After the Chino Hills City Council voted on July 14, 2026 to place a one-cent per dollar sales tax override before their constituents on the November 3 ballot, there was no shortage of residents ready to make an argument opposing the measure.
One of those Chino Hills residents aggressively challenged City Hall, stating straight out that city employees are overpaid and that city residents should not be put into the position of subsidizing a bloated and profligate city workforce. Not surprisingly, city employees made a decision not to include that argument in the election materials to be considered by the city’s voters before they make their decision on whether to approve the tax increase.
If approved, the initiative, which has now been provided with the label “Measure J,” would raise the sales tax collected within the 44.7 square mile Chino Hills City Limits from its current 7.75 percent to 8.75 percent. In California, the state levies a 6 percent sales tax. Local governments are at liberty to ask their residents to voluntarily burden themselves with a levy beyond that tacked onto the cost of goods purchased within their jurisdictions.
In San Bernardino County, residents first in 1989 approved a half-cent sales tax, referred to as Measure I, to defray roadway improvements countywide, and renewed that taxing authority again in 2004 through 2040. In addition, Chino Hills, like all of the other cities in the county and the unincorporated county areas, is subject to a 1.25% mandated uniform local/transportation allocation. This means that throughout the county, the sales tax stands at no less than 7.75 percent. In a host of cities, such as Chino, Ontario, Fontana, San Bernardino, Victorville, Loma Linda, Rialto, Redlands and Grand Terrace, as well as the two towns of Yucca Valley and Apple Valley, add-ons have pushed the sales tax collected there to 875 percent. In Montclair, it has reached 9 percent.
In some cities, such as Upland, residents have repeatedly rejected city officials request that they approve a sales tax override.
When a measure is put on a ballot for approval by citizens, proponents of the initiative are given the opportunity to make an argument in its favor, which is then provided to the voters with the election materials, consisting of sample ballots and mail-in ballots that are sent to registered voters roughly six weeks before the election is to take place. In practical terms, that means the last week of September. Those opposed to a measure are also given an opportunity to make an argument against the initiative. That argument is included in the aforementioned election materials.
In the case of Measure J, all five members of the city council – Ray Marquez, Peter Rogers, Art Bennett, Brian Johsz and Cynthia Moran – drew up a polemic, asserting that the city’s residents should up the tax they are to pay every time they buy something.
The council members collectively maintained that “generations of residents and city leaders have invested in public safety, streets, parks, open space and the neighborhood quality of life.”
They assured residents that “Measure J maintains 911 emergency response and neighborhood police patrols, supports crime prevention and keeps public areas safe, repairs streets, potholes, and aging infrastructure, and maintains parks, open space and recreation programs.”
The council members reasoned that the added tax will not be burdensome to city residents but rather a benefit because it will be borne to a greater degree by people who do not live in the city rather than Chino Hills residents. “An estimated 64 percent of Chino Hills’ sales tax revenue is generated by visitors who shop, dine and seek entertainment here,” the council wrote. “Visitors strengthen our economy, but they also use local roads, emergency response and public safety services. Measure J allows visitors to help pay for the services and infrastructure they use.”
Moreover, the council propounded, “Measure J reinforces local control. 100 percent of Measure J would remain in Chino Hills to support local services and priorities. Neither San Bernardino County nor the State could take or redirect these funds. The money would be reinvested directly in our community to benefit Chino Hills residents and businesses.”
In what was likely a typographical error that none of the five, apparently, caught, they also asserted that past generations had invested in “wildlife preparedness,” rather than wildfire preparedness.

Reportedly, as many as 13 different people expressed an interest in making a rejoinder to the city council. Ultimately, however, just three finalized arguments in opposition to Measure j were submitted. The authors of one of those were Ann-Marie Gabel and Claudette Dain. Another argument was submitted by Doug McCormick. Bill Shannon also submitted his rationale for voting against the measure. Only one of those three arguments, which had to contain itself to 300 words or less, could be included in the election materials.
McCormick’s missive was the most provocative of the three. It made an issue of excessive city spending, the blame for which he laid directly at the feet of the city council.
“The city blames the budget problems on rising costs for services,” McCormick wrote, saying the council had “refused to address” the issues at the basis of the financial difficulties the city faces. “The real answer to the city’s budget problems is not to raise taxes but fix the existing budget problems that have been a burden on the city’s budget for years.”
At the root of the problem, McCormick said, was the city council’s generosity with tax dollars toward city employees, what he called “the unchecked spending on staff, consultants and sub-contractors whose wages, benefits and fee schedules far outpace what is paid in the private sector. This system has been running deficits for years, yet the city council will not show the courage to address the problem.” McCormick recommended that the city’s residents “Tell the ‘stewards of our tax dollars’ with your vote that they need to fix the problems they have created before they get more money.”
Ultimately, the city rejected having McCormick’s argument included with the election materials. The city also opted against using Gabel’s and Dain’s missive to their fellow and sister residents. In their offering, they reasoned that the “city’s primary justification [for the tax increase] is based on projected budget deficits.” They noted that the city has repeatedly forecast such deficits in in years past, but that “In the past three years, the City has ended each fiscal year with a surplus – to revenues in excess of spending. In its most recent Financial Report, the City’s Net Position increased by over $20 million.”
According to Gabel and Dain, “Despite the city adopting budgets with projected deficits, those projections have not become reality. Our residents should not have to endure a tax increase based on a hypothetical analysis.”
Ultimately, it was Shannon’s argument that was chosen to counter that of the city council. Shannon argued that the city council’s assertion that Chino Hills features “stunning topography, incredible trail system and reputation as one of the safest cities in the region” was true, but that the “failure to pass this one percent sales tax rate increase will not change the city’s topography, will not make our trail system disappear, and will not make our city less safe.”
The city has tapped into other revenues and will continue to do so, Shannon asserted.
“The city speaks about the rising cost of landscaping and parks but quietly abandoned its efforts to address this deficit head-on. Instead, they chose the easy way out by placing a one-percent sales tax rate increase on the ballot for all residents to pay, not just the people who don’t pay a landscape fee. Chino Hills is indeed a special place and can remain special without caving to pressure from the city manager and council. Increasing taxes is a slippery slope, invites more tax increases, and discourages fiscal responsibility.”