San Mateo County sales tax a bitter pill

On Tuesday, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will consider placing a one-quarter cent sales tax measure on the November 2010 General Election ballot. The five year tax would generate an estimated $30 million per year and place San Mateo County’s sales tax rate among the highest in the Bay Area, equal to that of San Francisco and only 0.25 cents behind Alameda County.

The Supervisors are struggling to balance a budget with a structural deficit of $150 million and red ink and likely state diversions of resources for the foreseeable future.

But the Supervisors have made some strange decisions as of late that may dampen public enthusiasm for such a measure. Most significantly, the board recently blocked efforts to alter the way in which they themselves are elected, ending two years of effort by members of the public on the Civil Grand Jury and the Board-appointed Charter Review Commission to establish district based elections for Supervisors rather than the current at-large system.

The decision by the Supervisors to deny the public an opportunity to weigh in on the subject has infuriated many local leaders and will likely undermine editorial support for their efforts. By choosing a transparently politically convenient electoral option, they have so much as said that public input and participation in the political process is unwanted and unwelcomed. Not a good starting position to ask taxpayers for more of their dollars.

Subsequently, Supervisor Mark Church all but forced his colleagues into one of two untenable decisions by not resigning from his current board seat as he was just elected to the County Assessor-Clerk-Recorder post. In order to fill the remaining two years of Church’s term in office, the Supervisors will have to appoint a replacement or call for a costly special election. An appointment would enliven the public outcry that started the ball rolling on district elections two years ago when the Supervisors appointed Carol Groome to fill the remainder of former Supervisor now Assemblyman Jerry Hill’s seat. But if the Supervisors call a Special Election in the spring of 2011, they will be forced to expend an additional $1.6 million of taxpayer dollars that could have been saved if Church made a statesman-like decision to leave his current post early. He didn’t.

Again, a dismissive and tone-deaf treatment of the electorate.

But a new quarter-cent sales tax would also have impacts in local cities such as San Mateo and Half Moon Bay. In 2009, the City of San Mateo added it’s own one-quarter cent sales tax under Measure L increasing it’s sales tax rate above the county average by the same amount. Another quarter cent and San Mateo will have a sales tax rate among the highest in the Bay Area.

The Half Moon Bay City Council also just approved placing a one-cent sales tax on the November 2010 ballot. The one-cent tax combined with a county overlay would push Half Moon Bay’s sales tax rate into the stratosphere beyond any other Bay Area community.

But Half Moon Bay taxpayers may not have to contend with that as the County has a poor track record for passing taxes designed to support county services.

In fact, a countywide sales tax was attempted twice in the past few years, the most recent of which was Measure O, a 1/8-cent sales tax for city and county parks in 2008. Both iterations of that measure failed at the ballot by large margins.

In addition, in November 2008, the board placed two measures on the local ballot designed to raise much needed revenue. The first, Measure Q, was an 8% business license tax on gross receipts of operators of commercial parking in the unincorporated County area, meaning San Francisco International Airport. This measure would have raised roughly $4 million annually without significantly impacting the pocketbooks of County residents.

The second tax effort, Measure R, would have levied a 2.5% business license tax on gross receipts of vehicle rental businesses in the unincorporated county area, meaning the airport as well. This measure would have raised roughly $7.5 million annually, as the tax itself would have generated tax revenue from car rental enterprises at the airport, which generate a great amount of tax for the City and County of San Francisco, but little for San Mateo County.

Both taxes would have generated money from visitors from out of town; so, theoretically, there should have been little in the way of opposition from county taxpayers and voters.

Both measures failed to garner even a simple majority on a ballot that included newly elected President Barack Obama. Measure Q garnered only 47.4% of the voter and Measure R garnered only 47.1% of the vote.

With a little support, both measures could have easily passed muster but both were simply abandoned. While San Mateo County's Supervisors placed them on the ballot, none took ownership of the measures nor helped to coordinate support.

The county has been running in the red for several years and has been depleting its reserves to cover ongoing costs for several budget cycles. It has also missed opportunities and failed to communicate why voters should support new taxes for county services.

With the Supervisors’ recent actions, the public has absolutely no reason to support a new sales tax. In fact, the Supervisors have given voters every reason to vote against anything that would make the jobs of Supervisors easier.

---

Editor's Note:

Today, Tuesday, July 27th, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors took action in a decision on whether to place a ballot measure on this November 2010 ballot to raise the county's sales tax by a quarter cent. After hearing public testimony and debating the issue, the board voted 3-to-2 on not to place this measure on the November 2010 ballot.

One has hopes that the board will now continue to listen to their constituents before they make any other upcoming decisions. In recent months, the board has shown a pattern of not listening to its voters by not placing a measure on this November 2010 ballot to elect Supervisors by district rather than electing Supervisors at large.

Further, Supervisor Mark Church and his recent decision to not resign from his current board seat as he was elected to become the County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk for this coming January has created the situation of forcing the board to appoint a replacement or to call for a special election this spring. The possible cost of a special election could cost San Mateo County taxpayers $1.6 million that could have been saved if Church decided to resign early.

Once again, by creating this situation, Church has indicated a lack of sensitivity on how county constituents feel on this matter. When Carole Groom was appointed to the board in 2008 to complete former Supervisor Jerry Hill's seat, there was much outcry from the community. Maybe with this board's recent action today to not place the sales tax measure on the November 2010 ballot, there is faith that the board has turned over a new leaf and will begin to listen to its constituents. One can only hope

Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com
Visit Bruce Balshone's Examiner Page
Visit Bruce Balshone's Twitter Page
Visit Bruce's Peninsula Examiner Facebook Page