Pacific Grove council votes to send 0.375% sales‑tax measure to November ballot

Pacific Grove’s City Council voted unanimously to transmit a proposed 0.375% transaction‑and‑use (general) sales tax measure to the county elections office so it can appear on the November ballot.

The proposal, presented to the council as a general‑purpose sales tax with a 10‑year sunset, is estimated to generate about $1,000,000 annually. Staff emphasized the measure is only being transmitted for voter consideration; if voters approve it the council would later adopt any implementing ordinance.

City staff framed the item as a response to a projected long‑term structural deficit. Presenter Matt said the city has cut roughly $1,000,000 from operating expenses in the last year but that, under current assumptions, expenses are projected to grow faster than revenues: “In order to solve this, we’ve been looking at both sides of the equation…we have cut north of $1,000,000 from our budget to try and address some of this issue,” he said. Staff also noted an unfunded general‑fund capital need of about $11.6 million over five years and roughly $21 million over a 10‑year horizon for identified capital priorities.

The council heard the results of a 427‑respondent poll commissioned by the city. Staff reported initial support at 68%, a rise to 69% after pro messaging, and sustained support at 63% after respondents heard negative arguments — staff concluded the measure was feasible based on that ballot test.

Public comment reflected both support and skepticism. Caller Inga Lawrence told the council the process felt “preordained,” criticized consultant spending and warned of cumulative tax burdens. By contrast, Chris Thomas urged adoption, saying his estimate equated to about $33 per resident per year (based on a 15,000 population) and calling the amount “insignificant” compared with the benefit to fiscal stability.

Special counsel Colin Tuno advised the council on legal mechanics: because the measure is structured as a general tax, any revenue would become general‑fund revenue the council could lawfully spend for any city purpose and cannot be legally restricted solely to infrastructure. “You could not make legally binding a promise to use it only for infrastructure,” Tuno said, while adding that the city can adopt a contingent budget and message its intent to spend proceeds on capital needs if voters approve.

Council members repeatedly framed the choice as one for voters and warned that failing to place the measure on the ballot would require difficult cuts to services or infrastructure. Councilmember Rao said, “If we are short, then we are gonna have to cut,” and councilmember Garfield pointed to visible examples of deferred maintenance, including damage at Lovers Point.

A councilmember moved to adopt the resolution and direct staff to transmit the ballot materials to the county; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote announced as 6–0. Staff noted the package must reach the county by the August 7 filing deadline to appear on the November ballot. The measure would require a simple majority (50%+1) of voters to pass.

The council also discussed outreach plans, including a dedicated website, FAQs, fact sheets and a series of community meetings and mailers to educate voters. Staff estimated the consumer impact as small — about 3¢ on a $10 purchase, 37.5¢ on a $100 purchase and $3.75 on a $1,000 purchase — and said prior studies indicate a large share of retail sales tax revenue is generated by visitors.

The council adjourned after the vote; if the council had decided not to transmit the measure the city would have retained the option to pursue alternative actions, including additional cuts or seeking other revenue sources.