Tag Cloud
A town hall discussion of the new arena Thursday sparked debate between audience members and City Councilman Jay Schenirer about parking issues and the use of public funds to finance the arena project.
Schenirer and Assistant City Manager John Dangberg fielded questions from the nearly 30 people in attendance after presenting an outline of project details, including an overview of the term sheet and financing framework.
Schenirer said he held the town hall meeting for neighbors in his district because he wanted to make sure they had direct access to him to talk about whatever concerns they have about the arena project. Dangberg was included, Schenirer said, because he is one city staff member deeply involved in the project.
Comments from the audience largely reflected concerns about the City Council’s decision to partially fund the arena with revenue from leasing out the city parking inventory to a private operator.
Leasing the city’s parking to a private operator would create a $9 million gap in the general fund – money that city officials are planning to backfill from a variety of revenue sources including ticket surcharges and user fees, according to the presentation.
“This (deal) is just a real boondoggle for the Kings and for the city,” said one audience member. “It seems ridiculous to spend public money on an arena when we are cutting police and fire and closing pools and community centers.”
Schenirer said the revenue created from a parking lease would be used for the arena in order to create an economic engine.
“The money that comes out of parking has to make money,” Schenirer said. “If we put it into pools or potholes, there’s no return in that. Everything we do with the money has to bring revenue.”
Dangberg outlined the plan to backfill the general fund, spurring comments from audience members about the use of public funds without a public vote.
“Why are you making the decision for all of us without letting us have a vote?” asked an audience member. “You said people have the opportunity to vote in elections, but by the time we get that chance, this arena is done.”
Another audience member asked if an initiative to force a public vote that is being floated for the November ballot might cause a standstill for the arena project.
Schenirer said the council’s decision is a “complicated business decision” – one that he and the other City Council members have been elected to make.
“We’re taking it a step at a time, and if at the end of the day, you don’t like the decisions being made, you have the power to vote in an election for someone else,” he said.
Dangberg added that, according to the tentative timeline for the project leading up to construction, the “point of no return” would not occur until after March 2013.
“The council cannot financially commit themselves to this until there is a certified environmental review, and that won’t be completed until early next year,” he said.
After the more than two-hour-long meeting, some audience members said they weren’t satisfied with what they heard.
“This is a shell game,” said Sacramento resident David Arie after the meeting. “The numbers aren’t real. How are they going to get $250 million from the parking? No one is going to spend 20-30 bucks to park downtown.”
Schenirer said he appreciated the input from residents who attended the meeting.
“I think there is a lot of misinformation out there surrounding the arena, so my goal was to share information and answer questions,” he said.
“People are concerned about the risk – and I think that’s fair – and people are very concerned about the parking.” he added.
Dangberg said he takes the feedback he hears from residents constructively because it gives him something new to consider.
“We heard a real cross section of the community (tonight),” Dangberg said. “I think the questions and comments were well-intended and well-informed and typical of public dialogue on a very large project like this.”
Dangberg said he believes the city needs to continue providing outreach and solid information for people to base opinions and decisions on before the arena project is finalized.
Mayor Kevin Johnson said Tuesday that preparations for environmental review and site and building design for the project are under way. That portion of work is expected to be completed by March or April 2013.
Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.
And regarding "complex business decisions", your track record from the school board days and that illegal CASA retirement scandal that you were a big proponent of...Grade F.
Either one will always be subject to the referendum process is council proceeds without a public vote.
Essential, by its very nature, always comes in first. And to where does the right to a vote begin? When speaking of a nonessential venue, somewhere well south of 255,000,000 million dollars. Way south.
Pensions for government workers are not essential - if you're talking about not yet hired workers and you negotiate remuneration packages with them that don't include pensions. However, pensions for already employed government workers who have already earned them over years of employment ARE essential and are a contractual obligation/debt that already exists and must be serviced. There's nothing special about pensions - they're just another part of a deferred compensation package that represents payment for work already performed - if the city hadn't been offering pensions it would simply have been paying higher salaries the whole time.
The garages and lots are operated within an enterprise fund known as The Parking Fund. Revenue generated by the lots and garages is limited to "the cost of operating, maintaining and paying off existing debt on the current inventory and providing for new lots and/or garages. Period. It does not fund the general fund. So how can it be used for funding the Arena EIR? Pre-development drawings? Additional land acquisition?
Money that is borrowed from the enterprise parking fund, utilized for activities not related to the operation of the parking lots and garages must be paid back inclusive of the interest that would have been accrued on the borrowed funds.
So, where is Craig Powell's "Eye on Sacramento"...involving the potential mis-use of this enterprise fund. His EOS is all over the utilities department operation but totally mum on this...in fact EOS has been virtually mum on the Arena deal in general, except to suggest that the utility rate increase was possibly associated with creating a funding source for the arena.
Is someone is trying to empty The Parking Fund assets, to force the privatization of the parking lots and garages? Just how legal is this?
This whole mess stinks!
Also, Jay said before he was elected that he felt pretty negative about the use of public funds for an arena. Many voted for him because of this stance. My parents, who know Jay, did so. So if they say one thing to get elected, and do something else while in office -- this is a HUGE flip-flop -- then yeah, we have the right to exercise direct democracy.
"March 01, 2012
Why Jay Schenirer is a sure "no" vote on arena deal. Unless he was ("BS" ing) before.
We’re still waiting for the arena term sheet to come out–though some of the basics have been reported in the Bee and elsewhere in the daily media. Speaking of the Bee, thank goodness for watchdog reporter Marcos Breton to remind us that we need to look at the details of the deal before it’s approved 7-2. Good looking out, Marcos.
Actually, maybe my vote count is a little off. Darrell Fong and Bonnie Pannell are iffy. And Jay Schenirer, based on his past beliefs about subsidizing sports arenas, really ought to vote no.
When he was running for city council, he told the Sacramento Bee:
“I’d love to see an entertainment/arena complex downtown but do not favor any public subsidies."
And he told the SN&R: “I don’t see how we can give away a resource that’s worth at least $30 million.”
And one of his supporters in that campaign, then-California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell sent this letter to voters, letting them know he though Schenirer was the best candidate because he proposed selling public land to build after school programs, not arenas."
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/snog/blogs