effects, there is little appetite among elected officials to pursue additional needed reforms. What were hailed by politicians as first steps in addressing unsustainable pension costs appear now to be the final steps as well.
The reality is that retirement costs continue to soar as the county alone struggles under the weight of a $900 million unfunded pension liability. Politicians are quick to respond that the unfunded pension liability is not an obligation that is due today. True, but even worse, it remains an unconscionable and growing debt we leave to our children. And even though the unfunded liability may not be due today, the annual costs of servicing that liability continue to grow. This year alone the county paid $82 million toward that obligation. In 2008, the figure was $57 million. In 2000, $22 million. Is there really any doubt why funding for roads, parks and other services has not kept up with our needs?
No one disputes that our roads are in disrepair. But the reason they are is that money intended for road repair continues to be siphoned off to pay for excessive employee pensions. By authorizing more taxes, we only postpone and worsen the reckoning on the horizon as pension costs continue to climb. We owe our children and grandchildren better. Please vote no on Measure A.
Dan Drummond, Executive Director, Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association