Supervisors dump November road tax
Wrong time to seek local increase, county decides
By BILL KISLIUK
Register Editor
11:20 a.m.Acknowledging low odds of success at the polls, the Napa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday ditched a proposal to place a half-cent sales tax increase on the November ballot to pay for local road repairs.
Board members and Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency Executive Director Jim Leddy cited factors ranging from the high price of gas and the crowded November ballot to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s most recent proposed budget fix — a statewide 1 percent sales tax hike — in jettisoning the ballot measure.
“I recommend that we not call the election at this time,” said Leddy.
“It’s no secret that Napa County roads are among the worst in the Bay Area,” he said, adding that “they are just going to get worse over time.”
But he said the perceived advantage of seeking the road tax during what is anticipated to be a high-turnout election was being “swamped” by higher-profile ballot issues.
He said the governor’s new sales tax hike proposal, the latest in a series of possible solutions to the budget stalemate in Sacramento, was “the nail in the coffin.”
Supervisor Bill Dodd, who also serves as chair of the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission, acknowledged that withdrawing the road measure “is something we’ve been looking at closely for about four weeks.”
Dodd reeled off adverse factors: a lengthy ballot, starting with the presidential and congressional races and including a dozen or more state initiatives; city council and supervisor races up and down the valley; and the high price of gas.
“We just didn’t want to put this burden on voters at this time,” said Dodd.
“We all recognize this was going to be a tough sell,” said Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht.
Rough roads ahead
The road tax measure, which received the endorsement of every city council in the county in the last month or so, would have been the second bid at a so-called self-help tax in Napa County.
Measure H on the June 2006 ballot also would have raised the local sales tax by half a cent to pay for road repairs and projects. It received support from 52 percent of the voters, well shy of the two-thirds support needed.
Leddy and Dodd have said Napa County must approve a specialized source of funds for roadwork to successfully draw state and federal matching dollars. NCTPA projections showed that this year’s proposed 30-year tax would have raised more than $460 million locally and drawn an additional $600 million in state and federal monies.
The NCTPA had outlined several projects to be paid for with the tax. These included $194 million worth of road repairs in Napa County, $189 million in the city of Napa, smaller but substantial pots of funds for repairs in other cities, the construction of three Upvalley traffic roundabouts, safety improvements to Silverado Trail, the widening of Napa’s First Street bridge over Highway 29 to four lanes, construction of a Soscol flyover at the Southern Crossing, improvements to the intersection of Airport Road and Highway 29 and extension of Devlin Road south of the Napa County Airport.
A recent MTC study shows roads are subpar throughout Napa County, with every city except American Canyon — where congestion is a bigger problem than poor road conditions — getting a failing grade.
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines,
click here.
marine1/1 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:40 AM:
mofosheee wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:15 AM:
Besides, the politicians will loot any monies they obtain and divert them to entitlement programs for our newest American citizens. "
abouttime wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:43 AM:
bubble wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:14 AM:
xmrs09 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:20 AM:
shareathought wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:22 AM:
There will be many more in need of public transportation soon compared to those who want new roads.
If you were to have a job in Napa and live in Fairfield (or vice versa), you only have to travel through Vallejo first (things could be better for those employed in day jobs like the construction and educational fields, or around the clock positions such as emergency and medical, or even the low paid "service" positions).
Instead of large buses with a few people on them, perhaps if our supervisors or other decision makers traveled by bus, Bart and train for one appointment (say 8AM in Sacramento or 4PM in SF), they would determine that more frequent, timely, small shuttles, would be cost effective.
It now takes 3 to 4 hrs to get into SF and a Drs. appointment; and 3 to 4 hrs to get back.
One can not attend an evening event or "go to dinner and a movie" anywhere in the bay area and expect to take public transportation; it isn't there.
Even though we all know that walking is healthy most won't want to give up all of the "leisure" time (or off-work hours) to reach the destination. "
kevin wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:03 PM:
Napanee wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:24 PM:
SouthNapa wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:52 PM:
I suspect the folks who voted no the last time don't do a lot of driving outside of Napa. The commuters that work in Napa County and live in surrounding counties endure a hellish commute. It's time to wake up and fix this! "
axim wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:15 PM:
Napanee, I hope you like avoiding Auberge. "
jt wrote on Aug 5, 2008 2:16 PM:
booh-to-the-whooo to the-whooo so a couple of the roads have some asphalt pot holes. all it takes is a little black top here and there. "
MarshaMarsha wrote on Aug 5, 2008 3:03 PM:
The disrepair of our roads is wrong. I pay hefty property taxes to ensure that I have certain services provided to me, one of them being safe and reliable public roads to travel on without damaging my property. It's not right that I have to pay taxes AND pay for the cost of car repairs due to horrible roads. "
Native74 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 3:53 PM:
I find it unreal that County Roads has been limited to what grants they can write. As a taxpayer I'm okay with the lending of general/reserve funds to cover the intial expense of a grant while Caltrans reimburses on actual expenditures. To think we are missing out on 88%-100% Federal/State funding in our community is CRAZY! These are the types of things we should be going after especially now. "
Cadence wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:34 PM:
kevin wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:06 PM:
Thanks, Bill!! "