St. Helena council adopts resolution to place sales tax measure on November ballot

The St. Helena City Council voted 4–0 on July 7 to adopt a resolution placing a proposed general sales-tax increase, called Measure S, on the Nov. 3, 2026 municipal ballot. Council members and staff said the measure is intended to provide sustained funding for long‑deferred capital projects, pensions and public safety needs, and that election-timing rules required council action at the special session.

Staff presented a fiscal briefing and polling data before the vote. City staff reported starting fiscal-year reserves of about $15.4 million and said the city drew roughly $1 million from reserves in the most recent closed year; staff also warned that under conservative revenue and expenditure assumptions reserves could decline toward and below the council’s 30% policy in coming years. Consultant FM3 Research told the council that, in a June 6–23 survey of just over 300 likely local voters (margin of error ±5.5%), about 70% of respondents said they would “definitely or probably” vote yes on the sales tax question and that support rose after educational messaging.

Why it matters: staff and several council members said the city faces structural pressure from rising recurring costs—staff cited an increase of roughly $3 million a year tied to converting and expanding the local fire operation and an approximate $14 million unfunded pension liability—and that new recurring revenue would preserve reserves and allow the city to address deferred maintenance. Legal counsel warned the council that state law (Prop. 218) generally requires a general tax to be placed at a general election, so the council needed a two‑thirds vote to proceed tonight if it wished the measure to appear on the November ballot.

Public commenters and members of the finance committee pressed the council for more time and transparency. An acting finance‑committee chair told the council the committee “takes no position” on the proposal and said committee members had not received the polling or full financial information they requested; the speaker added the committee had outstanding data requests dating to March. Resident Tamara Sorensen told the council that rushing the measure with a small survey sample would be “a complete failure of municipal governance,” and other speakers urged clearer ballot language and stronger accountability measures.

Council deliberations focused on timing and process. Several council members said the deadline to act requires immediate decision-making but pledged to continue collaboration with the finance committee and to provide requested documents. Legal counsel and staff offered two procedural clarifications: (1) the county needs formal action quickly to include a measure on the November ballot, and (2) the apparent deadline to withdraw a placed measure is roughly 88 days before the election (staff and counsel discussed August 7 as a working withdrawal date). Staff also said BBK counsel would provide a memo clarifying which restricted funds could or could not be used for particular projects.

Quotes that capture the debate: consultant Lucia del Pupo of FM3 Research summarized the survey: “We spoke to just over 300 voters…70% of voters said they would definitely or probably vote yes on the measure.” The acting finance‑committee chair said the committee had not been given data it requested and warned, “We have not analyzed it,” referring to staff’s materials. Resident Tamara Sorensen told the council: “Placing a permanent tax hike onto residents under a self‑inflicted 11th hour financial validation from your own finance committee is a complete failure of municipal governance.”

Vote and next steps: Council member (speaker 3) moved to adopt the resolution; Council member Diaz seconded. The council recorded four affirmative votes, satisfying the two‑thirds threshold required to place a general tax measure on the ballot. Staff said it will provide the audited financial statements and a BBK memo on restricted funds at the council’s July 28 meeting and will deliver required election materials to the county per the election calendar. The council may withdraw a placed measure before the county’s printing/withdrawal deadline if the body so chooses.

The measure will appear on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot unless the council elects to withdraw it before the county’s deadlines; council members and staff said they expect continued review and follow-up with the finance committee and promised additional public information in the coming weeks.