Measure PS, San Gabriel

The stakes

If Measure PS passes, San Gabriel’s sales tax rises to 12 percent, from the 11 percent that arrives October 1 with the countywide Measure ER.^{Note 3} That would leave San Gabriel with one of the highest sales tax rates in the state.^{Note 6}

The City expects $7.0 million to $7.1 million a year once collection starts in April or July 2027, equal to about 12 percent of this year’s $59.3 million general fund revenue.^{Note 2,Note 7,Note 8}

If it fails, the rate stays at 11 percent.^{Note 3} Staff wrote that they “would need to explore cuts to all city services, including public safety,” to address the infrastructure backlog, but name none.^{Note 9} This year’s budget draws $635,000 from reserves, a deficit staff call “not a major concern”.^{Note 7,Note 10} Even after the draw, reserves of about $21.1 million sit well above the 25 percent target in the City’s reserve policy.^{Note 11} Their concern is that the City cannot invest in aging infrastructure or add services “such as an additional ambulance”.^{Note 10}

What changes

San Gabriel already has its own 0.75 percent tax, Measure SG.^{Note 12}

The ordinance makes PS a general tax: the money goes to the general fund, “may be used for any unrestricted general revenue purpose,” and runs for “an indefinite term” unless voters repeal it.^{Note 1,Note 4} The ballot label lists 911 response, fire, drinking water, potholes, safe schools and disaster readiness, then adds “for other general services”.^{Note 4,Note 13} However, the ordinance explicitly commits the money to none of them, and ultimately the Council decides.^{Note 4}

How it works

State law caps the local sales tax cities and counties can stack on top of the state’s rate; SB 762, signed August 17, lets San Gabriel add up to 1 percent that “shall not be considered” for the cap.^{Note 14} The City co-sponsored the bill, by its lobbyist’s account; none of the Legislature’s seven analyses lists it as a sponsor.^{Note 15} As a general tax, PS passes with a simple majority.^{Note 16}

What it costs, or the tradeoff

Shoppers pay it on taxable purchases in the city, and residents on a car registered in San Gabriel regardless of where they bought it.^{Note 17} Next door, in Rosemead, the rate from October 1 is 10.25 percent, 1.75 points lower if PS passes.^{Note 3,Note 18}

The City has spent public money on the measure itself: up to $171,250 for consultants The Lew Edwards Group and FM3 Research, plus $103,000 added in August for a “Public Information Special Project”.^{Note 19} Through September 15 it had paid $105,563.43 on measure-labeled lines, $87,375 of it to Lew Edwards.^{Note 19}

The larger trade is time. The June 2nd staff report lists $100 million to $150 million in one-time projects, led by a police station remodel or replacement at $60 million to $90 million;^{Note 20} a March study priced five station options at $24 million to $87 million.^{Note 21} PS is permanent and pays about $7 million a year.^{Note 1,Note 2} It commits nothing to the station, and no written City document I read says whether the City would borrow against PS to build it; during the June 2nd City Council meeting staff said, “So, what staff would recommended doing is issuing bonds or doing some sort of a certificate of participation”.^{Note 22}

The strongest complication

No argument against Measure PS was submitted, so there will be no rebuttals.^{Note 23} The argument for it is signed by two people who list themselves as the presidents of the San Gabriel firefighters’ and police associations.^{Note 24} It repeats two figures from the City’s staff report, a second 911 call “60% of the time” and homelessness “increased by 60% in the last year alone”; the staff report cites no data for either, and the county’s homeless count for the San Gabriel Valley region fell in each of the last two years.^{Note 25,Note 26} Neither the argument nor the City Attorney’s impartial analysis appeared on the City’s pages or the county’s measure lists before the county’s sample-ballot data carried them on September 24, and no committee for or against PS appears in the City’s or the county’s campaign filings through that day.^{Note 27,Note 28} That leaves the scrutiny to the reader.

First, the label and the ordinance differ. The label promises a tax “requiring audits, spending disclosure, funds locally controlled”.^{Note 13} The ordinance’s only related sentence puts the money in a general fund “subject to the City’s annual financial audit”.^{Note 13} In other words, the new tax promises the audit the City already gets.^{Note 13} It has no disclosure provision and no oversight committee, and the impartial analysis mentions neither audits nor disclosure.^{Note 13,Note 29}

Second, the origin. In October 2025 staff said a parcel tax and bond were “likely needed” for a public safety building, and a parcel tax needs two-thirds of voters.^{Note 30} By June 2 the plan was a majority-vote sales tax; the minutes record that “polling shows that voters are more likely to vote for a higher tax amount than a lower amount”.^{Note 31} Both decisions came late at night, with no public comment recorded on either item.^{Note 32}

Third, the “seize” message. The pollster tested the statement that without the measure “LA County will seize this money”; 71 percent said it made them likelier to vote yes, about the same as its other tested statements.^{Note 33} Nearly the same words appear in three City documents, including the Measure PS page, which says the City “does not advocate for or against Measure PS”.^{Note 34} Yet PS uses none of the City’s room under the cap, and no written City document I read explains how it would keep the County from taking anything; on camera, the mayor said “most likely the county will... increase their tax anyway and so we might as well...get our 100%...increase our taxes so we reach the cap”.^{Note 35} SB 762, the bill allowing San Gabriel to exceed the state’s cap by up to 1%, names 13 jurisdictions, and the County of Los Angeles isn’t one of them.^{Note 36} If San Gabriel’s measure fails, the city can try again until the end of 2031.^{Note 37} If nothing has passed by then, the section repeals itself.^{Note 37} Nothing in the section passes the authority to the county.^{Note 36}

Where I land

This is my opinion, and I have not decided how to vote. My standard: is a permanent tax the right tool for the needs the City describes, and does the ordinance carry the ballot’s promises? In my experience, ordinances can be repealed but rarely are, and the cost of living is rising across the board, from insurance to registration to property tax, without accountability in spending or transparency in budgets.

A City can always use more revenue, especially for public safety, and this one lists more than $100 million in unfunded work.^{Note 20} By its own account, Measure SG helped it climb out of a deficit and bring salaries to market levels.^{Note 38}

What concerns me is the distance between the label and the reasons given for why. A tax sold on audits and disclosure should carry them in its own words.^{Note 13} A permanent tax for mostly one-time buildings should come with a plan for the buildings. With the cost of living climbing, is now the time for a regressive tax? Is raising taxes just because you can, or because “the county will... increase their tax anyway,” really the answer?^{Note 35}

What would move me to yes: Council action that makes the promised audits and disclosure enforceable, since the impartial analysis does not, or a City plan for what PS would pay for, police station included.^{Note 29} What would move me to no: neither by October 24, when the first vote centers open.^{Note 39}

What I will watch

The mailed Voter Information Guide, to see whether it matches the county’s electronic copy of the impartial analysis and the argument.^{Note 27} The next campaign filings, showing whether any committee reports money for or against PS.^{Note 28} The City’s answer on whether PS would pay for a police station and whether it would borrow to build it.^{Note 22} Register by October 19, or conditionally at a vote center through November 3; the first vote centers open October 24.^{Note 39}