Sonoma County Ballot Measures 2016

M L J KY Sonoma County

Ballot Measures 2016

Table of Contents Introduction. . . . . . . p. 2

Measure J . . . p. 3

Measure K . . . p. 5

Measure L . . . p. 7

Measure M . . . p. 9

Measure Y . . . p. 11

Introduction Sonoma County voters have a lot of choices to make this November. Between state, county and city measures and races, voters will be asked to make decisions on issues like early parole for non-violent criminals, recreational marijuana legalization and tax increases for public education.

But those are just some of the statewide initiatives. Closer to home, voters will be asked to decide whether to ban genetically modified organisms in county farms, extend the county’s community separators law and add tax increases for libraries and parks.

In this booklet, Sonoma West Publishers dives into five countywide measures voters will encounter on Election Day. The articles provide basic information, including voices for and against each initiative.

2

When Hart was hired as the Regional Parks director, she was told to “apply entrepreneurial approaches to the park system to make it more self supporting.”

Measure J The Regional Parks Tax Measure Half-cent increase proposed for park improvements

By Amie Windsor This story covers Measure J, which seeks a half-cent sales tax increase on taxable goods sold in unincorporated Sonoma County. The measure includes a detailed plan to expand, maintain and improve Sonoma County Regional Parks.

During the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ Aug. 9 meeting, the board voted 4-0 to add the incremental sales tax increase on the November ballot after hearing arguments for the tax measure from Caryl Hart, director of Sonoma County Regional Parks. According to Hart, her department has been running at full capacity for many years. “Over the last six years, we’ve seen an energizing of the regional parks system,” Hart said, citing park membership growth jump from 8,000 to 25,000 passes since 2010.

3

She took that directive to heart, successfully adding Regional Parks membership passes to county employee’s benefits packages and working with local merchants, including Oliver’s Markets, Whole Foods and REI, to sell passes at their venues.

Meanwhile, the parks systems has expanded and improved, Hart said. “We’re at a point now where this county agency is spinning at maximum efficiency,” she said.

To achieve the vision of a “world-class park system,” Regional Parks needs additional revenue, Hart said.

“We’ve been building to this tax measure for a while now,” she added.

To ensure transparent spending, an independent citizens’ oversight committee will be formed and annual audits will be conducted. Additionally, annual public reports of all expenditures will ensure funds are spent as intended.

“We want to make sure every dime is spent on the proposed projects,” Hart said.

The projects run throughout the county, but vary from district to district. In Healdsburg, Regional Parks aims to construct an 8-mile long bikeway following the Russian River corridor. The bikeway would run from Healdsburg, past the Riverfront Regional Park, Wohler Beach River access, the Westside Water Education Center and into Forestville.

Healdsburg’s Veterans Memorial Beach is also slated to receive updates. Funds are slated to renovate and enhance access to the Russian River at the park, providing boat launches and landings, boat portage, safety facilities, family picnic areas and habitat restoration.

PACKING THE PARK Healdsburg’s Veteran’s Memorial Beach is slated to receive updates, including additional parking, should Measure J pass. Measure J seeks a halfcent sales tax increase on all buyable goods in unincorporated Sonoma County.

Photo provided.

Plans to renovate and expand public use facilities, picnic areas, barbecues, parking, play areas, gathering spaces, landscaping and native plantings are also itemized for the park. Additionally, the department hopes to replace the seasonal dam and build roofs and fencing within the park. Steps toward restoration and watershed protection along this section of the Russian River are also part of the department’s plans.

River access will also be enhanced between Healdsburg and the Wohler Bridge. The aim is to provide swimming, paddling, picnicking, camping and river restoration activities within the middle reach of the Russian River.

Supporters for Measure J include the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Greenbelt Alliance, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, LandPaths, Sonoma County Conservation Action and more than 40 community leaders and 40 elected officials, including Senator Mike McGuire, Congressmen Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson and the entire Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.

“What an opportunity for all the county for all of us to be in a position to take care of the parks and jump start what is necessary for future generations,”

said Greg Sarris, chairman of the Graton Rancheria.

The rancheria supplied the Friends of Sonoma County Regional Parks, measure supporters with $200,000 to kick-start the campaign in August.

The Friends have also received $5,000 from Jean F. Schulz, widow of Charles Schulz and owner of the Redwood Empire Skate Arena, more commonly known as Snoopy’s Ice Arena. Other contributors include $1,000 from Ted Eliot, father of Sonoma Land Trust’s Conservation Director Wendy Eliot and the Sonoma County Regional Parks Foundation, which has supplied, $9,999, the bulk of the funds.

Save Our Sonoma Roads (SOSroads), a countywide, all-volunteer citizens group has come out against the measure. “The reason, in short, is that while parks are important, the repair and replacement of county roads is far more urgent at this time,” a statement from SOSroads reads. “We are concerned that an increase in the sales tax for parks might hinder the supervisors’ ability and the public’s willingness to fund needed road work.”

“Frankly…I think it’s unfortunate to look at the one issue,” Hart, who sat down with SOSroads, said. “We need to look at the community as a whole.”

4

Measure K The Community Separator Protection Ordinance Measure K seeks to preserve green space in Sonoma County

By Amie Windsor This story covers Measure K: The Community Separators Protection Ordinance.

According to the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD), community separators are lands that function to separate cities and other communities, to contain urban development and to provide city and community identity by providing visual relief from continuous urbanization.

Sonoma County’s community separators were originally designated in the 1989 Sonoma County General Plan. Community separators are typically defined by agricultural or rural land use designations, which helps prevent urban sprawl in the county.

Twenty years ago, voters passed the first community separators protection ordinance, which called for voter approval of certain revisions to the boundaries of or land use regulations applicable to the community separators. This ordinance will expire at the end of 2016.

5

Measure K, which seeks to extend the soon-to-expire community separators ordinance, requires a simple majority to pass. The measure will protect a total of 53,576 acres of open space and farm lands. All registered voters in Sonoma County are eligible to vote on the measure.

Measure K first took life in the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors chambers. Last December the BOS voted to develop the ballot measure. Subsequent public workshops were held to gather input and science on designating community separators. In May, the Sonoma County Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the draft ballot, followed by a BOS public hearing over the summer. Back on Aug. 2, the BOS decided to place the ordinance on the General Election ballot. According to Teri Shore, regional director of the Greenbelt Alliance, the ordinance is a “renewal of policy put into place 20 years ago.”

“A yes vote will extend protections for open spaces

and farm lands around the cities for another 20 years,” Shore said. “And it will not cost taxpayers anything to protect from sprawl.”

Shore said the community separators ordinance works in conjunction with the nine urban growth boundaries established by each Sonoma County city to preserve the green space in the county.

opment pressure is “always there.”

“The better the economy is, the more pressure there is to convert that land for profit,” Shore said.

“It’s why people love visiting Sonoma County,” Shore said. “It’s beautiful. Sonoma County has avoided the mistakes other counties in this state have made.”

Shore acknowledged the need for affordable housing within the county but said the community separator lands aren’t the right place for construction. “It is more expensive to build in the country,” Shore said. “It’s not affordable to put housing were there are no services.

It might cost the developer less, but it will cost those who live there significantly more.”

Shore cited many Bay Area counties and San Jose, in which urban sprawl has voided the areas of green

Shore believes the county is in need of a “paradigm shift” for how cities continue to develop. The desire for

space. “Our longstanding policies have been successful,” Shore said.

cities to build up instead of out doesn’t mean Sonoma County towns and cities will be inundated with skyscrapers, Shore said. “I think Sonoma County is beginning to embrace this change,” she added.

“A yes vote will extend protections for open spaces and farm lands around the cities for another 20 years,” Shore said.

“And it will not cost taxpayers anything to protect from sprawl.”

According to Dennis Rosatti, general consultant for Measure K, the ordinance will not prevent those within the community separators from continuing to pursue their line of work.

“If you have a farm and want to build a new barn, or you’re a winery and you want to add new rows, this will not prevent you from doing so,” Rosatti said. The ordinance will require voter approval for any land designation change within the community separators, however.

While no formal group has officially taken a stance against the ordinance, Shore acknowledged that devel-

Endorsements for the ordinance have stacked up, coming from all aspects of the county, from Sonoma County Alliance, the biggest business association in the county, to the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, League of Women Voters and Sonoma County Conservation Action.

A poll from last year conducted for the Greenbelt Alliance by Oakland-based Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, Inc., indicated 75 percent of Sonoma County voters supported renewing and adding greenbelt lands to community separators. However, the same poll indicated only 37 percent of voters were aware of community separators.

“There’s a lot of confusion out there,” Shore said. She has worked with her team to help educate the public about how community separators make the county unique while preserving its agricultural heritage.

“Now we just need voters to get all the way down the ballot,” Shore said.

6

Measure L County of Sonoma Tourist Tax Measure L seeks tax increase for lodging in unincorporated areas of the county

By Stuart Tiffen This story covers Measure L: County of Sonoma Tourist Tax. It is on the ballot as a TOT increase.

A Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), sometimes called a hotel tax or a bed tax, is levied throughout the county and in each of the municipalities in the area, assessing millions of dollars each year from tourists who spend the night in local hotels, bed-and-breakfasts, campgrounds and inns.

Under state law, TOT is authorized as a source of non-property tax revenue to local government. For hospitality businesses in unincorporated areas of the county (outside city limits), the current rate of TOT is 9 percent. Measure L will ask Sonoma County voters to weigh in on whether the county should increase that tax to 12 percent for lodging in unincorporated areas of the county.

Last year’s TOT receipts brought in $13.72 million from unincorporated county lodging businesses.

That revenue, after stuttering during the recession in 2008 and 2009, has continued to show strong growth, climbing 56 percent in the last five years, with a 15 percent increase between 2014 and 2015.

7

The last time the TOT for unincorporated Sonoma County was raised was in 1992, when it was increased one percentage point, from 8 to 9 percent.

Currently, county policy is that 75 percent of TOT funds go into an advertising program that attempts to bolster “tourism, economic development and community engagement through a variety of grant award and funding avenues,” according to the Sonoma County website.

Should the ballot measure pass, the county estimates that TOT revenue would bring in an additional $4.8 million per year. County staff anticipates an additional $3.6 million would go to the advertising program, with the remaining $1.2 million going into the General Fund.

The Board of Supervisors voted in favor of placing Measure L on the ballot for Nov. 8 at its Aug. 9 meeting. At the meeting, supervisors expressed their desire to mitigate the impacts of tourism through the tax increase.

“We are quite under where the other cities are at 12 (percent) and we are at 9 (percent),” said Third Dis-

trict Supervisor Shirlee Zane. “We know that tourism is a great economic engine but we also know that it has some serious impacts in terms of roads, parks and emergency services, so getting us to where the other jurisdictions are is really important in terms of the TOT.” Fifth District Supervisor Efren Carillo said that a TOT increase had been discussed for years on the board. “I think we need to do a better job of collecting the TOT that is out there and I hope that this board will do that moving forward,” he said. “I do believe that there is a chance that some of the additional monies recouped from the potential TOT increase could be used for potholes and infrastructure.”

This statement was directed at Craig Harrison of the nonprofit Save Our Sonoma Roads (SOS), who had addressed the board prior to their vote, suggesting that less TOT revenue be spent on advertising.

SOS has since released a statement in support of Measure L, despite its desire to see more of the funds put to use on infrastructure in the county.

Tim Hannan of The Sonoma County Taxpayers Association came out against the measure in his most recent newsletter with an article entitled “L Stands for Lazy.”

“The supervisors offer no evidence, no findings, no metrics on which to base their conclusion that tourists are not paying their fair share,” Hannan wrote. “Nor do the supervisors address the question: How much more of a financial strain can the county impose on tourists before they begin to say ‘Let’s go somewhere else’?”

Hannan warned that the revenue from the tax increase would only reduce the pressure on the Board of Supervisors to take action on the outstanding issue of $831 million in unfunded public employee pension debt.

TOT Assessment

by City Cloverdale - 10% Healdsburg - 12% Petaluma - 10% Rohnert Park - 12% Santa Rosa - 9% Sebastopol - 10% Sonoma - 10% Windsor - 12%

Unincorporated Sonoma County - 9%

8

Measure M GMO Bans Sonoma County to vote on ban of genetically engineered seeds

improve crop yields, thereby increasing global food supply. In the U.S., most corn, soybean and cotton crops are GE. But Hudson and other GE opponents maintain the use of GE seeds create more problems than they solve.

The ballot language cites issues like herbicide-tolerant superweeds and possible adverse health or environmental consequences as reasons to ban GE seeds and crops.

The bans would be limited to the unincorporated part of the county, Hudson said, where she estimates more than 90 percent of all agriculture occurs.

“City farms fall within city jurisdiction,” Hudson said.

By Amie Windsor This story covers Measure M: The Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Prevention Ordinance, more commonly known as the “GMO ban.”

According to ballot language, the ordinance seeks to “protect Sonoma County’s native plants, trees and animals from transgenic contamination from genetically engineered (GE) organisms.”

“The ordinance is meant to protect farms and pastures from GE pollen transfer,” said Karen Hudson, a lead proponent with Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families, the organization behind the proposed ban.

The ordinance would ban GE organisms, where the DNA or RNA of a cell has been altered. Likewise, methods of fusing cells that aid an organism in overcoming “natural physiological, reproductive or recombinant barriers” that aren’t used in traditional breeding would be banned.

GE seeds can be beneficial to agriculture in that they are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides.

Additionally, GE seeds add nutritional benefits or 9

The ban would not prevent the sale or purchase of GE food or seed in the county, nor would it forbid medical treatment for humans or animals using GE-altered vaccines or medications. Furthermore, the ban would not prevent research into GMOS within the county, as long as the research was conducted in secure labs.

Enforcement of the ban would fall on the shoulders of the county’s agricultural commission, Tony Linegar.

Linegar, who in May told the Board of Supervisors the ordinance could be difficult and costly to enforce as written, said enforcing the ordinance would cost the county between $2,400 and $9,900 per complaint, should a complaint morph into a violation. These costs come after a startup enforcement price of $9,400.

Linegar suggested the costs could be recovered by adding the Agriculture Commission to the list of departments under Sonoma County code 1-7(b), enabling it to collect hard costs through property taxes.

The municipal code deems violations as nuisances and allows for departments handling the violations to assess against parcels of property where the nuisances are located.

STREET POLITICS: Supporters of a GMO ban march to make their point about concerns over transgenic contamination.

Hudson, however, maintains that neither the county

find combinations of more drought-resistant plants.

nor taxpayers would bear a burden of extra costs, as the penalties weighed down upon violators would cover the cost of enforcement. “The cost lies with the person who broke the law,” Hudson said.

“That could be especially beneficial to this area,” Vail said.

She admitted that in Mendocino County, where a similar ban has been in place since 2004, the county has had to pay for lab tests and fees where reported violations were unfounded.

Nevertheless, Hudson maintains the ban is an effective and beneficial ordinance for Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Marin and Santa Cruz counties and would likely bring the same benefits to Sonoma County, which include the preservation of organic agriculture and identity in the county, better overall health and reduced risk of crop contamination.

The Sonoma County Farm Bureau (SCFB) thinks banning GMO seeds puts a limit on agriculture, which the bureau cannot support, according to SCFB Executive Director Kim Vail.

“We wouldn’t want to see biotechnology excluded from agriculture methods,” Vail said.

Vail believes there are many benefits of biotechnology farming, including using genetic engineering to

Vail added that GMO crops may be created to improve nutrition, reduce allergies in people and reduce the amount of pesticides and herbicides required.

Major endorsements for the ban come from the Graton Rancheria, Traditional Medicinals, Strauss Family Creamery, the Sonoma County Democratic Party and the Sierra Club. Various farms, wineries, nonprofit organizations and businesses throughout the county also endorse the ban.

Those in favor of the ban want to protect Sonoma County’s individuality, crops and economy. Organic farmers in particular are worried about cross-contamination and cross-pollination from GE crops.

Joining the Farm Bureau in opposition of the ban are Steve Dutton of Dutton Ranch, Mitch Mulas of Mulas Dairy near Sonoma and the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association. Opponents believe the ordinance will cost taxpayers “millions” and takes away the benefits, such as reduced fuel emissions and water use, GE crops provide.

10

Measure Y The Sonoma County Library Maintenance, Restoration and Enhancement Act

By Amie Windsor This story covers Measure Y: The Sonoma County Library Maintenance, Restoration and Enhancement Act. Measure Y asks voters to approve a one-eighth of 1 percent (.125 percent) transactions and use tax to help supplement existing funding for library operations.

The transaction tax would be applied to all retailers in the county and would apply to any purchase that currently is subject to sales tax.

“It’s a small tax,” said Sonoma County Library Director Brett Lear. “If you spend $20 in the community, a little over 2 cents goes toward the library.”

The measure comes two years after a similar tax measure failed by two points in the 2014 election.

During a special meeting on July 18, the Sonoma County Library Commission adopted an ordinance plan to place the one-eighth of a cent tax on the Nov. 8 ballot. The adoption came after a June 6 meeting established that additional funds were needed to maintain, restore and enhance library services, according to a presentation by the library’s revenue enhancement committee.

11

The presentation highlighted the fact that “without additional funds, library expenses will exceed revenue in two years.”

According to the presentation, “A voter-approved oneeighth cent sales tax is the only viable option that provides the funds needed to adequately address existing library service and facilities needs.”

“We’re going to continue to struggle perpetually until we figure out a sustainable revenue source,” Lear added.

The library suffered through the economic recession, receiving less property tax after 2009. Because of the reduced tax revenue, the library cut its hours 25 percent, shuttering doors on Sundays and Mondays. The libraries face roughly $8 million in deferred maintenance, Lear said. Lear also said the libraries need about $1.5 million in technology services maintenance to be able to adequately serve the community.

The libraries receive a small share of current property taxes, 22.5 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value, a number that hasn’t changed since 1975.

“The tax base never changes,” Lear said. “Whether we’re in a recession or the economy improves, we’ll continue to have a very low tax rate.”

Property tax revenue has been on a steady rise since 2014. In fact, in 2015, the property tax base for Sonoma County jumped more than expected, bringing in an additional $1.3 million to the library.

Arguments against Measure Y, articulated by Joanne B. Sanders, a former library commissioner, and Dan Drummond, executive director of the Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association say the library is receiving more money now from property taxes than it did prior to the recession.

“So why is a new tax necessary to restoring operating

hours?” Sanders and Drummond argue. “Quite simply … restoring hours just isn’t the priority (the library) says it is and they spend money for other purposes.”

However, proponents for Measure Y say “The No on Measure Y argument has it all wrong.” Proponents maintain “rising costs and flat property values impacted libraries well before the great recession.” The uptick in property tax revenue seen over the past two years has not “been enough to pay the costs of reopening our libraries on Monday, buying more books for children and providing other basic public library services listed in the measure.”

The 2016-17 budget, which was adopted on May 2, projects $19.36 million in revenue, up $1.2 million from the 2015-16 budget. Expenses for the 2016-17 year equal the projected revenue.

According to the 2015-16 Sonoma Grand Jury, an issue plaguing the library’s bottom line is the organization’s pension liability obligations and obligations for other post-employment benefits. In a 2014-15 audit, these figures added up to more than $16 million.

Lear explained how accounting rules govern the library to report all financial obligations relating to pensions and employment benefits each fiscal year. The number, Lear said, isn’t indicative of what the library owes at that moment in time. “It’s kind of like declaring your entire mortgage against your debit card,” Lear said. “That would put you in a big hole.”

restore and enhance library services, materials and facilities in the county.

Should Measure Y pass, services and projects slated for the library include supporting library collections, educational programs and classes for school-age and pre-school children, improving access to local libraries and maintaining library collections and maintaining aging library facilities. Specific expenditure items include providing computer labs and WiFi at all libraries, restoring and enhancing library hours, expanding senior and disabled services and maintaining children’s classes and services.

To ensure accountability, the library director would be required to submit an annual report of the amount of funds collected and the status of projects funded by the tax revenue. The library commission will also create an 11-member citizens oversight committee to review expenditures of the tax revenue on an annual basis.

Additionally, funds will be used to support libraries in all nine county cities as well as libraries and library services in unincorporated Sonoma County. According to the measure, neither the state nor the county can take these funds away from the library.

SIT. STAY. LISTEN. The “Read to a Dog” program at local libraries allows young readers to read to specially trained dogs, as a way to encourage literacy.

Lear added that the library does meet its pension obligations annually. He also added that funds from the tax would not be used to help pay the library’s pension obligations.

The expenditure plan in the measure outlines how the funds, to be deposited into the county treasury into a separate, special fund, would be used to maintain, 12

A publication of Sonoma West Publishers