Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "legislature"

Legislation could force Kings to pay

2011-04-12T00:20:36Z

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) introduced a bill Monday that would require professional sports teams to pay off all debt involving taxpayer dollars to the municipality in which they are located before signing an agreement to move to another California city or county. ~~bar one California city from issuing bonds to lure a professional sports team from another city in which existing bonds had not been paid.~~

It would effectively require that the Sacramento Kings repay the city $77 million before the bonds approved by the Anaheim City Council could be issued.

“It’s all about public dollars involved not just in the situation currently pending with regards to the (Sacramento) Kings, but any other pending or future similar situations,” said Mark Hedlund, spokesman for Steinberg.

“We’re not trying to stop business from moving,” he added, “we’re trying to protect taxpayer money – city bonds and loans are taxpayer dollars.”

The bill, SB 652, was authored by Steinberg and coauthored by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento), Senator Ted Gaines (R-Fair Oaks) and Assemblyman Richard Pan (D-Sacramento).

It was introduced as an urgency measure, Hedlund said, meaning it requires a two-thirds vote, but would go into effect immediately upon passing, as opposed to other laws which are implemented at the beginning of subsequent calendar or fiscal years.

“We’re obviously trying to have it move as quickly as it can,” he said, adding that it will now have to go through the appropriate committees in both the Assembly and the Senate before it can be voted on and sent to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

“I don’t know if that means it’s going to take a few weeks or a couple of months or whatever,” Hedlund said, adding that it will affect any agreements made after Jan. 1.

According to a press release issued by Steinberg’s office, “SB 652 also requires any professional sports franchise previously entering into a financial agreement with a California local government entity to provide a ‘bond, undertaking or deposit’ adequate to ensure its obligations will be satisfied before that franchise signs an agreement to move to another California location.”

The bill includes all professional sports and is not specifically intended to target basketball, Hedlund said.

“Pro sports teams frequently create partnerships with local government, but let’s not forget these are tax dollars at work,” Steinberg said in the release. “No one is saying sports franchises, like any other business, shouldn’t be able to move to another city. However, taxpayers in one city shouldn’t be left holding the bag for the benefit of another city.”

Dickinson spoke with The Sacramento Press Monday afternoon and outlined the reasons for the bill.

“It’s hopefully a measure that would provide the assurance to any community in California that’s going to be put in a position of losing a pro sports team to another place in California would at least have any financial obligations by the team to the community taken care of,” he said.

The bill would essentially enforce contract language that is already in place in the case with the Kings as well as protect other cities in the future, Dickinson said, adding that he thinks it may be necessary with the Kings as well, despite the 1997 contract language.

“I think it’s unfortunate that we even have to contemplate legislation of this kind,” Dickinson said. “One would hope the statements by the Kings organization by this point would have been more clear and definitive, their responses to the city more straightforward, that it would not leave doubt in the minds of many people.”

Gaines and Pan expressed similar sentiments in the press release.

“Sacramento taxpayers can’t play second-string to Anaheim,” Gaines said. “Losing the team is bad enough, and there is no way Sacramento can eat the nearly $80 million owed by the Maloofs.”

The private sector is already gathering signatures in Anaheim to stop the bonds being issued before voters can approve them in an election. For more information on that effort, click here.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Editorial Note: A correction has been made to this story after it was published. The incorrect information has been struck out and the correct information has been added.

Challenging the Legislature on Policies Towards Families of Autistic Children

2011-02-04T02:28:31Z

Today I testified before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health and Human Services in regard to their plan to cut roughly a $1 billion of regional center services to people with developmental disabilities.

Some of you may know me already. My wife, Azlina, passed away suddenly and unexpectedly just a month ago. Perhaps the saddest part of my personal tragedy is that my son Azrai, diagnosed with Autism three years ago, lost his mother, his best friend and a tireless advocate for him to receive all the educational and developmental services he needs to live a more-or-less normal life.

As Melissa Mendoza wrote yesterday, there is tremendous cost involved in attaining services for a child with Autism, both in time spent and in out-of-pocket expenses.

Azlina gave up going back to work to spend more time with Azrai, which left me as the bread-winner for the whole family. Although I’m currently blessed to be working at Macer Media and The Sacramento Press, I’ve had to struggle for the last few years to pay for some of the services not covered by the educational system or the regional centers, whether they be speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, sensory exercises, or other services.

As I was a contractor for much of the time, no private insurance company will insure an Autistic child. The parents of Autistic children end up paying higher costs for insurance, additional services, higher daycare or babysitting costs, and often paying for services not covered by local school or the regional centers when either they don’t agree that the services are needed or in many cases when you are disqualified because you make too much money.

TheLegislative Analysis Office recommended cutting services for families making over a certain amount of money. The current recommendation is 400 percent the national poverty level. For a family of four, that is a combined income of $88,000 per year. For my family of three, it is $72,000 per year.

Here is, word for word, my testimony before the Assembly:

“My name is Steve Holmes. Although I’ve lived in the Sacramento Area for over 15 years, this is my first time being at the Capitol building or observing the legislative process. I am the father of Azrai, a 5-and-a-half-year-old boy.

Azrai was diagnosed with Autism when he was 2-and-a-half years old. At the time, he could not speak. Due to early intervention services offered by the regional centers and the care and love of his mother, Azrai can speak today, although he still has far to go.

Azrai’s mother would have undoubtedly been here today, but she passed away suddenly and unexpectedly a month ago. Due to her sudden death, my family now faces many new expenses such as daycare, which we can hardly afford.

I read the LAO recommendation of means testing and family participation only yesterday, which suggests this committee adopt a policy discriminatory to middle-class taxpayers of autistic children whereby my family of three, making over $72,000 per year, will no longer receive services we already pay for with our taxes and the like. It suggests that my family, having recently lost their mother and my wife, should pay over $6,000 privately for the services we currently receive from the state.

I don’t ask that you consider my situation only on an emotional level but consider, as the LAO analysis does not, the potential loss in tax revenue the state would face by implementing these policies. The 9,700 families facing this cut are top taxpayers. We are faced with the decision to either stay in California and no longer receive services for our children, or leave our homes and California to relocate in states that either provide services to the middle class or have lower cost-of-living and tax burdens such that we can pay for the services privately.

For my part, good services for Azrai is the single most important factor in my decision on where my family lives. I expect the other 9,700 families feel much the same way. Now is not the time for the state of California to adopt polices punitive to middle class taxpayers.”

I had to keep my testimony short, as they only gave us one minute.

What the Legislative Analysis Office seems to ignore is the fact that those of us who make 400 percent the national poverty level are not poor, but neither do we have the resources to pay for developmental disability services while at the same time paying out tens of thousands of dollars of California state income taxes, sales tax, property tax, fees, penalties, and more. A family of three with two children in daycare making $72,000 per year is probably barely scraping by.

In truth, I have it better than most, as I live in West Sacramento, with far lower property costs than most of California. I would guess that most of the 9,700 families come from the large cities with very high costs of living. If a family of four living in San Francisco makes $90,000 per year, it would likely not have any money to pay for developmental disability services. But this same family would be ineligible to receive money from the state.

There is a moral argument as well. Should not the people who pay the most taxes be allowed to participate in the services they pay for? If I forced a group of people to pay for a party, would I then turn around and charge them again if they had a piece of cake that we are giving away to everyone else?

The third issue is that the LAO ignores the possibility that many of these 9,700 families will simply leave California and with them, the tens of thousands of dollars each in tax revenue in the state. The more money a family makes, the more likely they are to simply relocate.

I’m glad that the Legislature is finally working on controlling costs and making cuts to the budget. But singling out middle-class taxpayers to NOT receive services is just wrong.

Sacramento Metro Chamber to talk job recovery issues with legislators

2010-01-21T00:06:08Z

Having set dozens of appointments with state assembly members and senators, the Sacramento Metro Chamber calls for the region’s business and civic leaders to join up for the annual State Legislative Summit, Wednesday, Jan. 27, as the Metro Chamber will lead a regional advocacy effort focused on increasing jobs in the region by advocating for policies that will help employers and workforce expand in the coming years.

“All business—every sector and every size—needs access to our State House,” said Matthew Mahood, president & CEO. “We encourage business to take advantage of this once-a-year opportunity. The Metro Chamber is advocating for critical issues important to jobs and business in our region, and we need business people with a reputation for getting things done to join us at the State Legislative Summit.”

If you are concerned about jobs and business growth, if you are concerned about the rising costs of businesses, unsure how adopting clean energy technology solutions will change your business, if Broadband innovation seems like it will assist your business growth—then you should join the Metro Chamber volunteers as they step into the legislators’ offices and get down to business on these and other important matters, Mahood said.

The following issues were brought forward by a volunteer committee and have been determined to be the focus during the day, which begins with a lunchtime address by state Insurance Commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner. An issues orientation precedes the advocacy appointments. The day ends with a reception with legislators at the Elks Tower Ballroom.

2010 Sacramento Metro Chamber State Legislative Summit Issues

• CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET
• JOBS AND BUSINESS GROWTH
• TRANSPORTATION
• FLOOD PROTECTION
• WATER/DELTA
• CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
• TELECOMMUNICATIONS
• BROADBAND INNOVATION
• WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
• SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES
• LAND USE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
• ENERGY
• AIR QUALITY

For more information or to register, visit the State Legislative Summit page or contact Chantal LeFevre at 916-319-4260 or clefevre@metrochamber.org.

CHRIS GARLAND CAMPAIGN PICKS UP KEY ENDORSEMENTS IN NEW YEAR

2010-01-06T02:18:35Z

Democratic Assembly candidate Chris Garland is ringing in the New Year with his announcement that he has picked up the endorsements of key legislative leaders in his race for the Democratic nomination in the 9th Assembly District, including Senator Leland Yee, Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, and former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. For more information, contact Phil Giarrizzo, 916-737-9325.

More than just a sales tax increase

2009-03-13T00:53:40Z

Back in February Gov. Schwarzenegger and the legislature passed a state budget that included a temporary one-cent hike in the state sales tax, well now the time has come to pay up. On April 1st the one-cent-on-the-dollar increase will take effect and will expire on either July 1, 2011, or July 1, 2012 depending on voter’s approval of the proposed Budget Stabilization constitutional amendment in a statewide election to be held on May 19, 2009.

If Proposition 1A, also known as the Spending Cap Amendment passes on May 19th, more than sales taxes will be raised. Expect to see an additional 5% surcharge on state income taxes, an increase in the vehicle-license fee from 0.65% to 1.15%, $15 billion reduction in government spending, including $8.6 billion from education, and an elimination of two state holidays for state workers to enjoy. The deal also includes automatic spending restraints and new powers for governors to cut programs whenever the state falls into the red. If passed it would raise more than $5 billion per year. So far, no coordinated opposition has formed against 1A, but labor unions are discussing whether to mount an attack against the proposition.

Now we all get to pay for the mistakes our legislators have been making over the years. For years and years out state legislators have tried to fill budget gaps buy borrowing money in bonds, but now the state is in such a financial mess with lots of debt and a downgraded bond rating to the lowest in the nation that they have no choice but to get their house in order to attract investors.