Windsor’s budget challenges are real, but undoing the town’s progress fighting climate change is not the solution. If luring a Costco and its sales tax revenue requires upending the ban on new gas stations, it is not worth it.
At its Aug. 5 meeting, the Town Council directed staff to keep studying a repeal or carve-out for Costco. Give the council credit for thinking creatively about how to fix the town’s finances. The town closed a $19 million hole in its current two-year budget with across-the-board cuts, deferred maintenance and reserve spending. Those are not sustainable solutions.
Windsor’s four existing gas stations generate about $400,000 a year, nearly 8% of the town’s sales tax revenue. A big-box retailer with pumps could bring in more than $1 million, according to town planners. That would be real money, though only about a quarter of the shortfall projected for the next budget cycle.
But it is also hypothetical money. Costco has neither applied for a permit nor publicly confirmed any interest in opening a third Sonoma County location. The company generally requires a fuel component, which the town’s 2022 ban prohibits. So the town is discussing carving out an exception for Costco or repealing the ban entirely.
Both options are bad. Creating an exception just for Costco would amount to Windsor playing favorites. Repealing the ban would roll back progress on climate change.
Supporters of the change argue that town residents now spend their money at Costco in Santa Rosa or Rohnert Park. That might be true, but doing right by the environment was never going to be free. At least find out if Costco is even interested and whether it would consider opening without fuel pumps.
Windsor was among the first communities in the nation to declare that gas stations have a limited future. Now the town could become the first in Sonoma County to backslide. If it blinks, the fossil fuel industry might have discovered a template for pressuring other communities.
Santa Rosa has been having a similar conversation, but the facts differ meaningfully. There, Costco wants to move an existing fuel station a block and a half, decommission and remediate the old site, and add electric vehicle chargers. The move would not increase the number of pumps in town, respecting the intent of the city’s ban.
Windsor should focus on opportunities that already exist. A SMART station opened last year steps from the Town Green last year, but the Green itself has suffered blows. Although a new shop now exists, Cafe Noto closed in January after 23 years, driven out by rent. A block away, the town spent last fall filling a hole in the ground left after the McClelland Hotel project stalled. That hotel was projected to generate bed taxes approaching $1 million annually. Getting a hotel built at 550 McClelland Drive would be a better economic win than a Costco.
Windsor has other ways to raise money. It should continue to grow its property tax base, one of the town’s most reliable revenue sources. That means supporting not just affordable housing projects but also market-rate developments. Windsor is also the only municipality in Sonoma County without its own sales tax. In November, voters will decide whether to impose a 1% local sales tax on themselves. They might reject it, but at least it is an honest question put to the people.
Chasing a Costco by weakening a climate ordinance is a cash grab dressed up as economic strategy. Windsor’s leaders are better than that. They’re just out of money, and it’s showing.