$1.4 MILLION SPENT TO EXTEND 1988 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX

Measure A, which in 1988 added a half-cent tariff as part of the County's present 7.5% sales tax, was aimed at supplementing county, cities, and the Transportation Authority's funding for transportation projects. It will expire in 2009. Local officials asked voters to extend Measure A for 30-years in November of 2004, well before the 2009 expiration date. The new Measure A would raise $4.7 billion dollars over its 30-year life. The League's Board, consistent with its original position and work to get Measure A passed in 1988, looked forward to supporting the extension, provided the tax remained a half-cent, and that other terms involving distribution of the money were not altered. When final details of the new Measure A were known, it was found to be quite different from the original Measure A. It had a different distribution of money for projects, some not related to transportation. It contained a compilation of an estimated $488 million in mandatory "fees" applied to new home and commercial facilities in the county and all its cities for 30 years, which, if a city fails to enact, will lose its flow of sales tax street and road maintenance dollars.

These moves increase buyers of new homes and commercial facilities initial (front loaded) cost, and burden them with them an unmentioned automatic "extra" property tax for as long as the structures exist. The Measure expressly states its proceeds will be bonded, making it impossible to repeal the tax for any reason for 30 years. As a result, the League's Board voted to oppose the Measure. They recommended it be revisited and revised before the 2009 expiration date, and had staff prepare, and Joe Sullivan sign, the opposition Argument Against Measure A in the Voters Pamphlet, along with Ted Costa of the People's Advocate, and Carl Burton, the Leagues representative on the Transportation Authority Committee.

The Sacramento Bee, in editorials, railed against the Measure stating, "There is a growing sense that simply renewing this sales tax isn't the solution…Simply extending this half-cent sales tax will be woefully inadequate as a means of funding basic road maintenance, transportation, and transit needs." Their fear was that the money provided was not adequate. A month later they wrote, "The whole brainstorming process behind Measure A, frankly, has been one of the most disappointing, turf-centric, poll-driven exercises in recent political memory… The leaders, today of all days, need to know that they need to do Measure A right, or not at all." And a month after that warned, "If Measure A passes, get ready for Measure B…That's because, at a half-cent, Measure A has made no one in the transportation business happy." But remarkably, after telling the county and cities leaders to get it right, the same recommendation the League made in the voters ballot pamphlet, The Bee flip-flopped and recommended in its editorial column covering all issues and candidates, that voters vote for Measure A!

The Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce led the coalition that supported Measure A, and raised $1.2 million, essentially from the business community, to press for passage. This is the most money ever been spent on a Measure in the county's history. Further, at the beginning of the campaign, the Transportation Authority spent $200,000 of public money, published a number of "slick" brochures touting the advantages of Measure A, and mailed them to all residents in Sacramento county and its cities. The League believes they came dangerously close to violating the law with regard to using public money to advocate their positions. We were examining the legalities involved when we learned the Sierra Club, who also opposed Measure A, had requested the state Attorney General investigate the matter. We also learned the Attorney General bucked the question to the Sacramento District Attorney's Office.

The Metro Chamber, on its part, mailed its slick brochures two or more times to residents. And the interesting part of both the Authority's and the Chamber's brochures is that they advertised that Measure A was not a tax increase, and never addressed the addition of Fees, and their related taxes. By not doing so, voters where not made aware they were voting for increases in both, and that the fees were fixed for 30 years, regardless of future economic conditions. Consequently, Measure A was approved handily with 75% of the vote.

GET BRACED FOR MEASURE "B", ANOTHER TRANSPORTATION HALF CENT SALES TAX!

The League learned that the Transportation Authority, gleeful after the passage of Measure A, immediately began talking about the so called Measure B, the son of Measure A, which will call for an additional half-cent sales tax increase for transportation. This is exactly what both the Taxpayers League, and The Sacramento Bee predicted prior to Measure A's approval. Consequently, all taxpayers in the county area should get prepared for a move by local leaders to pull another $4.7 billion out of our pockets over the next 30 years.

NOVEMBERS BALLOT INITIATIVES

Of 14 of the 16 statewide Propositions on the November ballot that the League took positions on, the voters only missed 4, or saying it another way, they were right on 10! Actually it was 3-1/2 as we agreed with both Proposition 1A and 65 as both prevented raids by the state on local property taxes, and we supported both. Proposition 1A prevailed. Two others, Proposition 61 and 71 required state bonds. The Board opposed both as the required bonds further indebted the state, unwise in view of its poor financial condition. The last, Proposition 63, levied a one-percent tax on the income of millionaires, excluding all other taxpayers, which violates the tenant of equity. There is no question that there is a need for a fundamental state program to aid the mentally ill, but such a program should be supported by all taxpayers, not just a targeted few.

LANDOWNERS IN NORTH NATOMAS ANTE UP FOR A NEW KINGS ARENA

Mary Lynne Vellinga of The Sacramento Bee reported that landowners in North Natomas opted to pursue the plan to fund a new Arena for the Sacramento Kings in return for speed-up sale and development on about 10,000 acres of farmland. The idea, originally proposed by Sheriff Lou Blanas, got a boost from National Basketball Association Commissioner David Stern and the Kings owners when both said they would support it.

The Arena would be privately funded, although The Bee contends that the profit being offered is public money, as the public, because of the voter's "decision to allow this development will create an enormous amount if wealth - somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 billion in land values alone." This is an interesting take on the part of The Bee. The property owners would dedicate 20 percent of the money from the sale, an amount expected to total $350 million to build the Arena and also create a $50 million endowment for arts groups and youth sports. The landowners are working on an initiative that would ask voters to change the county's 1993 general plan, and allow development in the northern county between the city of Sacramento and the Sutter county line, outside the county's urban growth boundary. This would accelerate the timetable considerably, as finincial planning by the developers is aiming at building the Arena by 2008.

Both the city and county had originally agreed the city should eventually expand onto the property, but it would seem that a better plan might be for the county to undertake " titular ownership" of the Kings, and get the city out of the game completely. For the past two years, city attempts to get a stadium built have provided entertainment only. The Sacramento Bee jumped on this issue with both feet in its November 24th Editorial, "Arena? Arts? Or …" It addressed the movement by the owners to get the Arena built, and the city's attempts, by writing, "It would be charitable to characterize those efforts as bungling."

County management makes sense. The Kings are the "Sacramento Kings", not the "Sacramento City Kings." They have always belonged to the entire Sacramento area, not just the city, and, looking at the city's past actions related to a new Arena, county Supervisors could not miss doing a better job of handling the action.

REDISTRICTING OF POLITICAL DISTRICTS MOVES TO THE FRONT BURNER

Governor Schwarzenegger has energized the idea of a midcensus redistricting of political districts by a nonpartisan panel of judges, a la the recent redistricting in Texas. Already working on his own plan is Ted Costa, whose People's Advocate lit the fire, and fanned the flames that removed former Governor Gray Davis from office. Ted has in print a statewide Initiative titled: "REAPPORTIONMENT, INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT which will amend the state constitutional provisions governing redistricting of California's Assembly, Senate, Board of Equalization and Congressional Districts, and put the job in the hands of three retired judges to craft redistricting plans. If passed by the voters, it would be applied the year after each census.

The Initiative tells the story of self-interest partisan Legislators who participated in gerrymandering the state to establish uncompetitive district safe seats for incumbents for the next 10 years, polarizing our institution of representative government, which the Initiative termed repugnant. And so it is.

There is no question, based on poll after poll, that the people of California are dissatisfied with the Legislature, and hold them in low esteem. With Ted's initiative on the street, backed by the Governor, Year 2006 may be the year that the Legislature gets a one - two punch from the voters. Maybe then California can return to a state governed by elected officials ready to serve the people, rather than themselves.

YEAR 2005 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The ballot slate for the 2005 Board of Directors, presented as an Insert in the November Tax Fax, was approved by the membership. The leaders of the League in 2005, the League's 44th year, are virtually the same as the present Board, with one exception. Another Director, Bill Johnson, a Geophysicist and Civil Engineer has been added to the Board. Since retirement, Bill has been a community activist for the past two years with respect to Special District water issues, and who, during this year has been a regular attendee at our Taxpayers League Board meetings.

The Board's new Officers for 2005 will be selected at the first meeting of the new Board on January 20th.

MODEST MEMBERS DUES INCREASE IN 2005

At the November 18th League Board meeting it was decided to modestly raise Members’ dues in 2005 as we are expanding our services.

The first dues were established in 1963, in the amount of one percent of the County's Assessors tax bill for land and improvements only. The minimum individual Member's dues were $10 per year, $25 for corporations and professional groups, and a maximum of $500 based on the tax bill. In 1978 individual Membership was raised to $20, and yearly Business and Professional Memberships were charged, based on the number of employees, Membership dues were raised to current levels in 1987. Since, then there have been major operating cost increases. Back then postage was only 22 cents. Plus, yearly rent has increased, along with printing, insurance & everything else. Conversely, payroll expenses have always been modest in comparison. Most work done on behalf of the League is voluntary.

The new 2005 dues are $35 for Individual Members, $65 for Professional Members, $125 for Small Business Members, $275 for Medium Business Members, $600 for Large Business Members, and $850 for Large Corporate Members. The new dues will begin with Members whose anniversary date is January 2005.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is sactaxleague@prodigy.net; our telephone number is (916) 921-5991. Our fax number is (916) 567-1279. And our address is:
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1804 Tribute Road, Suite 207
Sacramento, CA 95815.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

The Fall of 2004 has been a busy time for us. After completing the November, 2004 election, we swung directly into preparation for 2005. We expanded our member services; established a new public relations – speaking campaign with “PowerPoint” presentations; are expanding our publications; and are seeing new members join our ranks regularly. We have an exciting story to tell. Indeed, 2005 will be an exciting year.

Because of the above, at the November League Board meeting, it was decided to modestly to raise Member dues for 2005. After reviewing the historical records, the League hasn’t increase dues in almost two decades – back when postage stamps were 22 cents each, not 37 cents as now. Present rates were established in 1987, and since, there have been major operating cost increases. Most work done on behalf of the League is voluntary, so League Members get a great value for their invested dollars. The new 2005 dues rates, which average only a few dollars, are reflected on the membership form on page 7 of this newsletter.

We need your continued support, as our strength lies in the hands of our Members. We look forward to your timely renewal. Together we have great strength and we’re getting a lot accomplished. Your help assures that the people of Sacramento have a viable organization to protect them from monetary abuse by elected officials.

Bruce Lee

Executive Director

<< Back to Index

Officers