From the Bee...
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...15095176c.html
Supervisors to vote on "Arena" measure again; is it legal?
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Terri Hardy -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 6:30 pm PDT Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Sacramento city and county leaders are racing to nail down final details on an agreement with the Sacramento Kings for public financing of a new arena.
But the questions they put before voters in November will offer none of those myriad specifics. The ballot measure calling for a quarter-cent sales tax boost won't mention an arena. A companion advisory measure will ask in vague terms whether voters want to spend the money on an arena and various community projects.
Indeed, the county's entire strategy hinges on being as non-specific on the ballot as possible. By design, the county is trying to make promises without specific language on the ballot to enforce them, thus avoiding a requirement that taxes destined for clear-cut purposes pass by a two-thirds rather than majority vote.
Is the approach legal? If voters approve the arena funding plan in November, it will likely emerge as a test case.
Opponents say the strategy is an attempt to dodge the two-thirds requirement. They promise a court challenge.
"It is very likely that if this moves forward, we will be filing suits," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the statewide Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Even proponents acknowledge that the county may be venturing onto unknown legal territory.
"I believe we're on solid legal ground here, but it hasn't been tested," said Sacramento County Counsel Bob Ryan.
Supervisors Wednesday are expected to vote to place the complicated "A plus B" financing plan for the arena on the November ballot. It was carefully crafted to avoid California's requirement that taxes for specific purposes win by a two-thirds margin.
One ballot measure will simply ask voters to adopt the new quarter-cent sales tax for 15 years. A companion, advisory measure will ask voters if they would like to see $1.2 billion raised by the tax divided between the arena and community projects throughout county.
While the money clearly would be intended for an arena and other projects, legally the county could still spend it on anything. Thus, proponents argue, the tax is general.
Even if Sacramento County's approach holds up in court, a legal challenge could delay the planned 2010 opening of the new arena in the downtown railyard.
Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, one of the crafters of the arena deal, said he's not sure if construction would start even if the new tax to pay for it was being challenged in court.
"I don't think that question can be answered with absolute certainty at this point," he said in an email message Tuesday. "It would depend on the specifics of the suit and all the facts and circumstances at the time."