Bee: Arena tax draft has two parts (merged)

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#1
First ballot measure would ask voters to approve a quarter-cent increase. The second would advise on how to spend it.


By Terri Hardy and Mary Lynne Vellinga

Published 12:01 am PDT Thursday, July 20, 2006

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14279935p-15088435c.html

Inside Sacramento County's downtown headquarters, county counsel Bob Ryan is busy drafting ballot measures to raise nearly $1 billion in new sales taxes and earmark a big chunk of the money for a new Kings arena. One of the two measures would ask voters to approve a quarter-cent sales tax increase, which would generate about $60 million a year.
Another, nonbinding measure would ask if voters want to spend nearly half the money on an arena, and give the rest to the county and to the individual cities within its borders to spend, however they choose.
Ryan's work may never be seen by Sacramento County voters, but he has to be ready, just in case an arena financing deal comes together in the next few days.
Those negotiating with the Kings owners on behalf of the city and county of Sacramento reported no deal as of late Wednesday.
Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof were in Sacramento Wednesday, meeting into the night with city and county officials, according to participants in the talks.
Officials have said they need an agreement by today in order to get a measure on the November ballot.
Arena talks include a discussion of a facility possibly owned jointly by the city and county and leased to the Maloofs, said Chris Holben, a spokesman for the new arena effort. City and county officials also are pushing for a Maloof contribution of 20 to 25 percent of the arena's price tag.
"I do think (Thursday) we'll have something to say, one way or another," said Paul Hahn, the county's head of economic development.
Miles from Hahn's office, in Sacramento County's suburban cities, leaders are also waiting to see what happens. Some say they hope a deal is struck; others say they still have a lot of questions, since details of the potential financing package have not been shared with them.
On Monday evening, Rancho Cordova City Council members voted unanimously to urge the county Board of Supervisors to put the quarter-cent sales tax on the ballot and let voters decide.
"We want to have a voice," Rancho Cordova Mayor Robert McGarvey said in a prepared statement. "Our residents created this city because they want and deserve a chance to have their opinion counted."
Sacramento city and county leaders have tried to woo their counterparts in Folsom, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Isleton and Galt by scheduling updates and a reception at the Sutter Club, which also was attended by Gavin Maloof.
Hours before Monday's Rancho Cordova vote, the negotiators, who had just returned from meeting with the Maloofs in Las Vegas, came to the Rancho Cordova City Hall to deliver another update to about two dozen representatives from the other cities.
Rancho Cordova City Councilwoman Linda Budge, a Kings season ticket holder, Wednesday said she strongly supports the idea of building a new arena, and said her city could use its share of the sales tax revenue for local amenities such as libraries, a teen center, or a theater.
"I believe everyone is hopeful that a deal will be struck that could be discussed at the Board of Supervisors next Tuesday," she said. "We all know the arena is in very bad condition and it was just built as a great big concrete tilt-up warehouse."
Other local leaders are withholding opinions until they see the details.
"On the surface, I have some concerns, but in fairness I don't know the specific details," Elk Grove Mayor Rick Soares said in an e-mail message.
If an agreement emerges, Soares said, he will ask the Elk Grove City Council next week to vote on whether to support putting it on the ballot.
Folsom spokeswoman Sue Ryan said it would be "premature" for the City Council to take any action until the full details of a deal are released.
Back at Sacramento County headquarters on Wednesday, staff members were also wondering whether a deal would be finalized this week or not.
Ryan's office has crafted the dual initiatives as a way to avoid having to obtain a two-thirds vote from the public. By asking voters to approve only a sales tax increase for general purposes, the county needs to obtain only a majority vote.
The companion, advisory measure is designed to obtain public blessing for the county to spend the money on an arena and projects for the cities.
The arena team, in meetings with its sister cities, has compiled a list of broad categories for regional projects, but includes no specifics. That list is unlikely to be fleshed out in the advisory measure, Ryan said.
"Lawyers are conservative, including me," he said. "And a conservative lawyer would recommend leaving the advisory measure as unspecific as possible."
Even so, the county has been threatened with a legal challenge from the Sacramento County Taxpayers League.





The Bee's Terri Hardy can be reached at (916) 321-1073 or thardy@sacbee.com.
 
#2
Another, nonbinding measure would ask if voters want to spend nearly half the money on an arena, and give the rest to the county and to the individual cities within its borders to spend, however they choose.
So with that the only group that would make sense to oppose this would be the NO-Tax right wing crowd... Which I am part of.

BUT as a Kings fan the benefits are huge here. Thats a lot of money going to all these services and in other posts I have indicated as such. This was on my list of things that needed to be done to get this measure passed.

I have a good feeling about this as long as it can get on the ballot! If it doesn't we need a new site... Not a save the arena site but FIRE the city leaders site.
 
#7
I'm getting sick and tired of....

People I talk to saying that they don't want to pay the 1/4 of a cent tax increase that I've heard over and over as the proposed deal for the city. Do they realize that you have to actually spend $400 before you actually end up even sending a dollar of your own money towards the new arena. Yet these same people will spend 3 bucks on a cup of coffee at Starbucks (no offense to Starbuck fans) that costs 25 cents to make. What would these people opposed to the arena rather have us spend our money on?
 
#9
It goes deeper then that UOPmatt.

From people anti-tax like myself but would most likely support this arena deal. This has to do with being taxed out our you know whats. Sure its fine to say it's only 1 dollar out of 400spent but lets add all the other taxes. Tax after tax that we have, people are tired of it and thats exactly why we have that 2/3'rd rule for taxes.

Not to mention as perceived, this deal by the other half will say we are paying for rich people to get richer. That is the most un-informed thought but it is the thing we hear most.

To tackle this issue by your way would probably do no good IMO. Not knocking you at all. But it's better to state the benefits.

People are not afraid/opposed to spending money, its what do they get for it and how does it benefit them. 1.2 bill is the first figure I have heard this afternoon total tax revenue 50% of that goes back into the county. PROBLEM A) this does nothing for anti-tax people. B)It quiets the we could spend this better elsewhere crowd.

A) IMO will be the hardest view to change.
 
#10
@ Bigwaxer.

I agree with your assessment 100%.

The fact that 50% of the taxes raised could go to other projects is a most appealing one (to me at least), but the "no new taxes ever" crowd won't be swayed.
 
#11
So we are going to....

Give up arguably one of the best things going in the Sacramento Community for a small petty tax. I can hear other people around the States bringing out more cowbells already, because that's the only thing we are going to be associated with if we give the kings up. Although I do agree heavily with your thought on 50% of the tax revenue going back into other city projects.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#12
Always get a kick out of the anti-tax crowd being entirely oblivious to the fact that they are already sitting in a country with one of the lowest tax rates in the world, and meanwhile the budget can't be balanced, the roads are deterioratring, the once great school system fading, and somehow they never make the connection that these things have to be paid for -- that civilization and society costs.

I think strategically you have to assume that the hardest core of the anti-tax types won't come around no matter what, and you should focus on trying to convince everybody else (the best argument for the anti-tax types is the "we will have to build a new arena someday anyway, but with 100% public money -- this is the cheapre option). Of course the city's interests might be other, but I might have porkbarreled up a few projects with the rest of that tax money to try to draw in/lower resistance from people unlikely to be Kings fans who might be entitled to vote for new roads, or more cops, or some arts program or some such. But there is a danger with that approach too, so I guess we'll see how this works out. The city will have itself a pro bono lawyer though if at some point it needs some help for a legal challenge to the tax.
 
#13
Okay not going there brick :) I am to happy with the news..

To political and you pigeoned holed to much of a category for me to even respond here without breaking the rules.

Either way it has nothing to do with satisfying a certain crowd. This is about a chance to keep the Kings here and IMO as an ANTI-TAX person this is great news. IF my mind can be changed then anyones can.

Thats all I have on this no buzz kill here :)
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#15
I seriously doubt if people will change their shopping habits because of this. If you spend $1,000 you'd pay an extra $2.50 in sales tax. That wouldn't even pay for one gallon of gas.
 
#17
I heard the argument the other day that if I don't spend my money at a restaurant downtown, becsue no arena is there, that I'll just spend it elsewhere.

This ignores the fact, that if I don't spend my money there, I'm going to spend it in Sutter County. Not only that, but there are places I like to shop in Sacramento and I'm much more likely to shop there if I'm going to Sacramento anyway for a game or other event.

That whole "they won't increase spending, they'll spend it elsewhere" mainly applies to those living in Sacramento County. Sacramento County will get less tax from me without the arena, plain and simple. I'd still go to Sac on occasion, but likely less without the arena.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#18
I will intentionally spend more money in Sacramento County to help contribute. Once this facility is built, I can easily see me staying longer in Sacramento on the few lucky occasions when I'm able to come down for games because it won't be just about the game and coming back. It will become more of a mini-vacation and I'll drop bucks just like the tourists.

:D
 
#22
I will intentionally spend more money in Sacramento County to help contribute. Once this facility is built, I can easily see me staying longer in Sacramento on the few lucky occasions when I'm able to come down for games because it won't be just about the game and coming back. It will become more of a mini-vacation and I'll drop bucks just like the tourists.

:D
I live in Placer County but I work 5 days a week in Sacramento County and spend an awful lot of money there. I also just recently bought a really expensive gas guzzling SUV in Sacramento County and my purchase would have generated $90 in sales tax revenue for the County under the new tax....If people in Sacramento County can't see that every single person who buys anything in the County will be paying this(politicians, lobbysists, people traveling to the Capital for business, etc...) then they have blinders on.

Hell, people who go to Arco Arena while this is being built will be helping the cause.