Lompoc council authorizes survey to gauge voter support for a sales‑tax increase to fund roads
Loading...
Summary
Facing a roughly $1.45M–$1.67M annual shortfall for road maintenance after a recent court ruling reduced enterprise reimbursements, the council unanimously authorized a public‑opinion survey to test support for a potential transaction‑and‑use tax and to inform timing (June vs November) and whether the measure would be general or special.
The Lompoc City Council voted unanimously to pay for a professional public‑opinion survey to gauge voter support for a possible transaction‑and‑use tax (TUT) to help close the city's road funding gap.
Staff described a multi‑part problem: pavement maintenance is the city’s largest ongoing roadway expense, and the court decision in Rogers v. City of Redlands limits charging utilities for surface‑level vehicle use — removing roughly $1.67 million a year in enterprise reimbursements from the right‑of‑way maintenance fund, staff said. "Taking those surface pieces out... we're going to have instead of a 3,400,000 ongoing revenue to the ROW, we are going to now have a 1.76 ongoing revenue to ROW," the management services director said, characterizing a decrease of about $1,670,000.
Consultants from Urban Futures explained the TUT mechanics: the city is currently at an 8.75% total sales‑tax rate and state law leaves about a 0.5% capacity before the local cap; a 0.5% TUT could generate an estimated $3.75 million annually, the presentation said. Voting thresholds were reviewed: placing a special tax on a non‑general election requires a two‑thirds council vote to get it on the ballot and two‑thirds voter approval to pass; general taxes require a simple majority of voters but have different council placement rules for off‑cycle ballots.
Council debated timing (June 2026 vs November), whether to ask voters for a special tax (higher threshold but earmarked use) or a general tax (lower voter threshold, more flexibility), and whether bonding secured by a TUT should be used to accelerate capital work. Finance staff noted a hypothetical bond using roughly $950,000 per year for debt service could produce about $15 million in upfront proceeds but at substantial interest cost over 30 years.
Given competing considerations and the shortfall timeline, councilmember Bridge moved to authorize a professional, demographically balanced survey and return results to council for decision; the motion passed 5–0. Council instructed staff to scope the survey to test support for special vs general measures, timing, and spending priorities before bringing a final recommendation back to the council.
