Voters to get arena tax bid
County supervisors' 4-1 vote on plan is delayed as drafting takes hours.
By Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Thursday, August 3, 2006
The question of a quarter-cent sales tax increase to fund a new Kings arena will be on Sacramento County ballots this November. But like so much else related to the $1.2 billion proposal, the final vote Wednesday night by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors didn't come easily.
Supervisor Roger Dickinson had promised that the board's vote to place the issue before the public would be a "formality" when the supervisors met Wednesday morning. The board last week voted to move forward with the issue, and the second hearing required by law was generally considered a rubber stamp.
But supervisors, confronted by the intensely controversial issue, said they wanted the deal points in writing, and signed by representatives for the Maloof family, owners of the Kings. The agreement over the contributions and obligations among the various parties had been verbal.
The board ultimately voted 4-1 late Wednesday to formally approve the two-part advisory vote for the November ballot, but drafting the written "term sheet" behind closed doors took more time than expected. A lot more.
"I'm surprised it was as difficult as it turned out to be," Dickinson said.
Finally after hours of back and forth behind closed doors Wednesday, representatives from the city, county and the Maloofs walked into the supervisors' meeting chambers a few minutes before it reconvened at 7:30 p.m., some smiling and flashing a thumbs up.
"It's been an interesting day," Paul Hahn, the county's economic development director, deadpanned to supervisors.
The document fleshed out the original deal points, but did not make any real changes, Hahn said.
A copy of the document will be made public today, Hahn said.
John Thomas, president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment, stood before the supervisors Wednesday and thanked them for their leadership and their patience on the way to approving the ballot measure.
"The debate and discussion has already begun," Thomas said. "It's a healthy expression of the democratic process."
"This deal has had ups and downs and round and rounds," Supervisor Susan Peters said. "But the issue is that residents want the ultimate say."
Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan said she agrees Arco Arena must be replaced and she is usually in favor of letting voters decide crucial issues.
However, MacGlashan said she disagrees with the county's strategy of classifying the sales tax as a "general tax" requiring only a simple majority.
California voters in 1996 approved Proposition 218, which required a two-thirds vote on specific tax increases, she said.
MacGlashan said she believes the "quality of life" ballot measure passed by supervisors should require a two-thirds vote.
While the sales tax question might meet the legal definition of a general tax, she said "it does not meet the intent of the law."
The ballot question approved will be divided into two parts.
The first is a binding question asking voters if they want to adopt the new quarter-cent sales tax for 15 years.
A companion advisory measure will ask voters if they would like to see the $1.2 billion in revenue raised by the tax divided between the arena and a host of community projects throughout the county.
Members of the arena negotiating team in June hammered out a last-minute verbal agreement, a deal that would allow officials to take the matter to the ballot box.
Talks would continue to put together a detailed "memorandum of understanding" by Oct. 6.
In part, negotiators agreed that the sales tax increase would pay for the arena, estimated to cost between $470 million and $542 million, plus any cost overruns. A minimum of $594 million raised by the measure will go to the county and its cities for unspecified local projects.
No payments would go to the communities for about seven years, until the arena construction loan is repaid.
Putting the deal in writing began a few days ago, when the county began trading drafts with the Maloofs' negotiators.
When nothing had been finalized by Wednesday, several members from the original negotiating team were called in to help.
They camped out in the county executive's conference room, and Dickinson said he hoped the document would be completed Wednesday morning.
It wasn't.
The board heard public testimony at 11:30 a.m., then postponed the hearing until 2 p.m. and then 3:30 p.m. That time came and went, and it became clear to the audience and members of the media gathered at the meeting that there was a problem.
After 4 p.m. County Executive Terry Schutten emerged with a terse statement. More time would be needed "to get the appropriate agreements in place." The supervisors agreed to reconvene at 7:30 p.m.
Dickinson said those in the meeting were anxious. Beyond "wordsmithing" the terms into phrases acceptable to attorneys on both sides, some of the deal points were once again hashed out when different interpretations were expressed on either side.
In some cases, items had to be fleshed out. One such item was the arena itself. During initial talks, it was agreed the building would be 800,000 square feet. Negotiators on Wednesday made clear it would be modeled after the FedEx Forum in Memphis, Tenn.
While the behind-the-scenes drama played out, the public hearing on the ballot question was sparsely attended.
Jerry Kamous, president of the Sacramento Police Officers Association, told the supervisors his organization was opposed to the "short-sighted" funding agreement.
He said he believes the tax increase would drain additional tax revenue when more law enforcement officers are needed.
"We recognize the value of maintaining a professional sports franchise," Kamous said. "But this doesn't serve the county well."
But Phillip Todd, a longtime Sacramento resident, said he supports the arena measure because the city needs more entertainment options.
"This is an opportunity for generations to come," Todd said. "If we don't build this now, it may never be built."
Nancy Daley said she's listened to a lot of the pro and con arguments, but that wasn't the issue before the supervisors Wednesday.
"This is about whether the citizens have a right to vote, whether to raise the sales tax and how we want to spend that," Daley said.
BREAKING DOWN THE ARENA DEAL
• Proposal: $1.2 billion measure funded by a Sacramento County quarter-cent sales tax.
• Breakdown of funds: $470 million to $542 million for arena and parking structure; interest on construction loan would add $35 million to $51 million; minimum of $594 million for unspecified community projects.
• Arena ownership: Public joint powers authority created to build the arena would own the facility, oversee the building's design and construction, and be responsible for cost overruns.
• From the Kings' owners: Lump-sum payoff of an outstanding $71 million loan; sign 30-year lease, pay $4 million annually; $20 million repair fund.
• Kings' responsibilities: Maloofs would maintain the building and keep proceeds from events, parking and concessions. They would control lucrative naming rights for the new facility, which would anchor a planned sports and entertainment district in the downtown railyard.
• On the Nov. 7 ballot: Requires approval by 50 percent plus one voter -- a simple majority.
County supervisors' 4-1 vote on plan is delayed as drafting takes hours.
By Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Thursday, August 3, 2006
The question of a quarter-cent sales tax increase to fund a new Kings arena will be on Sacramento County ballots this November. But like so much else related to the $1.2 billion proposal, the final vote Wednesday night by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors didn't come easily.
Supervisor Roger Dickinson had promised that the board's vote to place the issue before the public would be a "formality" when the supervisors met Wednesday morning. The board last week voted to move forward with the issue, and the second hearing required by law was generally considered a rubber stamp.
But supervisors, confronted by the intensely controversial issue, said they wanted the deal points in writing, and signed by representatives for the Maloof family, owners of the Kings. The agreement over the contributions and obligations among the various parties had been verbal.
The board ultimately voted 4-1 late Wednesday to formally approve the two-part advisory vote for the November ballot, but drafting the written "term sheet" behind closed doors took more time than expected. A lot more.
"I'm surprised it was as difficult as it turned out to be," Dickinson said.
Finally after hours of back and forth behind closed doors Wednesday, representatives from the city, county and the Maloofs walked into the supervisors' meeting chambers a few minutes before it reconvened at 7:30 p.m., some smiling and flashing a thumbs up.
"It's been an interesting day," Paul Hahn, the county's economic development director, deadpanned to supervisors.
The document fleshed out the original deal points, but did not make any real changes, Hahn said.
A copy of the document will be made public today, Hahn said.
John Thomas, president of Maloof Sports and Entertainment, stood before the supervisors Wednesday and thanked them for their leadership and their patience on the way to approving the ballot measure.
"The debate and discussion has already begun," Thomas said. "It's a healthy expression of the democratic process."
"This deal has had ups and downs and round and rounds," Supervisor Susan Peters said. "But the issue is that residents want the ultimate say."
Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan said she agrees Arco Arena must be replaced and she is usually in favor of letting voters decide crucial issues.
However, MacGlashan said she disagrees with the county's strategy of classifying the sales tax as a "general tax" requiring only a simple majority.
California voters in 1996 approved Proposition 218, which required a two-thirds vote on specific tax increases, she said.
MacGlashan said she believes the "quality of life" ballot measure passed by supervisors should require a two-thirds vote.
While the sales tax question might meet the legal definition of a general tax, she said "it does not meet the intent of the law."
The ballot question approved will be divided into two parts.
The first is a binding question asking voters if they want to adopt the new quarter-cent sales tax for 15 years.
A companion advisory measure will ask voters if they would like to see the $1.2 billion in revenue raised by the tax divided between the arena and a host of community projects throughout the county.
Members of the arena negotiating team in June hammered out a last-minute verbal agreement, a deal that would allow officials to take the matter to the ballot box.
Talks would continue to put together a detailed "memorandum of understanding" by Oct. 6.
In part, negotiators agreed that the sales tax increase would pay for the arena, estimated to cost between $470 million and $542 million, plus any cost overruns. A minimum of $594 million raised by the measure will go to the county and its cities for unspecified local projects.
No payments would go to the communities for about seven years, until the arena construction loan is repaid.
Putting the deal in writing began a few days ago, when the county began trading drafts with the Maloofs' negotiators.
When nothing had been finalized by Wednesday, several members from the original negotiating team were called in to help.
They camped out in the county executive's conference room, and Dickinson said he hoped the document would be completed Wednesday morning.
It wasn't.
The board heard public testimony at 11:30 a.m., then postponed the hearing until 2 p.m. and then 3:30 p.m. That time came and went, and it became clear to the audience and members of the media gathered at the meeting that there was a problem.
After 4 p.m. County Executive Terry Schutten emerged with a terse statement. More time would be needed "to get the appropriate agreements in place." The supervisors agreed to reconvene at 7:30 p.m.
Dickinson said those in the meeting were anxious. Beyond "wordsmithing" the terms into phrases acceptable to attorneys on both sides, some of the deal points were once again hashed out when different interpretations were expressed on either side.
In some cases, items had to be fleshed out. One such item was the arena itself. During initial talks, it was agreed the building would be 800,000 square feet. Negotiators on Wednesday made clear it would be modeled after the FedEx Forum in Memphis, Tenn.
While the behind-the-scenes drama played out, the public hearing on the ballot question was sparsely attended.
Jerry Kamous, president of the Sacramento Police Officers Association, told the supervisors his organization was opposed to the "short-sighted" funding agreement.
He said he believes the tax increase would drain additional tax revenue when more law enforcement officers are needed.
"We recognize the value of maintaining a professional sports franchise," Kamous said. "But this doesn't serve the county well."
But Phillip Todd, a longtime Sacramento resident, said he supports the arena measure because the city needs more entertainment options.
"This is an opportunity for generations to come," Todd said. "If we don't build this now, it may never be built."
Nancy Daley said she's listened to a lot of the pro and con arguments, but that wasn't the issue before the supervisors Wednesday.
"This is about whether the citizens have a right to vote, whether to raise the sales tax and how we want to spend that," Daley said.
BREAKING DOWN THE ARENA DEAL
• Proposal: $1.2 billion measure funded by a Sacramento County quarter-cent sales tax.
• Breakdown of funds: $470 million to $542 million for arena and parking structure; interest on construction loan would add $35 million to $51 million; minimum of $594 million for unspecified community projects.
• Arena ownership: Public joint powers authority created to build the arena would own the facility, oversee the building's design and construction, and be responsible for cost overruns.
• From the Kings' owners: Lump-sum payoff of an outstanding $71 million loan; sign 30-year lease, pay $4 million annually; $20 million repair fund.
• Kings' responsibilities: Maloofs would maintain the building and keep proceeds from events, parking and concessions. They would control lucrative naming rights for the new facility, which would anchor a planned sports and entertainment district in the downtown railyard.
• On the Nov. 7 ballot: Requires approval by 50 percent plus one voter -- a simple majority.