Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Sales Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates proposed citywide sales tax for public safety, affordable housing and homelessness; no ballot decision tonight
Summary
City staff presented a proposal to place a 0.5% citywide sales tax on the April ballot to fund public safety, affordable housing and homelessness programs; council and public commenters split on timing, specificity and fairness, and the council did not vote on placing the question on the ballot that night.
The governing body discussed a city manager proposal to ask voters to approve an additional 0.5 percent citywide sales tax to provide ongoing support for public safety, build affordable housing, and fund homelessness services. The discussion on Feb. 4 included a staff presentation, public comment from residents and stakeholders, and extended council debate about timing, earmarking and alternatives.
Budget staff told the council the city faces a projected $17 million operating shortfall for fiscal year 2026 if no changes are made; staff outlined a mix of options to close the gap including internal cuts, shifting capital funding sources, spending reserves and, as one revenue option, a sales tax increase. Finance staff said the city’s 2024 citywide sales tax receipts were about $19 million annually as context for the scale of a new tax.
The city manager and budget director framed the proposed ballot timing as an April 28, 2025 vote that could raise revenue beginning Oct. 1 if approved. Staff also briefed the governing body about other one‑time and recurring budget reductions they could make to limit the shortfall, noting that some items are one‑time funds and would not solve multi‑year structural deficits.
Public commenters and advocacy organizations urged specificity and transparency. Speakers asked that any ballot language specify how funds will be split among public safety, affordable housing and homelessness programs, and that voters be told whether funds would be dedicated to salaries, capital, or programs. Several advocates specifically asked the council to activate and sufficiently fund the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and recommended that any new local revenue include a dedicated, time‑limited allocation for housing production plus a recurring allocation for wrap‑around services and navigation.
Council members were divided. Some councilmembers argued that the public should have the short‑term choice to approve new revenue now so staff can plan for 2026; others said it would be better to exhaust additional cuts, process changes, clearer budget auditing and other measures before asking voters for a regressive tax and to consider a November ballot date instead.
Councilmember Jeff Dobler proposed a narrower compromise option in discussion: a smaller, targeted split for voters to consider — 0.2 percent for public safety (ongoing) and 0.1 percent for affordable housing/homelessness (five‑year limited levy) — which he argued would be more specific and address public concerns. City staff noted sample language from other jurisdictions that can include percentage allocations in ballot questions. The city manager said staff would continue to refine options and would return with recommended ballot language if the council asks.
Ending: No final action was taken Feb. 4. Staff will continue budget work and return with options, language and timelines; councilmembers asked for more detail on how funds would be allocated and for clearer cost/benefit modeling before placing a measure before voters.
