by Andrew Alonzo | aalonzo@claremont-courier.com

The Claremont City Council unanimously rejected a new 1% city sales tax measure on Tuesday.

The potential measure on the November 3 ballot would have increased Claremont’s sales tax from 9.75% to 10.75% and generated an estimated $6.7 million in additional revenue.

The 5-0 decision came after the council heard results of a survey by research firm FM3 questioning the timing of the proposed ballot measure and indicating tepid support among residents.

“At this time, the data that we requested at a previous meeting has come back, and the people have spoken,” Council member Sal Medina said. “We talked a lot about following the data and the data at this point has told us that the residents do feel as if they’re being burdened by fill in the blank, whatever it may be. So, at this point I would not be supportive of putting this item on the ballot in the foreseeable future.”

FM3 partner Richard Bernard at Tuesday’s Claremont City Council meeting. Courier photo/Andrew Alonzo

Between April 25 and May 3 FM3 asked 413 likely Claremont voters their opinions on a hypothetical ballot measure: “Shall the measure helping maintain Claremont’s long-term financial stability and fund general government use such as 911/police response; preparing for/responding to wildfires; preventing property crimes; keeping public areas/parks safe/clean; repairing streets/potholes; preserving/maintaining open spaces/natural areas; supporting youth/senior programs; by establishing a 1% transactions and use (sales) tax, providing approximately $6,700,000 annually until ended by voters; with audits/ public spending disclosure, all funds used locally, be adopted?”

At first, 47% indicated they would support it, 43% said no, and 10% were undecided.

Participants were then given “educational statements” on the measure, which “included such things as mentioning the fact that your pavement management report indicates that 44% of your streets are considered to be fair or very poor,” FM3 partner Richard Bernard said. “We mentioned the fact that approximately one third of the city’s public land is open space and that it’s subject potentially to wildfire or brushfires, and that the money could be used … to reduce the fire risk by managing the brush, and other items.”

After hearing the educational statements 53% said they would support it, 39% said no, and 8% were undecided.

The survey group was then provided with hypothetical “critical statements” crafted by city staff and FM3, after which support dropped to 46%, those against rose to 44%, and undecided to 10%.

“We worked with [city] staff not to tell us the facts, but to tell us what they think the community would say in a potential opposition,” Bernard said. “The opposition doesn’t have to be factual. One has no control over the opposition. We were reminding them about the cost of living being a problem, and that they’re paying other taxes such as property taxes.”

Overall, 52% of those surveyed agreed Claremont has at least “some need” for additional funding; 33% believed there was little to no need for such funding; and 15% did not answer.

The consensus among council appeared cemented after Bernard said the timing was flawed.

“At this time, a possible general one cent sales tax does not appear to be viable for a November 2026 election,” he said. “After hearing both educational and critical statements about the measure, support drops back below 50 percent, and it was just modestly in the 50s after just education. The measure may be in a better position for success in November of 2028. It’s a different electorate.”

Vice Mayor Ed Reece weighed in.

“Let me be clear: I’m not against getting another $6 million and working on streets and sidewalks and parks and the things in the priorities that we saw in tonight’s presentation,” Reece said. “Unfortunately, I just know we can see that this is not the route to take … But I do believe that at some point expenses are going to catch up, and at some point we’re going to need additional revenue. And so we can’t be blind to that, but at this juncture, obviously the sales tax measure is not the option.”

Additional results of the survey include:

• 51% said the city was heading in the “right direction”; 29% said they did not know; and 20% said Claremont was not headed in the right direction.
• 70% said Claremont’s government was favorable overall; 16% disagreed; and 14% had no opinion.
• 60% had a favorable view of the City Council; 25% disagreed; and 15% did not have an opinion.
• 69% expressed confidence in meeting living expenses over the next few months; 29% expressed unease; 2% did not answer.
• Respondents’ highest priorities are public safety and maintaining a safe and clean city.

The council voted 3-2 to use $37,750 in general fund money to pay FM3. Mayor Jennifer Stark said she hoped for a unanimous vote. Council member Corey Calaycay and Reece — who both voted against funding the survey on March 10 — voted no.

Voters rejected the most recent local sales tax measure, 2019’s Measure CR, which if passed would have imposed a ¾% increase.

2026-2028 budget update

Claremont Finance Director Jeremy Starkey presented a draft of the city’s 2026-27 and 2027-28 operating budgets at Tuesday’s meeting.

Overall forecasted revenues are $68,470,248 for 2026-27 and $70,468,118 in 2027-28. Expenditures are $78,222,996 in 2026-27 and $77,324,512 in 2027-28. Starkey said the city incorporated community feedback into its 2026-28 budget priorities.

The “2026-28 budget process update” is linked at claremont-courier.com, and at  portal.laserfiche.com, navigate to the May 26 City Council agenda, item 12.

The council will hear a final draft of the operating budgets at its next meeting, 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 9 at 225 W. Second St., Claremont.