Study finds measure could cost county between $750K-$15 million in annual revenue

Lea este artículo en español aquí.

The fiscal analysis for a proposed land use measure finds it could result in the potential loss of $750,000 in annual net revenue through 2035 to the county and as much as $14.8 million at full buildout. The 9111 report, commissioned by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, analyzed the various impacts of the Empower Voters to Make Land Use Decisions Initiative if it is approved by the voters.

On July 23, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors accepted the study on a 3-2 vote with supervisors Kollin Kosmicki and Dom Zanger opposing. 

The initiative primarily seeks to require voter approval to rezone agricultural, rangeland and rural lands to permit commercial or residential uses. It also seeks to remove four areas, known as nodes, from the 2035 General Plan identified for commercial development along Highway 101.

David Zehnder, managing principal with Economics & Planning Systems, said though the report includes a loss beyond 2035, it’s hard to predict that far into the future because of several unknown factors. These include the time it will take to reach full buildout of the four nodes, known as Rocks Ranch, Livestock 101, Betabel Road and Hwy 129/Searle Road.

“It would be virtually impossible to anticipate how quickly that will build out beyond 2035,” he said, adding that it’s safe to predict a $750,000 projected revenue loss [per year] by that time. 

County Supervisors Dom Zanger and Kollin Kosmicki, along with proponents of the measure, questioned the study, calling it flawed, biased, speculative and unrealistic.

“Reports like this, with data that can be brought forward and thought of, it’s just so many things that are too hard to quantify to get a real picture of things moving forward,” Zanger said.

Koskmicki questioned the population-growth estimates, assumptions of full buildout of projects, and lack of historical data in the analysis.

“It has to be made clear to the public that this is an unrealistic outlook,” Kosmicki said. He vowed to not support calling for another Elections Code 9111 report because “they are used as political tools rather than objective resources and information.”

Seven community members and proponents spoke against the report. Andy Hsia-Coron of Campaign to Protect San Benito and one of the measure’s primary proponents, said the only good thing about the report is that it states that there would be no impact on housing and that it shifts commercial development to other areas.

“That means good for San Juan Bautista because people would go there to spend their money instead [of] along Highway 101 where there are real problems,” Hsia-Coron said. 

Calling it a “valid” report, Supervisor Bea Gonzales said its findings, which, she said,  also include some inconsistency with the general plan policies, are significant.

“I look at them as numbers—as a basis in which the county is going to be impacted negatively, and that’s potential revenue that we will have or not have if this measure goes forward,” Gonzales said. “$750,000 per year and at [full] buildout $14.8 million is significant and we’re here trying to work on the prosperity of the county and develop economic development.”

Supervisor Mindy Sotelo responded to those calling the report speculative by saying that thinking San Benito County would become a “robust tourist destination” with the adoption of the initiative was also speculative.

“I sure hope that is true,” she said, “but that’s speculation in the same way.”

Sotelo also defended the population growth estimates by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), which were used in the report. AMBAG’s board of directors is composed of local elected officials, including Sotelo and Zanger. She said rather than dismissing the numbers, the community needs to understand them.

“We went through [it with] a fine-tooth comb to make sure our county numbers are correct,” she said. 

“We need to work together as a community and we’ve got to diversify our funding here. We cannot rely on property taxes here. We need to capture revenue from all sorts of areas and, no, we don’t want to give away our prime farmland.”

The County Clerk, Auditor & Recorder’s office will also conduct a fiscal impact report that will be included in the voter guide. 

Second 9111 report

This is essentially the second time voters will decide on this issue. Measure Q, a similar initiative put forward by the same group of proponents in 2022, failed with 56.39% of voters rejecting it. Measure Q aimed at removing 13 nodes from the general plan and had a 30 year expiration term. There is no “sunset” provision in the new initiative.

The fiscal report for Measure Q estimated the county would lose out on $11.3 million in net revenue annually through 2035 and up to $38.3 million at full buildout. Kosmicki cast the lone vote objecting to that report.

The fiscal impact analysis done by the County Clerk, Auditor & Recorder’s office calculated slightly less of a dropoff in revenue. That office found that the initiative, if approved, would have resulted in the county losing out on $9.3 million in annual revenues by 2035 and $37.2 million at full buildout. It states revenues are composed of sales tax and property taxes. 

The proponents first attempted to introduce the initiative in 2020, and postponed their efforts because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. It is expensive to produce local news and community support is what keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service, nonprofit news.

The post Study finds measure could cost county between $750K-$15 million in annual revenue appeared first on BenitoLink.