Tag Cloud
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Parks Commission chairman calls for sales tax increase; draws opposition
by Melissa Corker, published on May 22, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Storyline: Politics
Loading images
The chairman of the city Parks and Recreation Commission is calling for a quarter-percent increase in sales tax to help fill the gap in the Department of Parks and Recreation budget – a move he says is supported by voters and would increase the city’s annual revenue by $13.5 million.
The money would go into the general fund, which currently faces a $15.7 million shortfall, and is the primary funding source for police, fire and parks services.
“We are at the point with parks where there is no more money, no more efficiencies to be had, and no crews left,” Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman and mayoral candidate Jonathan Rewers said Tuesday. “We are left to look at raising revenue.”
City Councilman Jay Schenirer said he would not immediately be sold on the idea of a tax increase, but he hasn’t ruled it out, either.
“I think there is a lot of discussion still to be had about what types of revenues can be raised and what they would go for,” Schenirer said Tuesday.
“Certainly parks and recreation has a high need, but across the board we have so many needs,” he added.
David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said Tuesday that the idea of increasing sales tax comes at the wrong time.
“Obviously sales taxes are very regressive in that they harm every single individual in a community, and with unemployment in the county I believe still over 11 percent, this just isn’t the right time to pass this kind of exaction,” he said.
He added that California has the highest base sales tax in the country, so any local addition to that is a burden on the community.
“We need to continue to promote fiscal responsibility within our city governments and make sure they are spending within their means,” he said.
Rewers’ opponent, Mayor Kevin Johnson, is opposed to the idea.
"I'm not one to be inclined to think a tax is the best thing to do," he told the Sacramento Bee.
Rewers made his recommendation after the results of poll that sought to gauge public support for nine potential revenue measures to restore city services, including park maintenance, were released Tuesday.
The poll was commissioned by the city and conducted by a Santa Monica-based public opinion research firm, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, to gauge public support for nine potential revenue measures to restore city services, including park maintenance.
According to the result of the poll, only 60 percent of respondents were in favor of a property tax – not enough to pass a measure requiring a two-thirds vote, Rewers said.
The concept of a general sales tax increase garnered the highest support in the poll, with 71 percent of respondents in favor. With that in mind, Rewers said he wants the City Council to consider a quarter-percent general sales tax increase.
A general tax increase only requires 50 percent of the vote to pass, making it more likely to succeed in November than a property tax, which Rewers suggested as a revenue-generating option before the poll was released.
The current budget hole in the city general fund is $15.7 million, so a sales tax increase would not be enough to completely close the gap, meaning the city would still have to find ways to reduce spending, Rewers said.
Along with the sales tax increase, Rewers said he is recommending to the City Council a companion ballot measure to ask voters how they would like that $13.5 million spent.
“If we are going to the voters to ask for their money, we should also ask them how they want us to spend it,” Rewers said.
Schenirer said he would like to hear what people in the community feel about the idea. before coming to any conclusion about putting something on the November ballot.
Here is the poll in its entirety.
The Sacramento Press is working to update this article with more perspectives about the potential general sales tax increase to help fund parks and park maintenance. Let us know what you think in our reader poll and in the conversation below.
Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Isn't it funny how we never hear about these polls being commissioned until they have favorable results to report? Are there any other polls floating around out there?
Steve--
Does you boss know you said this?
David Bienick [to KJ]: "Have you spent as much time negotiating with [police and fire] as you have talking with the Maloofs?"
KJ: "That's not the mayor's job; that's what the City Manager does."
So the current mayor seems to disagree with your assessment of his responsibilities....
I know you're just doing your job but look, you just said "Mayor and Council vote and decide on the city budget and the priorities". You just said that. So it seems reasonable to ask when they did that in open meetings subject to the Brown Act. I asked for dates. According to you that's what the Mayor does. When did the Mayor and Council hold public meetings to set priorities?
Discussing the arena proposal was indeed supported by a majority, at one point by a bare majority. But it was always presented as a non-binding agreement. Why we now know. The Maloofs never agreed to it. But would you be kind enough to give me the date of the Council meeting where it was guaranteed that all the arena jobs would be union jobs?
Thanks in advance.
The Arena proposal would have been subject to a Project Labor Agreement (PLA), which is why organized labor strongly backed the project. You can look up the dates of the discussions at the Arena on the city website.
I either watched those debates streaming or (God help me) actually spoke at one. (Truth to tell, I remember very little of the debate at which I spoke--I was that nervous.. public speaking is not my forte.) One thing I do remember quite clearly as being brought up as an issue several times by speakers at those meetings I watched from home was that the arena jobs would Not in fact be union jobs.
I know Labor supported the arena but that's because the short-term construction jobs were, in fact, to be union jobs. At least that was the verbal assurance--there were no documents that I saw that actually promised that. However, at least in the case of construction that commitment was at least made verbally.
Going forward however, it was quite clear that the long-term arena jobs would be anything but union. That was said at Council meeting after Council meeting.
Why do you even bother to engage with Rewers, when you've already stated for the record that "there is no viable candidates in this election?
Why did you bother to show up to the event where Heather Fargo endorsed Rewers?
Your actions don't align with your statements.
I have said all along that I respect Mr. Rewers right to run for office. Apparently you believe pointing out the contradictions in his positions and the fact that he's a long-time Republican is a bad thing?
Mr. Rewers, thank you for making the Mayoral race about solving all of the city's problems, not just one. You have my vote in the primary. I hope other voters see the opportunity in forcing a runoff election. I know they're boring, but maybe we can talk about utility rates, park maintenance, departmental budgets, and yes, the need for a new arena, with or without the Kings.
Mayoral power stems from the discussion of ideas and the leadership to promote and implement them. We have a lot to discuss. I'd like to make my final decision for Mayor in November.
2) Green initiative: The Bee is reporting that we're not getting the green jobs we should. Is that also one of the mayor's achievements?
3) Union jobs: Again, can you tell me at which Council meeting (date please) it was guaranteed that All the jobs associated with the proposed arena in a non-binding term sheet that was being discussed (whew, that's a mouthful) were to be union jobs?
Thanks!
2. The Bee was reporting on the state of California, not Sacramento. Sacramento has landed dozens of new jobs within the last month from AEE Solar in Natomas, for example. And we've been rated one of the top solar cities in the USA.
3. I'd suggest you contact the unions about the PLA and when it was discussed with the City Council and city negotiators if you have any interest in the specifics. Thanks.
Please notice that Nothing is said about whether the vendors (the long-term employees) of the arena which is the bulk of the 4,000 you're talking about will be unionized. There were no plans for those employees to be union.
As for his plan to end homelessness, the Resolution of Dec. 14, 2010 makes it quite clear that what's going on is that the 10-year plan which so many have worked on and which was used to draw down federal fund (28 M) was the Johnson plan. The only difference is that the federal funds would now be going to the non-profit Sacramento Steps Forward over which the Council has no direct control.
My big problem with the tax increase as yuo're proposing it is not the increase itself but that it's not targeted and, hence, cannot be coupled with a non-supplant clause. So, if enacted, what's to stop the Council from using the funds the police, firefighters and parks currently receive for other purposes? Say two arenas or some such?
Parks & Rec should know the cops and fire would find some way to spend any tax increase on their own salaries and to preserve their inefficiencies... Parks and Rec would never see a dime.
I think Steve is a great guy and political consultant. He is using every trick in the book. I am a political scientist, I know (another expertise). The Mayor four years ago, when issues that were not germane were brought up would respond: "that is not relevant we need to focus on the issues." I agree with the Mayor, people want to talk about how the leaves are going to get picked up, why they need to pay 30% more in Utility Fees, why only half of our swimming pools are open, and why we are cutting police and firefighters. I think that's what the voters care about. This is a non-partisan office, and I have a public record, I have been recorded making statements, taking positions, and people are free to look at the record. I am happy to debate them any time the Mayor wishes. That is my commitment to the voters of Sacramento. I am just someone who has actually had policy ideas that needed to get a majority of votes on the City Council....that's my background. So let's stick to the issues.
With regard to this one, it should be up to the voters if they want to pay more or not. When the Mayor proposed public financing for an Arena, something that had been opposed by the voters previously, the greater context was not considered. We needed a new water treatment facility - nearly $150 million. Instead of using revenue generated from monetizing parking for that purpose, we chose to propose using it on an Arena, again something the voters had spoken to. To pay for the new Utility infrastructure we decided to increase everyone's utility fees - so everyone is paying more for a needed service, in that case they were not really given a choice, the City Council made that decision. I am saying if they want safer streets, open pools and community centers - they should have the chance to decide to pay for it. That's capitalism.....if you want a product you have to pay. I think the City Manager has demonstrated well that there is just no money left.
You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a city budget is crafted. Voters don't budget; our elected officials do. We elect representatives who make decisions, and support them for re-election if they are aligned with our priorities and toss them out of office if they aren't. I still am waiting for an answer on how you would propose that voters budget by ballot. It's simply impossible. Which is why we have elected representatives.
As for your endorsements, is there a single elected official in Sacramento who has endorsed you yet?
If you can't guarantee that we will get what we pay for, why should we pay for it? That's my question.
Really?
Simply stated, for me, I'm not confident I understand how Mr. Johnson intends to proceed. I'd like to see him debate the issues. I've watched plenty of city council meetings both in person and on TV. I'd rather see him face a worthy competitor answering questions posed by, how about Sam Shane. (or you pick).
Where does KJ stand on performing same-sex marriage ceremonies? Because, if you listen to this interview, Mr Rewers has said that he will marry same-sex couples http://sacramentocurrent.com/2012/05/22/sacramento-current-episode-13/ . Is KJ willing to take this traditional Democratic stance on the same issue?
And as Steve says - he's the Mayor, not a justice of the peace.
But to get back to my question. Is "He's not a justice of the peace, he's the Mayor." long for "No"?
Newsom and Fargo had to get deputized as a Marriage Commissioner - just like any other person can do. Steinberg as a legislator DOES have the ability to perform marriages. Again - it is not in the Mayor's job description and is really irrelevant.
Also - FYI to Steve and Sarah Connor, your comments will be quoted in the follow-up.
Evak - I sent an email to the account you used to register for SacPress.
"When the Mayor proposed public financing for an Arena, something that had been opposed by the voters previously, the greater context was not considered."
Do you know why the voters turned down Measures Q&R?
The general public who are against the arena and everything it brings have admitted at city council meetings that they do not understand the term sheets and are confused about it yet they want a vote. Isn't that what our elected officials are for? To make the tough decisions? Remember the mayor is just one vote and there were a total of seven back on March 6, 2012, to move forward with the deal.
What's your solution to building an arena for all types of events? What's your solution to revitalizing the downtown area and more specifically the rail yards? What's your plan to create jobs and help make Sacramento a destination city instead of a sleepy government town? Please do not say the planned transit hub.
"We needed a new water treatment facility - nearly $150 million. Instead of using revenue generated from monetizing parking for that purpose, we chose to propose using it on an Arena, again something the voters had spoken to."
Wow. Really? Really? That's your plan? That's your solution? Do you realize that there is no $255 million from the parking unless an arena is built?
Let's pretend you are able to get $200 million from monetizing parking and you spend it on a new water treatment facility. I hope you do realize that you are making the very same mistake that Chicago made.
"To pay for the new Utility infrastructure we decided to increase everyone's utility fees - so everyone is paying more for a needed service, in that case they were not really given a choice, the City Council made that decision."
Sacramento County residents are paying more for their utilities. People may not be happy with it but I don't see anyone losing their homes, cars or jobs over it. Buy one less Happy Meal per month and you're good. Life goes on. Not to mention there is no more kicking the can down the road as previous city council members of years past have done.
But maybe this is a deal-breaker for you :)