Guest Commentary: A Response to the Opponents of Measure Q

By Robb Davis, former Davis Mayor

As a former mayor of Davis and someone who has always been deeply committed to our City’s fiscal integrity, I would like to respond to the recently published article by the No on Measure Q team (Part 3 in a series).

Their article states that Measure Q would “double the extra sales tax from 1% to 2%” (the emphasis is theirs). The word “extra” is a strange way of characterizing the portion of our sales tax that stays here in Davis. As I explained in my recent letter to the Davis Enterprise, only a small percentage of the 8.25% sales tax we currently pay stays here in Davis. The State of California mandates that cities collect a minimum of 7.25% in sales tax, and the additional 1% we pay—often called the Davis portion—stays here in Davis. Measure Q would double that local portion by increasing it by 1%. This is a good thing! It means more of our tax dollars stay local, allowing us to meet community needs.

Their article incorrectly claims that Measure Q is a permanent tax that “never goes away.” California Law provides that a general sales tax may be repealed or amended by a majority vote of the people at any time. The opponents of Measure Q have been advised of their error numerous times, including by Michael Coleman, a widely recognized expert on municipal finance (he has literally written the book on municipal finance in California and is a Davis resident). Despite this, they continue to make this claim. I don’t know why.

The No on Measure Q team also wrongly claims that when Measure Q passes, every Davis resident will pay an additional $165 per year in taxes. To support their claim, they divide the $11 million that Measure Q is expected to generate by the 2022 Davis population of 67,000. This ignores the obvious fact that everyone who shops or eats at restaurants in Davis, not just its residents, will pay sales tax. This includes UC Davis students who live on campus and shop and dine downtown, their visiting family and friends, and others who come to Davis to enjoy its small-town charm. Measure Q’s opponents’ calculation seems designed to create alarm among those with fixed or limited incomes. However, food, medicines, and the single most significant monthly expense of most people—housing—are not taxed. Measure Q does not affect spending to meet these basic needs.

Those opposing this tax fail to acknowledge how multiple City Councils have sounded the alarm about the City’s budgetary needs over the past decade.

I think a bit of history is essential here.

In 2017, the Council developed a comprehensive, transparent fiscal model with significant community input. The model highlighted that the 2020s would represent considerable fiscal challenges for the City. And then we experienced a pandemic.

The pandemic brought one-time revenue from various sources, but these revenues were strictly restricted. And the inflation that followed in the pandemic’s wake significantly increased City costs for everything from asphalt to vehicle replacement parts.

But even before the pandemic, the Council proposed limiting the expansion of full-time staff positions, approved new revenue-generating businesses (hotels and cannabis dispensaries), and placed several tax measures on the ballot. These measures expanded the transient occupancy tax (hotel tax) and protected the parks tax. They brought in over $3 million in new revenue to the City. A parcel tax presented to Davis voters in 2018 to improve our roads and bike paths would have provided much-needed revenue. Despite the support of 57% of Davis voters, it failed to pass because it required a 2/3s majority vote.

This Council and prior Councils have been clear about our City’s challenges. They have used the tools at their disposal to try to address them. Now, this Council comes to you, the citizen voter, to challenge you about what is needed to maintain the services we all expect from city government.

This tax is a modest addition to your budget that will enable us to collectively get through the 2020s and move our City to a more secure fiscal position.