City of Petaluma General Sales Tax, Measure Q (November 2014)

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

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Impartial analysis
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 3.2.1 Official arguments
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 4.2.1 Official arguments
* 4.3 Editorials
* 5 Related measures
* 6 See also
* 7 External links
* 8 Footnotes

A City of Petaluma General Sales Tax, Measure Q ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of Petaluma in Sonoma County, California. It was defeated.

Had it been approved, Measure Q would have authorized the city to increase for an indefinite time the transactions and use tax - commonly known as a sales tax - in the city by 1 percent. This would have increased the city's total sales tax rate from 8.25 percent to 9.25 percent. Without Measure Q, the total sales tax rate in the city will remain at 8.25 percent. At the time of Measure Q's defeat, the state-mandated tax rate was 7.5 percent, and the county imposed a sales tax of 0.75 percent, which accounted for the entire 8.25 percent sales tax paid by city residents.[1]

Despite being called the "Better Roads - Safer Petaluma Measure," Measure Q was a general tax, which means the revenue would have gone into the city's general fund and could have been used for any governmental purpose.[1]

City officials estimated the proposed tax increase would generate about $10 million per year in new revenue.[1]

Supporters of the tax said the added revenue from Measure Q was necessary to keep the city's expenses under control. They stressed the roads in need of repair, the dearth of police officers, recent budget cuts and city employee salary reductions, arguing the city truly was in need and that residents would have a greater quality of life, and businesses would be more willing to plant roots in the community, if its infrastructure received the boost offered by Measure Q.[2]

Opponents argued that the city's proposed tax was "too big, too open and too long." Critics said the city needed to propose smaller taxes for specific purposes and include automatic expiration dates in order to ensure voters that their hard-earned money wouldn't disappear into the bottomless pit of pension funds and interest payments on city debt.[3][4]

The countywide Measure M, seeking a sales tax increase of 0.125 percent, was also on the November ballot. Measure M was also defeated. If both this measure and Measure M had been approved, the total resulting sales tax rate for the city of Petaluma would have amounted to 9.375 percent.

## Election results[edit]

Measure Q

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 10,606| 56.7%
Yes|  8,091|  43.3%

Election results from Sonoma County Elections Office

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The question on the ballot:[1]

“  |

Shall the BETTER ROADS SAFER PETALUMA MEASURE, a general transactions and use tax of 1%, with all proceeds placed in the Petaluma General Fund for governmental purposes such as street and sidewalk maintenance and repair, traffic improvements like the Rainier Crosstown Connector/Interchange, flood protection, storm drainage, vehicle replacement, restoring public safety positions, and public facilities improvements, among others, with local control of tax proceeds, and independent review and reporting on expenditures, be adopted?[5]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis was prepared for Measure Q:[1]

“  |

The Petaluma City Council placed Measure Q on the November 4, 2014 general election ballot by ordinance. Measure Q would impose a 1%local transactions and use or sales tax on the sale and use of personal property in Petaluma, subject to specified exceptions. Measure Q is a general tax and requires approval by majority vote of the qualified Petaluma voters voting in the November 4, 2014 election. Measure Q has no expiration date. If approved it would remain in effect unless amended or repealed by Petaluma voters.

Measure Q would raise the sales tax in Petaluma from 8.25% to 9.25%. A Sonoma County transactions and use tax of .125% to provide library funding also has been placed on the November 4, 2014 ballot and designated as Measure M. If both measures are approved, and the California Legislature enacts legislation raising the cap on Sonoma County local sales tax by at least .125%, sales tax in Petaluma would increase from 8.25% to 9.375% for the 10 year-period Measure M is in effect.

Measure Q requires tracking its proceeds and expenditures separately from all other Petaluma General Fund tax receipts. Measure Q also requires appointment of a 5-member citizen oversight committee to review and report on use of Measure Q proceeds, and quarterly reports on all proceeds of the tax and their use for submission to the oversight committee and publication on the City’s website. The citizen oversight committee would meet annually. Its meetings and records would be subject to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.

Petaluma staff estimate Measure Q would generate approximately $10 million annually. Staff has recommended priorities for Measure Q proceeds, such as: restoration of public safety positions; repair of roads and sidewalks; relocation, modernization and expansion of fire stations and the police station; replacement of fire engines, ambulances and police cars; completion of flood protection and storm water projects; and completion of the Rainier crosstown connector/interchange.

However, all Measure Q proceeds would be placed in the Petaluma General Fund for use for general governmental purposes approved by the City Council. Measure Q proceeds therefore could be used for purposes that are approved by the City Council other than those staff has recommended.

Petaluma would contract with the State Board of Equalization to administer Measure Q. If approved by Petaluma voters, Measure Q will become effective 10 days after the Petaluma City Council declares the results of the November 4, 2014 election.

The operative period of State Board of Equalization administration of Measure Q would begin the calendar quarter starting more than 110 days after Measure Q’s effective date, or approximately April 1, 2015.[5]

| ”

|
|

—Eric W. Danly, Petaluma City Attorney[1]

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

The following individuals signed the official arguments in favor of Measure Q:[1]

* Mike Healy, Petaluma City Councilmember
* Gabe Kearney, Petaluma Vice Mayor
* Kathy Miller, Petaluma City Councilmember
* Garrett Glaviano, president of the Petaluma Peace Officers' Association
* Judith H. Hillery, retired registered nurse

### Arguments in favor[edit]

Mike Healy, a member of the Petaluma City Council, wrote an opinion piece in support of Measure Q that was featured by the Argus-Courier. In his article, Healy argued that the city is truly in need of additional revenue to continue upkeep and maintenance of the city's infrastructure and to provide public safety services. In response to critics who claimed the tax should be a special tax rather than a general one, Healy argued that the daunting requirement of a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for the approval of a special tax appropriately motivated the city council to seek a general tax, which only required a simple majority for approval. An excerpt from Healy's article is below:[2]

“  |

Are you tired of being stuck in traffic and avoiding potholes as you drive in Petaluma? So am I. Measure Q, a 1-cent sales tax increase, will fix Petaluma’s streets, ease traffic and keep Petaluma safe. Measure Q will allow us to build the Rainier cross-town connector and interchange. It will allow us to spend millions improving streets.

Petaluma has a unique balance of small town values and modern touches. Measure Q allows us to make Petaluma an even better place to live, work, raise a family and grow a business.

[...]

Petaluma has 15 fewer police officers than in 2007. The street crimes, drugs and school resource assignments have been eliminated. We can’t afford to regularly replace fire trucks, ambulances or police cars as old ones wear out. The downtown fire station is seismically unsafe and needs to be replaced. The city must borrow funds for stream maintenance to prevent flooding.

With Measure Q, we can restore police positions, replace police and fire vehicles when needed, and have modern, safe police and fire stations. Streetlights can be repaired. Flood protection will be strengthened. We can improve streets and sidewalks throughout town and accelerate construction of Rainier – finally easing the traffic crunch.

[...]

A broad coalition of Petalumans support Measure Q. Please join me in supporting Measure Q.[5]

| ”

|
|

—Mike Healy[3]

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following was submitted as the official arguments in favor of Measure Q:[1]

“  |

Measure Q allows Petaluma to achieve street and sidewalk improvements throughout town and accelerate construction of the Rainier Connector and Interchange — finally easing the traffic crunch. But Measure Q will do much more for Petaluma.

By supporting Measure Q, citizens will see dramatic service and quality of life improvements throughout Petaluma. Our streets and traffic are among the worst in the Bay Area. Sacramento funding raids and the Great Recession have delayed needed repairs.

Petaluma has 15 fewer police officers than in 2007. The street crimes, drugs and school resource assignments have been eliminated. We can’t afford to regularly replace fire trucks, ambulances or police cars as the old ones wear out. The downtown fire station is seismically unsafe and needs to be replaced. The City must borrow funds for stream maintenance to prevent flooding.

With Measure Q, we can restore police positions, replace public safety vehicles when needed, and have modern, safe police and fire stations. Street lights can be repaired. All this is achievable.

The new Target and Friedman’s centers dramatically improved Petaluma’s sales tax revenues. Even with them, though, total General Fund revenues this fiscal year will be $39 million, down from $48 million in 2007.

Your Council majority understands the community’s priorities and will work tirelessly to make sure that the priority projects listed in Measure Q—with streets and the Rainier Connector at the top of the list—get funded and achieved. Measure Q funds cannot be grabbed by Sacramento. They will be locally controlled.

Measure Q includes important transparency and accountability safeguards. All sales tax proceeds and expenditures will be clearly identified. Quarterly reports on

Measure Q revenues and expenditures will be issued to the community. And a citizen oversight committee will be appointed to protect taxpayer funds.[5]

| ”

|
|

—Mike Healy, Kathy Miller, Garrett Glaviano and Judith H. Hillery[1]

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The following individuals signed the official arguments in opposition to Measure Q:[1]

* David Glass, mayor of the city of Petaluma
* Dan Drummond, executive director of the Sonoma County Taxpayers' Association
* Teresa Barrett, Petaluma Councilmember
* Janice Cader-Thompson, former Petaluma Councilmember
* Bryant Moynihan, executive director of Petalumans for Responsible Government

### Arguments against[edit]

Dan Drummond, the executive director of the Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association and a Petaluma resident, wrote an opinion piece in opposition to Measure Q featured by the Argus-Courier. In his article, he argued that Measure Q does not ensure accountability for where the money would go because it has no special purpose and can be used to fund anything. He argues that, although tax supporters claim the revenue will be used to repair roads and improve public safety, the truth is Measure Q funds will largely go towards salary raises and pensions. An excerpt from Drummond's article is below:[3]

“  |

Seeking to overcome that voter distrust, and knowing that many voters automatically approve anything backed by police officers and firefighters, the council majority set out to form an alliance with the police and fire unions. Not coincidentally, both unions are currently engaged in contract negotiations with the cash-strapped city and would like nothing more than to find a big pool of money to be tapped for raises and pensions. In Measure Q, they see that pool. In fact, contract negotiations are being stalled until after the November election in hopes the tax will pass. But, and here’s the rub, if Measure Q was restricted to road repairs and the Rainier connector as voters want, the unions would be shut out.

Notwithstanding that voters want road repairs and the Rainier connector, the council majority went another way. With the council majority already beholden to police and fire unions for campaign contributions and endorsements, it is no surprise that they put on the ballot a measure intended to pay for union members’ raises and pensions. Empty and unenforceable promises that Measure Q will pay for road repairs or the Rainier connector will be forgotten as soon as the election is over. Don’t be fooled. Vote No on Measure Q.[5]

| ”

|
|

—Dan Drummond[3]

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following was submitted as the official arguments in opposition to Measure Q:[1]

“  |

Measure Q is a “general purpose” tax that goes directly into Petaluma’s general fund where it can be used for anything a majority of the city council wants to spend it on from pensions to personnel perks.

Deceptively titled the Better Roads, Safer Petaluma Measure, those words are just the empty promises of proponents who want to lull you into believing this tax will pay for road repairs and police officers. If that was indeed the case, the city council would have made the measure a “special purpose” tax thus guaranteeing the purposes for which the money was to be spent. Instead, the council split 5 to 2 with the majority opting for the general purpose tax we have before us.

Further, the tax is permanent. This tax will go on forever making Petaluma the city with the highest and longest-lasting tax in Sonoma County.

Petaluma’s pension problem is no secret. Nor is Petaluma’s refusal to deal with it. While other Sonoma County cities are starting to face the problem head-on, Petaluma has amassed nearly $55 million in unfunded pension liabilities and post-employment benefits. Rather than curb the ever increasing flow of money being taken from roads, parks maintenance and other essential government services in order to pay for exploding pension costs, a majority of Petaluma’s city council want you to dig deeper and pay more.

This tax is anti-business and anti-Petaluma residents. It provides no enforceable guarantees that future councils will use the money for the purposes promised. Even the proponent’s ballot statement is carefully worded so as not to bind the City to actually fulfilling the promises of Better Roads and a Safer Petaluma. Don’t be misled. Demand accountability from your elected officials. Vote no on Measure Q.[5]

| ”

|
|

—David Glass, Dan Drummond, Teresa Barrett, Janice Cader-Thompson and Bryant Moynihan[1]

### Editorials[edit]

The Press Democrat published an editorial urging voters to reject Measure Q, arguing that because Measure Q was a general tax the city would be sorely tempted to pour tax revenue into the city's pension fund, home of $55 million in unfunded pension liabilities. They further added that Measure Q revenue would enable the city to continue to barely keep its head above water instead of finding a solution that brings pension benefits down to a sustainable level. An excerpt of the editorial is below:[4]

“  |

The temptation will be great to direct Measure Q funds to pay for pensions rather than do the hard work of bringing benefits back down to sustainable levels.

Finally, Measure Q comes with no expiration date. The timeline for the Rainier project may be unknown. But what’s certain is that there will, at some time, be an end point. Measure Q should have an end point as well.

Petaluma needs the funds, and it needs infrastructure improvements. But it doesn’t need Measure Q. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote.[5]

| ”

|
|

—Press Democrat editorial board[4]

## Related measures[edit]

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

## See also[edit]

* City tax on the ballot
* Sales tax in California
* Local sales tax on the ballot
* Sonoma County, California ballot measures
* November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Sonoma County Registrar of Voters Office website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 Ballotpedia staff writer Josh Altic, "Email correspondance with Sonoma County Registrar of Voters Office," October 6, 2014
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Petaluma 360, "Tax will build Rainier, roads," September 22, 2014, archived October 6, 2014
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Petaluma 360, "Tax will fund city pensions," September 22, 2014, archived October 6, 2014
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: No on Q: Too big, too open, too long," September 24, 2014, archived October 6, 2014
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

Local taxes on the ballot in California

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes