Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "taxes"

Marijuana by the numbers

2011-11-15T04:47:14Z

Under heavy scrutiny from the federal government and an administrative freeze on the city’s permit program, medical marijuana dispensaries in Sacramento could face a full ban – but if Sacramento’s dispensaries are shut down, what happens to the city budget bottom line?

In total, the city has received approximately $1.4 million since the start of the permit process for medical marijuana dispensaries – nearly $1 million from one-time fees – according to Maurice Chaney, Economic Development Department spokesman.

If the city were to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, they could see a potential $528,000 budget shortfall from reduced or eliminated marijuana business operations taxes in the 2011-12 fiscal year.

The rate of the business operations tax levied on dispensaries in the city is 4 percent. This is in addition to California sales tax that all businesses are required to pay to the state franchise Tax Board.

The total amount of revenue projected in the FY 2011-12 city budget from medical marijuana business operations taxes was $1 million. Taxes are paid quarterly, so the Finance Department estimated $250,000 in revenue each quarter of the current fiscal year.

The total first-quarter income to the city from medical marijuana business operations taxes was actually $361,000 – a surplus of $111,000. This reflects revenue received from July 1 to Sept. 30. Data for October is not available yet, Brad Wasson, revenue manager for the city Finance Department, said Monday.

Although the city has recouped the costs of the dispensary program for the initial year, possible budget impacts from a full ban – if one should be instituted in the near future – are hard to speculate, according to city spokeswoman Amy Williams.

“If budget adjustments need to be made in the mid-year,” Williams said, “city staff will make recommendations to the City Council, and they will decide (how to proceed).”

Let’s take a look at the numbers across the board.

How many dispensaries are we talking about?
There were 39 registered medical marijuana dispensaries in the city in 2009. Only registered dispensaries were eligible to apply for the first phase of dispensary operations permits under a city ordinance passed in November 2010.

Each permit cost $5,000. This was a one-time permit application fee and it was only collected until February 2011. After the February deadline, no more initial permit applications were accepted.

The actual number of eligible dispensaries that applied for Phase 1 permits was 35 – bringing in a total of $175,000 in application fee revenue for fiscal year 2010-11, according to Wasson.

There are two phases in the city’s dispensary permit process and the second phase was only open to dispensary operators who satisfied the requirements of Phase 1 – no new applicants could come into the process at that time.

Finance Department staff estimated that, of the 35 dispensaries eligible to apply for the second phase, 25 would complete the application.

The actual number of Phase 2 permit applications received by the Oct. 11 deadline was 29.

How much money does the city receive from dispensaries?
The city Finance Department is responsible for the city’s medical marijuana dispensary operations program at a cost of $315,000 for a single fiscal year, according to Wasson.

Each dispensary pays an annual program fee of $12,600, starting with the submission of the Phase 2 permit application.

With 29 Phase 2 applications submitted, the actual amount of program fee revenue collected so far in FY 2011-12 is $302,000.

In addition to Phase 1 and Phase 2 operating permit applications, medical marijuana dispensaries in Sacramento must also apply for special use permits through the city Zoning Department.

Each special use permit application fee ranges from $15,000 to $22,000, depending on the proposed location for the business and other determining factors, according to Wasson.

Thirty-eight dispensaries applied for special use permits, resulting in $651,000 of one-time application fee revenue for the city so far in FY 2011-12.

Because special use permit applications are one-time costs and this is the first year medical marijuana dispensaries have been allowed to apply for special use permits, Wasson said there was no projection for that revenue in the city budget.

“It’s a process that is already in place in the Zoning Department,” Wasson said. “Every business requiring a special use permit pays these fees, so the budget projection for that department isn’t specific to dispensary special use permits.”

The Finance Department prepares a mid-year budget update for the City Council in February, Wasson said. At that time, the department will make recommendations for any necessary adjustments to the city budget.

“It would be nice to report that we had a surplus (from business operations taxes),” Wasson said. “But at this point, we really don’t know what is going to happen.”

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

New mayoral candidate plans to bring 'fresh leadership' to Sacramento

2011-11-05T00:23:24Z

The 2012 race for Sacramento mayor just gained another candidate: Edgar Hilbert.

Hilbert, a tax preparer in Oak Park, said Wednesday that he was motivated to run for office by a desire to serve the Sacramento community in a meaningful way.

“It will be my duty and goal to not just protect the quality of life in Sacramento, but to improve it,” he said in a press release Tuesday.

Hilbert, 45, is married and has three children. He was born in Mexico City and moved to the United States in 1993. He has lived in Sacramento since 2001.

Hilbert’s wife, Leticia, ran for City Council District 5 in the 2010 election, and Hilbert acted as his wife’s campaign manager.

One of the biggest issues that Hilbert said he sees in local government is the need for “fresh leadership” and leaders who listen to the ideas of the people more than simply doing things their own way.

“It is clear to me that the need for a new leadership focused on people is more important now than ever,” Hilbert said.

The city budget, economic development and infrastructure are the three big-ticket items that Hilbert said he wants to focus on as mayor.

Hilbert said his experience on the Oak Park Redevelopment Advisory Committee has given him a good perspective on housing issues in the area, as well as new ideas about how to enhance the economic development of the city.

One idea that Hilbert expressed is turning some of the downtown corridor into a miniature version of Venice, Italy – water, gondolas and all.

“There are a lot of restaurants along there,” Hilbert said. “Wouldn’t it be nice to draw visitors to something interesting like that?”

Hilbert is also no stranger to volunteerism.

For the past nine years, he has been actively involved in raising money for homeless services in his Oak Park community, and he is the coordinator for a youth group at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament.

Hilbert has also served as the executive chairman of California for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in 2007 and 2008, assisting low-income individuals with tax preparation, and he is the co-founder of the Stop Human Trafficking Today Pronto effort in Sacramento.

Hilbert is building a campaign support team with an international flair. His team will include advisers from San Diego, Mexico City and Madrid.

“These are cities that are similar to us in a lot of ways, and we can learn a lot from them,” Hilbert said.

“I think people want someone to lead the way,” Hilbert said. “The mayor is there to see that the people are represented.”

“I always try to be balanced and honest and just,” Hilbert said. “In the end, it comes down to what the people want. My goal is to listen to them.”

Marichal J. Brown, co-owner of Master Barber and Beauty Shop in Oak Park, said he has known Hilbert for nearly nine years and he has a lot of respect for him.

“Edgar is an excellent person – a trustworthy person,” Brown said. “When you are in need, he would be the person to call.”

Brown said he and Hilbert worked together on a variety of community projects, including writing for a community newspaper that Brown publishes, The Master Report.

“We have done a lot of advocacy together,” Brown said. “If (Hilbert) is mayor, I think he’ll bring community issues to the forefront.”

Calling Hilbert a “fighter for the people” and “a dependable individual,” Brown added that he has “nothing but praise for him.”

Hilbert will be running against incumbent mayor Kevin Johnson. Johnson’s campaign manager, Steven Maviglio, said Friday that the Johnson camp is ready for the competition.

“The mayor will run a campaign at full throttle no matter who the opponent is,” Maviglio said. “We welcome debate about the issues facing Sacramento.”

Maviglio said that Hilbert will not have an easy race, however.

“Every poll shows that the mayor is extremely popular, and (he is) off to a very strong start in this race,” Maviglio said. “Any candidate will have an uphill battle running against (Johnson).”

Hilbert said that he does not support the notion of a “strong mayor” initiative, preferring instead to negotiate and work with others on the City Council.

“Every one of (the council members) represents a different area of the city, and they know what their area needs,” Hilbert said. “I prefer to talk to (them) about the people in their areas and see how we can work together.”

Another opponent that Hilbert will face is longtime Sacramento resident and previous mayoral candidate Leonard Padilla.

Padilla, owner of Lorenzo Patino Law School in Sacramento, said Friday that he is happy to hear that there will be another candidate in the race for mayor.

“The more the merrier,” Padilla said.

The candidacy filing period for the 2012 city elections opens Feb. 1. Edgar said he will have a campaign kickoff in the coming weeks and then will focus his energies on fundraising for the campaign.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Redevelopment 101: A bucket half full

2011-07-16T00:54:37Z

There is a lot of talk about changes to redevelopment agencies in the state and the impact those changes will have on development projects in Sacramento.

To get a better idea of how redevelopment agencies work from a fiscal point of view, Sacramento Press has put together a “redevelopment primer” to make it easier to understand where the money comes from, where it goes and how the city benefits from redevelopment funding – and how it doesn’t.

“It all starts with property taxes, guaranteed school funding from Proposition 98, and state redevelopment law,” said Peter Detwiler, a consultant with the state Senate Governance & Finance Committee.

FIRST, WHAT IS A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY?
Cities and counties set up redevelopment agencies to eliminate blight by paying for public and private improvements and economic development.

According to a report from the state Legislative Analysts Office, the use of redevelopment has improved many areas through the revitalization of downtown and historic districts and improvements in public infrastructure.

This creates economic growth, provides affordable housing and adds value to properties and neighborhoods, increasing property taxes and bringing revenue to cities, counties, special districts and schools.

HOW IS IT FUNDED?
Property taxes don’t just fund schools – they also provide revenue for cities, counties and special districts, such as water districts, utility districts or waste disposal.

When property values rise in a redevelopment area, so do the property taxes collected. The distribution of that money is calculated using formulas established by state law, and it is not divided equally.

As soon as a redevelopment agency is formed, the distribution changes. Instead of the increased property tax amount flowing out in its usual proportions to cities, counties, schools, and special districts, their shares are fixed, and redevelopment takes the rest – the growth – off the top.

That “growth” is the incremental tax increase, and it is the prime source of funding for redevelopment agencies.

HOW DOES IT SPEND MONEY?
When a redevelopment agency forms a development project, it leverages the projected amount of tax increment it will receive with bonds to finance the project.

Eric Rasmusson, a Sacramento lobbyist who specializes in housing issues, said to “think of a redevelopment bond as kind of a mortgage.”

A mortgage is secured by a house. On a home loan, the bank gives money up front on the risk that the value of the house will go up – and that the homeowner will make the required payments.

“A redevelopment bond is secured by the expected tax increment (revenue from property value increases) that a project will earn over the next 40 years,” Rasmusson said, “and the bond money finances the project.”

The bondholder loans on the risk that a development project will, in fact, raise property values and revenue – and that the agency will make the required payments.

When a redevelopment area experiences growth and the redevelopment agency collects revenue from that growth, the agency then uses those funds to pay the debt on bonds and to finance more projects.

WHAT IS THE CONNECTION TO SCHOOL FUNDING?
Schools are funded by property taxes. When Californians passed Proposition 98 in 1988, they established a constitutional obligation for the state to fund schools to a certain level.

Proposition 98 spending for schools is determined by a formula outlined in the state constitution, and it equals approximately 45 percent of the state general fund revenues each year.

Let’s think of school funding as a big steel bucket.

Imagine two faucets over the bucket. One faucet is “property tax,” the other is “state general fund,” and water (money) flows from those faucets into the bucket.

Since schools are primarily funded by property taxes, the property tax spigot is turned on first.

“School districts get, on average, about 52 cents of every property tax dollar, based on state formulas,” Detwiler said.

Property taxes are based on home and land value, and California has been suffering from a severely impaired housing market, so the property tax spigot doesn’t always fill the bucket to the top, he said.

When that happens, the state general fund spigot takes over to fill the bucket to the constitutionally guaranteed level. The less property taxes there are to fill the bucket, the more the state general fund has to make up.

Last year, the state general fund spigot poured out $3.2 billion for school funding in California.

At the same time, the state budget included cuts to everything from health and human services to transportation and parks.

WHAT FUNDING PROBLEMS DO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES CREATE?
If redevelopment agencies are collecting the incremental growth from increased property values in a redevelopment area, that money is not going to cities, counties, special districts – or schools.

Think of it as a hole in the bottom of our school funding bucket: Schools get some of the property taxes for a redevelopment area, but not as much as they would receive if their allocation level wasn’t frozen by the redevelopment agency.

Redevelopment agencies may help create growth, but they do not share the revenue from that growth.

IS THAT ALL?
Not quite.

A recent study showed that increases in property tax revenues are not solely due to redevelopment agencies.

“When redevelopment agencies do good things, property values rise,” Detwiler said. “But some of that was going to rise anyway.”

The study, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, concluded that about half of the growth from property value increases was going to happen anyway, and half is attributable to redevelopment agencies.

“It’s fair to say, then,” Detwiler said, “that the unearned half of revenue being captured by redevelopment agencies (from property value growth) should really belong to schools.”

Since the state is obligated to make sure the school funding bucket is full, it is in effect subsidizing redevelopment agencies for the unearned portion of revenue.

The question the governor asked Californians with the new budget was, “Can the state general fund afford this size of subsidy to redevelopment?”

The governor’s answer was “no.”

HOW DO WE PATCH THE HOLE?
The new state budget included legislation that eliminates redevelopment agencies in an effort to save the state nearly $1.7 billion dollars in “backfill” school funding obligations.

Under the new laws, redevelopment agencies can elect to remain in business by paying “continuation payments” that fund K-12 schools – reducing the amount of “water” flowing from the state general fund spigot.

Those continuation payments, however, must come from the city or county that has authority over the redevelopment agency. That means, if a city cannot afford the payments, it cannot afford its redevelopment agency.

Between a property tax spigot that runs low in a bad economy, and a state general fund spigot that is running dry, redevelopment agencies may be too big of a hole in the bucket.

Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her @MelissaCorker.

More than 1,000 local nonprofits lose exemption

2011-06-24T00:43:36Z

The Internal Revenue Service announced June 10 that it revoked the tax-exempt status for more than 1,000 nonprofit organizations in Sacramento, though the majority of them were no longer in existence.

Those that still exist, including several Sacramento-area organizations, will have to re-file for their tax-exemption status, said IRS spokesman Jesse Weller.

“We believe that most of the organizations on the list are defunct, although some may still be in existence and just didn’t get the word,” he said.

Nationwide, the number of nonprofit organizations whose tax-exemption status was revoked was 275,000.

The revocation was an automatic action taken after the passing of a pension reform act in 2006. Nonprofit organizations are required to file paperwork with the IRS each year under the parameters of the law, and those that do not file anything for three consecutive years get their status revoked.

“This was the main action from the law change,” Weller said. “Going forward, we expect a lot less to be revoked.”

One of the Sacramento organizations that’s still in existence and had its tax-exempt status revoked was the Sacramento City Taxpayers’ Rights League, located at 2509 Capitol Ave.

The letter from the IRS came as a surprise to President Mark Whisler.

“They sent a letter saying I hadn’t filed, but we file our paperwork every year,” Whisler said. “I was surprised. Who knows? Maybe they transposed a digit in the paperwork somewhere.”

Whisler said his organization watches out for taxpayer rights in Sacramento and sued the city over the loan to Arco Arena in the 1980s.

He said he thinks the move to revoke tax-exemption status is a good one, since it should clean up the list of nonprofit organizations.

“The nonprofit database has been cluttered for years,” he said.

In his case, he said he has 30 days to reply to the IRS letter and work from there.

Weller said organizations whose nonprofit status was revoked will have to reapply for it, typically a process that takes three to six months. The fee for a small organization that takes in less than $50,000 per year amounts to $100. Larger organizations have fees from $400 to $800.

“The law required a revocation,” he said. “The IRS has no discretion over it. If it’s still in existence and wants to get back its tax-exempt status, they can reapply.”

Bob Achermann, executive director of the California-Nevada Soft Drink Association, a trade organization for soft drink bottlers, said questions from The Sacramento Press were the first things to alert him to the revocation of his tax-exemption status. The association is based in Sacramento.

“It’s not only shocking,” he said, “but we have been filing tax returns for over 40 years.”

He said the address in the list of organizations with revoked nonprofit status the IRS had an address that was 20 years old.

“We have filed tax returns all these years, under our current address, and we have filed under the same name all these years with the correct address,” he said.

Achermann said he will be doing what is necessary to retain tax-exemption status.

Weller acknowledged that some organizations could have slipped through the cracks of the IRS’ outreach campaign.

“It’s definitely true that somebody moved and didn’t get the letters or the word in some way over the last three years,” he said. “Basically, the law is clear. We don’t have the discretion to say, ‘OK, because you didn’t know about it, you can have (tax-exemption status) back.’ ”

All donations given to nonprofit organizations until the revocations went out are still recognized as tax-exempt, and Weller said that won’t present a problem on tax returns.

He recommended checking to make sure an organization is tax-exempt before making donations by checking the IRS website.

For a list of nonprofit organizations with tax-exemption status revoked by state, click here.

For a list of all nonprofit organizations by state – whose status was not revoked – click here.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.

Second Installment of Sacramento County Property Taxes Due

2011-04-05T16:10:15Z

The deadline for paying the second installment of your 2010-2011 Sacramento County property taxes is coming up! Payments are due no later than April 10; however, because April 10 falls on a Sunday this year, taxpayers have until the next business day, Monday April 11, 2011, to pay the second installment without penalty. Late payments will incur a 10 percent penalty plus $15.00 cost for each tax bill. Partial payments cannot be accepted.

If you recently purchased the property for a lesser value or you are disputing the assessed value with the Assessor’s Office or the Assessment Appeals Board, the annual tax bill must still be paid by the delinquent date to avoid the addition of penalties.

Payments must be received in the Tax Collector’s Office by 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2011, or either postmarked or paid through our website by April 11, 2011. Online payment services provided through our website include payments via credit card or electronic check. Credit card and electronic check payments may also be made by calling 1 (888) 877-3575. A convenience fee is charged by the vendor on credit card and electronic check payments.

Payments may be made in person at the Sacramento County Tax Collector’s Office at 700 H Street, Room 1710, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or you can mail your payment to P.O. Box 508, Sacramento, CA 95812-0508. Be sure to mail your payment early enough to ensure a timely postmark and avoid penalties.

When providing a check as payment, you authorize us either to use information from your check to make a one-time electronic fund transfer from your account or to process the payment as a check transaction.

The Tax Collector also wants to remind property owners to include the appropriate installment payment stub from the tax bill, stub from our website, or write the parcel number of the property on the check being submitted to make sure that you receive proper credit for the payment.

Failure to receive a tax bill does not relieve the property owner of their liability to pay taxes in a timely manner or give the Tax Collector reason to cancel penalties imposed for late payment. If you have not received a tax bill, you can obtain your tax bill information and payment stubs (coupons) at the Tax Collector’s website at www.eproptax.saccounty.net , over the automated telephone system or by contacting the Tax Collector’s Office at (916) 874-6622.

Property tax payment history for secured property tax bills in now available at www.eproptax.saccounty.net .

Popular local eatery closes its doors

2011-03-29T03:01:35Z

Hangar 17, a local bar and restaurant that started with valet service and famously huge hamburgers, closed its doors for the final time last Monday, due in part to unresolved tax issues and a floundering economy.

Joey Madrid, 40, co-owner of Hangar 17, spoke with The Sacramento Press about the events leading up to the restaurant’s closing.

“Everyone thinks we’re terrible people, that we did everyone wrong, but that’s not true,” Madrid said. “We did the best we could, but things got the better of us.”

Madrid and co-owner James Lombardi became acquainted when Madrid and Lombardi’s younger brother, Chris, worked together at Chops Steakhouse in Sacramento.

Madrid and the older Lombardi brother came up with the idea for a “hangout” where they could spend time with friends, eat good food and have a few drinks in a relaxed atmosphere. When younger brother Chris, who was a chef at the time, came up with some menu ideas, the men decided to take the plunge and open shop.

Lombardi found an old military-style Quonset building at the corner of 17th and S streets and ran it by Madrid as a potential site for the new business. Madrid had coincidentally found the same location in his own search for a business site.

“We took that as a sign that it was meant to be,” Madrid said.

The restaurant started with a temporary liquor license that allowed them to sell alcohol until 2 a.m., and Madrid and Lombardi included valet service at the front door to alleviate the notoriously inconvenient parking in the area.

“It was a piece of the neighborhood,” said Nelda Mackey, school guidance counselor and resident near the restaurant’s location. “Everyone over there was like family. We were on a first-name basis with Tracy and Dayla, the bartenders. We’re so sad that it closed.”

As much as the bar grew in popularity with the locals and enjoyed predominantly good reviews when it opened in late 2004, Hangar 17 suffered a setback in mid-2006.

Some residents and property owners had protested the issuance of the liquor license when Hangar 17 first applied for it and, by the time the appeal and hearing process came to a conclusion nearly 18 months later, the license was finally issued with operating restrictions that included a requirement that the front door remain closed during business hours, and alcohol could only be sold until 10 p.m.

“That was what started things going bad,” Madrid said. “We weren’t going to have the late-night customers that we had at first. Once the liquor license was changed, we had to start changing other things to make up for it.”

The first thing to change was a shifted focus from late evening drink sales to food sales, particularly for a lunchtime crowd that was largely composed of state workers with offices nearby.

Robert du Plaine, 52, a former chef and current state engineer, was a frequent diner at Hangar 17 who took note of the quality of the food.

“It wasn’t just a plain burger,” du Plaine said. “The food was always creative and properly prepared. It’s very sad to see it go – it was a wonderful place to eat.”

Despite a good lunch crowd and many “regulars” in the evenings, Hangar 17 felt another squeeze in 2009 when the economy suffered further downturns and furloughs were instituted for state workers. The lunch crowd started to dwindle, and so did the restaurant’s profits.

“People just couldn’t keep going out like they used to,” Madrid said. “Pretty quick, we weren’t making as much in food sales anymore.”

As business slumped and profits disappeared, Madrid and Lombardi found themselves unable to make regular payments to unemployment insurance, the Board of Equalization, and the Internal Revenue Service.

“I called all of them (EDD, Board of Equalization, IRS) to make payment arrangements,” Madrid said, “But every time I paid one, the other two would fall behind, and I’d have to make up for it. Then, another would be caught up, but the first two would fall behind. It just never ended.”

The more they tried to dig the business out of the deepening hole, the worse things got. Payroll checks were bouncing, and unpaid taxes ballooned to more than $500,000 with interest and penalties. Madrid said there came a point where they just couldn’t keep it afloat any longer.

“We got together and just said, ‘Look, we’re drowning here,’ ” he said.

The decision was made, and Lombardi notified employees via text that Hangar 17 was no longer in business.

“We’re so upset that it closed,” Mackey said. “Lots of neighbors went there.”

Mackey wasn’t the only neighbor surprised by the closing of the popular neighborhood hangout.

“It came as a surprise to everyone,” said Stan Barton, 53, controller for Paragary restaurants and a longtime resident near Hangar 17. “We had no idea it was closing.”

According to Madrid, the landlord took possession of the building as of Friday, March 25, and the IRS has a lien on all of the equipment and furniture inside. Madrid and Lombardi will sell some assets to offset their tax liability and then, “We’ll do what we can to resolve it,” Madrid said.

“It’s going to take some time,” he said.

Councilman McCarty pitches soda tax

2011-02-10T02:03:59Z

Sacramento City Councilman Kevin McCarty is working on a proposal to tax soda and use the revenue on programs to combat childhood obesity. McCarty outlined his plan in an interview with The Sacramento Press on Wednesday.

McCarty said he is examining a soda tax of one cent per ounce of soda, with a cap of 10 cents per soda can or bottle. The tax would be confined to the city of Sacramento.

McCarty is considering having the revenue go to the city’s Parks and Recreation Department for recreation programs.

“You could use the money for recreation – to keep kids fit – but also keep them out of trouble,” McCarty said.

McCarty’s proposal is in its early stages. He said he is talking to City Attorney Eileen Teichert about the public process for his proposal. A soda tax may need a two-thirds vote from Sacramento voters, according to state law Proposition 26.

A soda tax bill authored by former state Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) did not advance through the Legislature last year.

The California Retailers Association, which opposed Florez’s bill, said it would also oppose McCarty’s proposal.

Bill Dombrowski, the group’s president, argued that the tax would be “inappropriate” because it could be used to help balance the city’s budget.

But McCarty argued that the money would go toward recreation programs. He said a tax makes sense because soda is connected to childhood obesity. “This is a tax on soda, which is one of the major drivers of childhood obesity,” McCarty said. “There’s an actual link.”

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

A Towering Challenge

2011-01-30T16:33:27Z

Bridge maintenance difficulties abundant in Sacramento

It’s no secret to the daily drivers in the Sacramento region that our local roads, freeways and even bridges have some less-than-perfect driving conditions. Any observant motorist can attest to this fact with their own experiences of avoiding potholes, deciphering sometimes illegible road markings, and bracing for strong bumps when crossing gaps between roadway segments.

What may surprise you, however, is the staggering amount of data freely available to the public which, when drawn together, paints a dire portrait for the future of Sacramento roads. In a nutshell: There are many existing problems we know about, not enough money to properly contain these problems in a timely fashion, and not nearly enough funding dedicated for proactive maintenance projects or to build the new infrastructure needed to replace functionally obsolete roads and bridges.

LEARNING FROM HISTORY

There is a fable which says if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The same metaphor could ring true for the public’s inability to react to significant changes that occur slowly over time.(1) It could even be said that the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse of 2007 is a terrific example of this idiom.

The warning signs were visible to those in charge of bridge maintenance and safety in Minnesota. In 1990 the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of “structurally deficient,” mainly because of the significant amount of corrosion in its bearings. In 2001 the University of Minnesota’s civil engineering department released a study highlighting the cracking in cross girders near the ends of the approach spans. Finally, in 2005 the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Bridge Inventory database found signs of fatigue and brought up the possibility of the need to replace the bridge entirely.

Despite all of these warnings, on Aug. 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge fell into the Mississippi River during the evening rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145. Officials were either unaware of or grossly unable to fully understand the fragility of the bridge. Despite its impending doom, at the time of the collapse there were over half a million pounds of construction supplies and equipment on the bridge for crews to replace lighting, concrete and guard rails.(2)

OBSERVING WITH OUR EYES

While the roads and bridges in the Sacramento region do not copy the “Truss Arch” design that proved faulty in Minnesota, they do share other commonalities. These include their age, heavy truck use and the same federal rating of being “structurally deficient” in many cases. Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of road fatigue that observers were able to witness with their own eyes until recently was the off-ramp for the Eastbound “W X” Highway 50 to Highway 99 South.

For several years, large makeshift steel braces held up one section of roadway that was separating from the other. Drivers above the bracing could feel a large jolt as they drove over the crumbling “hinge.” This shift in the bridge span also produced a visible change in road elevation between sections. Last summer a construction bid was awarded to a private firm and work began to build a new concrete pylon to provide support to the off-ramp. Finally, near the end of 2010, work was completed and the temporary bracing was removed.(3)

The bump on the roadway still remains and, according to CalTrans, will be smoothed out sometime in the spring when warm weather conditions are more conductive to concrete work. But what of the dozen or so other local bridges that appear to share the same visible road-elevation changes between sections of roadway?

WARNING SIGNS?

Most of the major elevated freeways built in the Downtown Sacramento area were built in the 1960s.(4) They are a mix of bridges and ramps that span over earth, rivers and, in some cases, over other roads. Most have flexible divisions which are designed to allow the road to give and take depending on mitigating factors such as heat, cold and rising tides. These divisions sometimes connect elevated sections back to sections of road that are on improvised mounds of earth. It is at these sections that the careful observer can see astonishing changes in roadway elevation.

The Highway 99 South bump was between two sections that were suspended in the air. In the sections highlighted in this article’s photographs, most of these elevation changes occur between sections that join bridge to earth. But just like the Highway 99 South off-ramp, these sections share the same alarming visible fatigue, and one can be easily left wondering how seriously and with what amount of urgency these problems are being given attention. To eliminate what would otherwise be axle-breaking bumps between road sections, maintenance crews have added more and more asphalt to the road to mitigate the change in road elevation. While this method treats the symptoms, it does little to cure the cause.

Seeking another opinion, I spoke with Sacramento native August Smarkel, a UC Berkeley civil engineering graduate with a master’s degree in geotechnical engineering. He emphasized the importance of following the planned scheduled maintenance as laid out by the original designers of our local roadways, as well as ongoing evaluation of existing condition of the roadway. He noted the difficulties in doing so while working with different gubernatorial administrations beholden to the real-world conditions of their day and complicated annual budgets.

Smarkel also pointed out the significance of proper oversight when dealing with private contractors. One scenario foreseen was a contractor concluding that if one project finished over budget, an incentive would be created to bring the next project under budget to compensate for lost profits. A less-than-ideal contractor may use substandard materials or a lower level of acceptable finish quality to cover previous job losses. The need for independent quality control and responsible project management with open lines of dialogue between designers and construction crews becomes paramount to ensure efficient roadway preservation.

While these may just be the opinions of local observers who lack the thorough knowledge of the day-to-day operations of the responsible governmental entities, it is still an inarguable fact that these bridges are only getting older every day. It is also safe to say that they will require extreme amounts of money and construction work over the next 10 years if they are to continue to be the main arteries that move people and commerce in the capital city.(5)

EXAMPLES OF URGENCY FROM JUST THIS LAST MONTH

In the evening hours of Jan. 19, multiple lanes of Highway 99 South between 12th Avenue and Fruitridge Road were closed so that previously unscheduled roadwork could be done to resurface a bump on the freeway which extended across several bridge decks. According to CalTrans public relations officer Carol Herman, the work was only a temporary fix until more substantial repairs can be done during warmer weather in the upcoming months.

This construction work caused major congestion during the Jan. 20 morning commute, which I can attest to personally. I commute daily from 65th Street and Folsom Boulevard to Norwood via I-80, and pass under Highway 99 South at Highway 50. Normally at 6:45 a.m., the time at which I pass this interchange daily, traffic is fluid. On the morning of the 20th, as per the warnings I heard via multiple traffic reports, I witnessed for myself the parking lot that formed on the adjacent off-ramps. Traffic was unusually congested, until one passed the Highway 99 on-ramps. Within the scope of possibilities outlined in this article, it’s effortless to imagine a future where such inconveniences become a more common occurrence.

LOOKING INTO THE DATA

Being surrounded on two sides by rivers, Sacramento is hugely dependent on our roads and bridges for normal daily life to continue. If one or more of these bridges were ever forced to close entirely for major repair or due to their failure, business in the Sacramento region could slow to a crawl. Another troubling fact is the sheer amount of bridges in the Sacramento region: 472. Many of these bridges are in the rural areas and are important transportation routes critical for the production of agriculture. Every day, on average, over 22 million vehicles travel on them, and, of that, 1.8 million of them are heavy trucks. These heavy trucks are one of the most critical factors in pavement deterioration, as one fully loaded 80,000-pound truck causes as much wear as 10,000 automobiles. Compound that with the fact that heavy truck travel has grown at a 50 percent higher rate than autos in the last 20 years, and you have the recipe for the poor pavement conditions we’re dealing with presently.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) said as much in its report on road maintenance through 2035. They warn that gasoline taxes have failed to cover less than 20 percent of what the region needs for road maintenance and rehabilitation. Tax revenues have not kept pace with inflation, due in part to corporate fleet reductions and the improved fuel economy of newer vehicles. While the region currently spends over $250 million a year on road maintenance, SACOG estimates that figure will grow to over $1.2 billion a year in just 15 years. Rather than focusing on preventative maintenance, which in the long run is more cost effective and lengthens the life of the of the roadwork, most of the region’s transportation agencies elect to do “quick-and-dirty” deferred maintenance. This only applies “band-aids” to the symptoms of larger problems. In the long run, agencies spend more money and get less favorable results by going this route. In this current climate of reduced tax revenues and our national recession, budget conditions allow for little else but these “patch jobs.”(6)

According to the 2009 National Bridge Inventory, many of the bridges spanning our local waterways are either “structurally deficient” or “functionally obsolete.”(7) Even so, Sacramento County typically only budgets for one bridge repair project annually, and these projects average under $100,000.(8) The lack of proper maintenance eventually gets passed down to the motorist in the form of wear and tear on their vehicles. The average Sacramento motorist will pay an additional $609 annually in added vehicle operating costs due to poor roads. That is a number which is almost twice the average of the rest of the country, and the sixth highest average of regions with populations over 1 million nationwide.

CALTRANS ACKNOWLEDGES CHALLENGES, CITY’S HISTORY OF SAFETY

For the past 84 years, the California State Department of Transportation, CalTrans, has been responsible for over 12,000 bridges. In that time, none of their bridges have collapsed due to neglect. Despite the fact that many bridges are well beyond their design service life, State Bridge Maintenance Engineer Dolores Valls is certain that CalTrans’ aggressive inspection and maintenance program is working in a manner that will allow the bridges to continue to serve the public reliably.

“As the transportation system ages, it will require increased attention, much like a patient reaching middle age needs more frequent visits to the doctor than a teenager to remain healthy,” Valls said via e-mail. “Making sure those structures, including the more than 400 state highway bridges in the greater Sacramento area, continue to provide safe and reliable service requires the ongoing support of the public and the full-time attention of a special unit of 200 trained engineering professionals.”

Even though Director Cindy McKim says that “the state of California’s economic difficulties only make our work more challenging,” CalTrans is confident in the safety and dependably of state bridges. She acknowledges that the current network of bridges is crucial to our economic prosperity, as billions of dollars of commerce depend on their existence. But recently when over $1 billion in funding appropriations were announced, less than $900,000 was allocated to the repair of an existing bridge.(9) A majority of funding is set to be used for the addition of more lanes on existing freeways, the purchasing of buses and light rail trains for local governments, and building traffic control systems to reduce congestion times. $65 million will be spent on parts of the Sacramento River Bridge, but only to add HOV, median and auxiliary lanes on the existing roadway. Hopefully some of that monies goes to ensuring that the “W X” can handle the added weight.

WHAT NOW?

The items covered in this article are not the beginning or the end of the challenges facing the roads and bridges in the greater Sacramento area. The damaging effects of seismic activity, flooding, major accidents with chemical spills, and even the corrosive nature of some bird droppings also deserve a thorough investigation.(10) The continuing commitment of state and federal resources to maintain the ongoing use of our vital passages for commerce and transportation could prove to be the logistical nightmare of the next few decades. Combine the general public’s perceived lack of awareness to the existence of these problems and the current uncertain economic climate in the ongoing global recession, and one is left guessing how much of a priority this can be to those who responsibility it is to ensure proper funding for road safety and operations.

It is important to stress at this point that this information is not meant to sway the reader into blindly adopting one opinion about the current state of local bridges over another. The genesis of this article was simply daily observations by the author. These observations resulted in further research of publicly searchable databases and scrutiny of similar historical events.

It is the only hope of the author that upon the conclusion of reading this article the reader is motivated to do their own research and observation and to come to their own conclusions. If after proper scrutiny the consensus is that our bridges are in good working order and are being managed responsibly, then there is nothing to be concerned about and the motorists of Sacramento can draw comfort from the fact that their roads and bridges are safe.

But if the contrary is true, and it turns out our bridges deserve an immediate increase of funding and attention to fix or replace anything that may be an eminent danger to the public, one can only hope that this compilation of information begins the debate that prevents any incident which otherwise could cause economic and bodily harm.

Footnotes:

(1) http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge
(3) http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-update-cal-trans-completes-99-112910,0,2507733.story
(4) Images of America, Sacramento’s Midtown. Arcadia Publishing 2006
(5) http://www.sacog.org/mtp/pdf/MTP2035/Issue%20Papers/Road%20Maintenance.pdf
(6) http://www.city-data.com/bridges/bridges-Sacramento-California.html
(7) Search results from http://nationalbridges.com/
(8) http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/transportation/Pages/BridgeRepair.aspx
(9) http://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/ctcprojectallocationsjanuary2011.pdf
(10) http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=25523
(*) Google Map Images used following Fair Use under the Permission Guidelines for Google Maps and Google Earth. Permission Guidelines for Google Maps and Google Earth Fair Use Policy: http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html

Representatives from CalTrans were forthcoming with information when asked and very helpful in the framing of this article. I invite them to continue the discussion in the comments section below.

Free tax services for low-income and disadvantaged people start February 1

2011-01-26T20:15:06Z

Free tax preparation services for low-income and disadvantaged residents will start in Sacramento and Carmichael on February 1 and continue through the April 18, 2011 extended filing deadline.

Because people often pay $75 to get a simple EZ return done, cutting into much-needed refunds, families who make less than $49,000 can get their tax return done for free at these sites. The sites will have tax preparers for all returns, including Earned Income Credit.

Tax preparation services will be held on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 10 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at Mutual Housing’s Victory Townhomes, 1075 Dixieanne Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95815.

Tax preparations will take place on Tuesdays from 9 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Mission Oaks Community Center, 3344 Mission Avenue, Carmichael, CA 95608.

Appointments are necessary. Call 2-1-1 for an appointment.

People can also call (916) 498-1000 for the Sacramento site or (916) 972-0336 for the Carmichael center. (The only walk-ins who will be accepted are people of 60-plus years of age or Victory Townhomes residents.)

Through their TaxAide program, American Association of Retired Persons volunteers prepare most returns, including much-needed Earned Income Credit (EIC). For this program, AARP has assistance from Sacramento~Yolo Mutual Housing Association, Mission Oaks Recreation and Parks District, the Internal Revenue Service and the Franchise Tax Board.

A non-profit with 15 communities in the region, Mutual Housing develops and operates well-designed, affordable rental housing with 2,600 residents, half of whom are children. Through MH’s focus on leadership, the nonprofit also provides training and mentoring as well as educational programs, community-building activities and services for residents and neighbors. For more information, visit http://www.mutualhousing.com.

Founded in 1958, AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people 50 and over improve the quality of their lives. AARP has offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. AARP’s mission is to enhance the quality of life for all as we age, leading positive social change, and delivering value to members through information, advocacy, and service. Visit http://www.aarp.org for more information.

Original "Survivor" Richard Hatch in Sacramento this weekend

2011-01-12T21:52:15Z

Richard Hatch is one of the featured interviewees in the locally produced documentary "Death or Taxes: The Sad Truth About Our American Taxation System" that will be screened as part of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival's WinterFEST this weekend. Mr. Hatch will be attending the screening in support of the film and a question and answer session with the filmmakers will follow the screening.

About the film - from the producers:
With a run time of 78 minutes, Death or Taxes takes a hard look at the horrifying realities faced by the millions of taxpayers who owe back taxes, many of whom are forced to make life-changing decisions. Should they pay their rent or pay their back taxes? Put food on the table or pay the often exorbitant fines issued by IRS agents in the name of Uncle Sam? Death or Taxes tells the story of the good, honest people who get caught in IRS quicksand—some of whom are pushed beyond hope into the last decision they’ll ever make.

About Mr. Hatch:
Richard Hatch is best known for winning the first ever season of Survivor. Following his success on the reality television show and his $1,000,000 prize, Richard worked with attorneys and accountants to determine his tax obligations for the prize money. In spite of his best efforts, Richard was accused and convicted of tax evasion. Richard served 52 months in federal prison, 4 months spent in solitary confinement, without ever having been assessed a tax debt. Richard’s ongoing battle with the tax and legal systems continue today, as Richard works to clear his name, and come to a settlement with the IRS.

Death or Taxes screens at 1:30pm on Sunday, January 16th at the Crest Theatre.

The Sacramento Film & Music Festival WinterFEST is at the Crest Theatre from Saturday, January 15th - Monday, January 17th and the full schedule, with ticketing links and links to individual film pages can be found online at www.sacfilm.com/schedule.html

See also the overview Sacramento Press article about the Festival: LINK

Disclosure: Tony Shepppard is a Festival Co-Director.

Council considers pot and business taxes

2010-06-23T05:36:53Z

The Sacramento City Council wants to start taxing pot dispensaries and possibly increase a business tax.

Expecting California voters to legalize recreational marijuana in November and facing continued financial problems, the council discussed putting a measure on the general election ballot to ask Sacramentans to enact a tax on pot dispensaries and to increase the city's business operations tax (BOT) so bigger companies could pay a more proportionate share.

At a public hearing Tuesday afternoon, several council members indicated they're leaning toward alternatives to a 5 percent, across-the-board pot tax after hearing from at least a dozen patients, operators and advocates for the industry.

Other city councilmen said they may not support a tax increase for other businesses after business leaders Matt Mahood with the Sacramento Metro Chamber and Patty Kleinknecht with the River District opposed an increase, at least until further discussion could take place.

Pot sales are already taxed by the state at 8.75 percent. Currently, only Oakland and Berkeley impose city taxes on the facilities.

Some operators said they're willing to be taxed by the city at a "reasonable" rate, identified by some as 1 to 1.5 percent. The proposed 5 percent tax would be the highest in the state. Others said a city tax would make it impossible for them to provide medical marijuana free to no- or low-income patients, as they currently do. Marijuana advocates and patients alike said medical use of pot shouldn't be taxed because other legal drugs are not taxed.

"I understand the city is in a difficult financial situation. But you want to balance the budget on the backs of patients," said Joy Cole, a Sacramento resident and medical marijuana patient in her fifth year of remission from lung cancer. She was laid off nine months ago. "My ability to earn is limited. Now you want to penalize me further."

The ballot measure, as proposed by city staff, would ask voters to approve phasing in a 5 percent tax on pot stores and increasing the business tax to .07 percent of annual gross receipts for most other businesses within three years. If approved as proposed, the measure could mean an additional $4.5 million in general fund revenues in the first year and $8.8 million each year by year three, according to city staff estimates.

The current BOT is .04 percent of annual gross receipts, but a $5,000 cap exists. So 283 businesses that take in $10 million to $72 million and 38 businesses that take in more than $72 million pay only $5,000 in business operations taxes to the city each year. The measure would propose raising the cap to $50,000 annually.

Businesses pulling in $100,000 in annual gross receipts currently pay $66 in taxes each year, but they'd pay another $27 annually. Businesses with $10 million in annual gross receipts would pay an extra $3,000.

The measure proposes that clean-tech businesses be exempt from the tax for three years. Three categories covering professional business owners such as attorneys and lobbyists as well as hotels have a different rate structure involving flat fees.

Both items were proposed by city staff to provide more revenue for the city for fiscal year 2011/2012, when Sacramento is expected to face a $25 million deficit, said Interim City Manager Gus Vina.

Several council members said they'd like to consider a lower tax — more in line with Oakland's 1.8 percent — and the possibility of categorizing medical and recreational pot as two different products.

"I wouldn't think we would want to be so far out there on the extreme with this," Councilman Kevin McCarty said.

"I, too, have a problem with a tax that is so high," said Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy.

Sacramento has 39 medical marijuana dispensaries. The city has a ban on any new shops opening up after the council moved earlier this month to extend a moratorium on new dispensaries for another year.

Councilman Steve Cohn proposed broadening the measure's wording to include pot cultivation and production. Several council members asked city staff to do more research and provide alternatives for the pot tax and the proposed increase in the business operations tax.

Medical marijuana dispensary advocates said they'd like to meet with city staff between now and July 13 to discuss alternatives to the current proposed tax.

Oakland attorney James Anthony, who drafted Oakland's medical cannabis tax, said that city's 1.8 percent tax has proven burdensome. Representing the Sacramento Alliance of Collectives, he said after the meeting that he will propose creation of "low-scale" cultivation and production facilities in Sacramento, which could then be taxed.

"The problem is we're competing with an underground market that has no overhead.... and that certainly doesn't pay sales tax," he said. "What's going to happen... if you pile on a 5 percent tax — it will drive all of that activity back underground."

Several city councilmen, including Mayor Kevin Johnson, indicated they might not vote for any tax increase for other businesses right now, due to the economy. Companies already pay the highest utility taxes in the region, Mahood said.

In a unanimous vote, the nine-member council directed the city attorney to prepare language for the ballot measure allowing the council to consider options when the measure is brought back for a vote July 13.

The budget proposed for fiscal year 2010/2011 is balanced yet "full of fragile decisions" that include department consolidations and layoffs, said Vina, who urged the council to plan for the future by approving the proposed "minimal" revenue increases. The new measure wouldn't take effect until next July.

"I believe it is a moderate increase and, quite frankly, it brings equity to the BOT," he said.

‘Sin Taxes' Kill California's Shot At Economic Rebound

2010-05-27T23:33:58Z

For more, visit PublicCEO.com

I have a confession.

I drink alcohol.

I enjoy soda, too. Potato chips? Love ‘em.

So why are politicians posing as moral leaders and digging into my wallet over these simple pleasures? Well, simply because their vision is just as simple.

Cities, states and the federal government officials have locked into the mindless notion that these "sin taxes" are either morally or economically logical. They couldn't be more wrong.

It's easy to find public support when you single out a faction that can be looked down upon as taking part in immoral behaviors, forgetting about individual rights or the ability for the public to make its own moral judgments.

But the truth is that sin taxes need to be resisted on both moral and economic grounds. By taxing products that are overwhelmingly purchased by those with lower incomes, it effectively amounts to a regressive tax, or a tax paid for by lower income individuals.

The latest craze in this trend is California's soda tax that would only add to the numerous regressive taxes in a state that already has the highest sales taxes. What's next, fast food, cable? After that they better raises taxes for gym memberships too; people are sweating and sharing germs all over those places.

Sin taxes don't just hurt the "sinners" either. They are anti-business too and have the ability to destroy hospitality businesses - restaurants, bars and hotels - that thrive on the sales of alcohol.

Now you can start to see the trail towards hurt - a loss of revenue in these industries means a loss of jobs and an eventual hammer to the economy. Government leaders shouldn't try to alter social behavior with taxation and certainly shouldn't create taxes that harm small businesses.

Eventually the government loses that expected revenue.

Government decision-makers need to stop setting smokescreens to distract from the true economic issues. You can only put so many band-aids over an open wound before you realize it's probably time to see a doctor.

It's time to stop the moralistic posing. Sin taxes are not the solution to the state's economic issues.

For more, visit PublicCEO.com. James Spencer can be reached at jspencer@publicceo.com

Target Calls it a Remodel. Is it?

2010-04-22T01:27:38Z

I feel compelled to confess this simple truth: I love Target. My Wife and I shop there all the time, not to say we shop excessively. We both think of ourselves as modest and frugal, and we rely on their affordable prices to get the products we need regularly: food, clothes, and household goods. We loath Wal-Mart, and at the same time, I realize it is completely hypocritical to give Target a free pass, since they too are a large faceless multinational corporation, easily vivified. I also realize that this is not a perfect world, and we’ve all got to make our own way in it. That being said since I heard that a new Target Store was going to be built in walking distance from my front door, my mind has been in a state of curious expectation. Much of this comes from the long and bumpy road that had to be traveled from the day Target purchased the former Golden One site, and where we are today.

In 2005, the Sacramento Business Journal reported that Target had purchased the old headquarters of the Golden One, on 65th and Broadway, as Golden One planned to move near Watt Ave and Highway 50. Kevin McCarty, the local councilman, was quoted as saying he had no opinion of the as-yet-not-proposed Target Store, but was concerned about a Target being an appropriate fit in transit-oriented area. It would seem that the citizens of the area agreed, because after Target proposed constructing the standard “suburban-style big-box” type of store, the Sacramento Bee reports that Target submitted a radical-different proposal: An “Urban” Target, utilizing the latest modern mix-used designs. It would have fountains, single story shops, and a plaza. The citizens were appeased.

Now, try to stay with me as I plot out the timeline. 2005: Target wants to tear down the Golden One building and build a big box store. They would have paid taxes and permit fees on a brand new building. Citizens rebelled and said we don’t want this. Target backs off its plan. 2007: They submit new plans for the Urban style store. They would have paid taxes and permit fee on a brand new building. Citizens say “Great!”, and a compromise is met. 2008: The economy goes south. Target has to cancel plans to remodel an old Target store on Broadway and Riverside. They are quoted in the Sacramento Bee as saying “(the store) under construction on 65th Street is still on track for a 2010 opening.” This means the City of Sacramento is still going to collect the taxes and fees on new building permits. Then comes 2009.

In 2009 Target announces that due to the sagging economy, they have to scale back their plans a “remodel” the former Golden 1 Credit building. The “remodel” is quoted to having a “similar architectural look” to the earlier planned Urban style building, and must be scaled down to make it “financially feasible”. Now remember that the problem that the citizens had in 2005 was whether or not the store was an appropriate fit, not what it looked like. Target here is basically saying “Sorry, there’s no money, if you want a store, it’s going to be the box store, with some changes so it looks like the store you wanted.” In today’s economy, people are happy to get anything. I am not looking a gift horse in the mouth. I’m glad Target is still going to build the store. But this is where I think we as citizens are getting the shaft.

In the May 5, 2009 Sacramento Bee, City Planning Director David Kwong was quoted as saying that “(by) renovating the existing (emphasis mine)110,000 square-foot building,” Target would “avoid the public hearing and design reviews”. The building would be considered a remodel. No new permit fees. No new building taxes.

At this point I feel I have to state my qualifications: None. I am not a building expert. I am not a permit expert. I am not a councilman. I’m just a curious guy, with a semi-good memory. I noticed something rather odd, and I remembered something I read in our local paper. I was getting on the freeway on 65th a few days after the demolition of the old Golden One headquarters began. I thought to myself “Gee they sure are tearing down a lot of that building. I thought they were just going to remodel it.” Over the next few days I was amazed with the precision and speed the wrecking crews took to the old building. Before I knew it, the building was completely leveled to the ground, except for two walls that were not even touching. And they’re calling it a "remodel".

When completed there will be nothing recognizable of the old Golden 1 building in the new Target store. The citizens in the surrounding neighborhood will not be appeased. They will not get the mixed-use Urban building they were promised. We will not get the extra taxes. I bet if you look at the law and the codes Target actually has done anything wrong. I know their lawyers have gone over it to make sure that they’re within their rights. But it just feels wrong. That construction site is not a "remodel". It is an exercise in the mistreatment of the law, an injustice to the people of Sacramento, and a lie to appease the taxman. It will be a brand new building.

And now I wonder is it even legal? On May 5, 2009, David Kwong is quoted in the Sacramento Bee as saying that “renovating the existing 110,000 square foot building (will include) ‘bump(ing) out’ the space by additional 11,000 square feet.” This is the magic formula that Target must comply with to skirt the public hearings and design reviews. 110,000 sq ft plus 11,000 sq ft equals 121,000 square feet. However, Target spokesman Kyle Thompson is quoted on Feb. 27, 2010 as saying that the store will be 128,000 square feet! Where did they get the extra 7,000 square feet? I don’t know about you but that’s equal to seven of my houses! That maybe only five percent bigger than the allowed remodel addition, but it’s still a lot bigger than they originally claimed. AND WE ARE NOT GETTING THE TAXES ON A NEW BUILDING!

Again, I like Target. I loath things that are opaque. I hunger for transparency. This whole story took over five years to unfold. Most people don’t have time to or are too busy to notice these type of things. I just wanted to bring it your attention that it seems we all got played. I think we all deserve some answers on this.

Above: Picture 1: The Target site on 4-21-10. Notice only two walls remain of the old building, however Target calls this a "remodel".

Picture 2: The second Target proposal: The Urban Target.

Picture 3: The third Target proposal: The box is back.

Picture 4: Artist rendering of the box style store under construction.

Xavier Ampersand is a 29 year resident of Sacramento, and a home owner in Tahoe Park. For more info on this story, please visit the following web sites:

http://target65thstreet.com/http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/27/2569136/citizen-hotel-in-sacramento-to.html

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/council/policies/files5125/Target%20May%20Hit%20the%20Mark%20for%20Design%20of%20New%20Store%20-%206.4.07.pdf

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2005/04/04/daily18.html?q=65th%20target%20store http://www.sacbee.com/2009/05/05/1833775/bob-shallit-target-plans-remodeled.html?storylink=lingospot

Through the Looking Glass. . .

2010-04-17T16:48:28Z

"Don't forget your pitchfork!" - a friends response when informed that I would be attending a Tea Party.

Over the past year, I have heard a lot about the Tea Party movement, much of it negative, some positive. I do, from time to time, listen to conservative talk radio.

The Tea Party bashers would have you believe that these events are akin to that very famous tea party in "Alice in Wonderland." I'm talking about the cartoon classic here, not the Tim Burton rehash. A few irrationally fearful lunatics, totally out of touch with reality, brought together by nonsense: "Unbirthdays" in one, "America's rapid deterioration into a Marxist state" in the other. And the Tea Partyers' solutions to the "problems"? Cutting government tenfold, ending federal income tax? Why, that's like fixing a watch by taking the wheels out and replacing them with butter, jam, sugar and tea. But never mustard, don't let's be silly!

Of course the Tea Party supporters harken back to that other famous tea party, the one that took place in Boston some 230-odd years ago. A bunch of educated patriots, including some of the greatest men of their time, lashing out against an unjust and tyrannical government. Back then, it was Sam Adams and Paul Revere leading colonists (many dressed as Indians) in revolt against King George and the British Parliament after the passage of the Townsend Acts. Today, it's Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity leading Americans, many dressed as colonists, in revolt against King Obama and the Congress after the passage of the health care bill and stimulus package.

Which is it? Are they moronic, racist, fear-mongering homophobes spewing disinformation and conservative rhetoric? Or are they true patriots, the watchdogs of freedom, sounding the alarm before it is too late? Or could it be that the truth lay somewhere in between?

I decided Thursday that it was time to see for myself. I headed down to the Capitol at noon, ready for anything and everything. And that's about what I found.

I arrived at the West Mall just as the rally was set to begin. The lawn in front of the stage was teeming with people. The Tea Party organizers, who had predicted more than 10,000 spectators, were overly optimistic. The evening news reported 2,000 in attendance, a gross underestimation. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say there were close to 5,000 people. Keep in mind, I don't count crowds for a living, but I had almost 2,000 people in my high school. I know what 2,000 people looks like, and this was at least double that.

Jess and I began milling through the crowd, keeping a keen eye out for the racist rhetoric, angry protesters and general redneck buffoonery we had been warned to expect. I hate to disappoint the "Through the Looking Glass" crowd, but we found none of the first and very little of the latter two.

A lot has been made of the tea partyers being a bunch of middle-age, racist white males. Several well educated friends of mine warned me to expect to witness overt racism at the party. I witnessed none, overt, covert or otherwise. As far as the attendees being white, the majority may have been, but it was far from a homogeneous crowd. Maybe it didn't look like a Benetton ad, but other races were well represented, and without incident. On the other hand, Larry Elder, a libertarian radio host from Southern California, who is African-American, did begin his speech with a "Hello, fellow racists," so maybe there were some there, I'm not sure. Larry would know better than I.

Were there a lot of men in attendance? Absolutely, but there were also a lot of women. And families. This was not a boys club.

What of the furious, combative protesters? A man on stilts dressed as a cross between Uncle Sam and "Where's Waldo," preaching loudly about what an "Obamanation" America has become, made Jess a bit uncomfortable. But I think that had more to do with the stilts than the angry rhetoric. And it certainly didn't help that his "feet" (stilt shoes?) were skeletal and creepy as hell. The Uncle Waldo experience was the closest we came to a frothing protester, and it wasn't very close.

I asked a group of mounted police if they had had any trouble from the protesters. I got a "I think there may have been one arrest this morning."

How about the "morons" who make for such great soundbites and video clips with their inability to speak intelligently when pressed on why they feel certain ways? I'm sure there were some there, but when you have a group that large, they're not all gonna be Rhodes Scholars. I did see a couple of signs with "your" instead of "you're." Kinda kills you're credibility. (you see what I did there?)

All told, I was there about two hours. I would have stayed till the end but the guy onstage started talking about political action committees and I almost swallowed my tongue. When I can't sleep, I don't count sheep, I count PAC's and I'm out like a light.

I saw a lot of funny costumes, heard some cheesy protest songs ("Obama, Keep the Change" by Boo Reed, available now on iTunes) and witnessed a few less-than-tasteful signs. I'm not a big fan of pasting "choose life" and "former fetuses" stickers on the side of your toddler's wagon.

Mostly what I saw was a lot of people from all walks of life getting together to voice their displeasure with the state of affairs in this country, as American a practice as ever there was. Dismissing the Tea Party movement as a lunatic fringe is clearly a mistake. Janeane Garafolo and Keith Olberman may disparage them as a bunch "of racist tea-bagging rednecks", but they're either misinformed or deluded. (And they have had far too much fun with the "teabag" double entendre. It was funny for a minute, but we're not in junior high. Grow up). These are basically "normal" Americans. Maybe comparing them to the Boston Tea Partyers is a bit of a stretch. But then again, maybe not. I mean, the Boston Tea Party wasn't always the "Boston Tea Party." It once was just a bunch of yahoos who dressed funny and were pissed off about taxes.

New $5 Wine Tax Proposal? Say it Ain't So!

2010-04-14T18:20:47Z

Life.

It's good, but it hasn't exactly been all rainbows and butterflies, what with the failing economy, record unemployment, escalating gas prices and health care 'reform'---oh, and lest I forget, Tax Day, which is mere hours away. Nevertheless, no matter how bleak the headlines read with my morning Fruit Loops, I rely on my nightly glass of 'vinous panacea' to ease the sting of the bureaucratic fingers digging deeper into my shallow pockets.

Until now, that is. Adding insult to my fiscal injury, a couple from Southern California have proposed an initiative which would levy a massive 12,675% tax increase on alcoholic beverages.

No, this is not a belated April Fool's joke.

Kent and Josephine Whitney of San Diego have penned The Alcohol Related Harm and Damage Services Act, or what I will heretofore refer to as TARHDS. Their initiative, which includes beer and spirits, as well as my fermented grapey goodness, proposes a tax increase that would add $5.07 per bottle of wine, about $6 per 6-pack of beer, and about (gulp) $17 per 750ml bottle of distilled spirits. They claim that funds raised from the tax would go to finance programs 'that address alcohol-related injuries and damages'.

Is it me, or does this have the familiar ring of the Lottery's 'Our schools win' mantra, which was uttered to death during it's successful campaign?

As we speak, the Whitneys are working to collect an additional half-million signatures to get their initiative on the November ballot. I, on the other hand, am attempting to collect every pen in the state of California to thwart their misguided intentions...

Although it is highly unlikely that a proposal of this ilk would pass muster with the good, wise and tipsy citizens of California (Assemblyman Jim Beall's attempts to pass a 5 cent alcohol tax has failed twice), it still shivers me timbers to think that there's a movement afoot to make my indulgence even more cost-prohibitive. Seven-Buck Chuck? Good grief, this could mean an end to cheap plonk as we know it!

Will TAHRDS collect the five-hundred thousand signatures needed to get this atrocity on the ballot? And if it does make it, would it have an Ice Wine's chance in hell of passing? I'd like to think that it's highly unlikely the mega-tax bill would ever survive in a state so heavily immersed in wine culture (as well as wine 'agri-culture', for that matter).

So, it's with high hopes that I raise my glass and toast to the dismal failure of this proposal---fellow Californians, feel free to join me.....Saluti!

Disabled Veterans Win Huge Battle to Eliminate 'Good Faith' Efforts & Save Tax Dollars

2009-08-04T17:06:50Z

Disabled Veterans Win Battle in “Good Faith” Fight to Save Taxpayers Money

Disabled veteran companies and taxpayers are both winners in recent changes promoted by California’s wounded warriors. The non-profit California Disabled Veterans Business Alliance has fought the Good Faith Effort (GFE) provision in State contracting as a useless diversion actually keeping business away from Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises (DVBE). Now, the State has acted on the recommendations of the Alliance in coordination with DGS and other state agencies and has passed legislation to eliminate the GFE effective 28 July 2009.

By promoting equality with the State of California’s Small Business preference and eliminating the GFE, taxpayers will save money and disabled veterans have greater access to State contract opportunity. The DVBE Alliance and many veterans organizations know many veterans were giving up in pursuing guaranteed State contract opportunity because of ‘false fronts’ in good faith programs and massive amounts of paperwork previously required for certification.

By eliminating the GFE more opportunity for DVBE is created and there are lower costs for taxpayers, saving thousands of hours wasted in preparing bids and reducing the waste in paperwork According to recent Federal reports, “Small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy in the United States. Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Office of Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration documented that small businesses accounted for over 92% of the net new jobs created between 1989 and 2003.”

Other recommendations in the Alliance memo sent to DGS in early June 2009 include simplifying the legislation on Commercial Useful Function and eliminating the need for DVBE to submit tax returns for recertification annually. We need to make the Public Contracting Code and the Military and Veterans Code look alike so that laws and regulations for small business and DVBE are basically the same.

For more information visit www.cadvbe.org <http://www.cadvbe.org> , or call Rich Dryden, Executive Director, California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Alliance at 916-446-3510.

Sacramento's Tea Party protest

2009-04-16T04:47:51Z

Approximately 5,000 people gathered at the State Capitol Wednesday in a "Tax Day Tea Party" protest organizers said was aimed at fiscal irresponsibility in the form of Bailouts, the stimulus bill, increased taxation, and government waste. Speaking at the event were a mixture of media figures, politicians, and organizers, including State Representative Tom McClintock, talk radio hosts Mark Williams and Armstrong & Getty and others.

The protest officially started at noon, but the crowd began gathering long before that. Many of the protesters were not Sacramento residents, traveling from Roseville, Grass Valley and other surrounding towns to be heard. The size of the crowd necessitated a giant-screen television to let more people see the speakers.

While a few protesters dressed in costumes of Revolutionary War soldiers or carried boxes full of tea bags, many expressed their displeasure with government policy through handheld signs, with messages ranging from, "Don't Tax Me, Bro" to "I Am not your ATM" to "Liberalism=Communism." Many of those in the crowd carried signs decrying what they viewed as a government slide into either socialism, fascism, or both.

One woman present, who gave her name as Diane, said that the protests were "an opportunity to bring some information to people that don't follow the news, don't follow politics, show them what sort of state we're getting into." She went on to say that she favored less spending and lower taxes on smaller businesses.

Another protester who did not give a name said that the protests were for the generations of Americans who would have to pay off the deficit. "I don't want taxpayers paying for my grandkids, I want to take care of my own family," she said. "I'll be long dead, and you'll still be paying for these spending programs."

The protest was one of many across the country, and one of several attended by Fox News personalities. Neil Cavuto, host of the business news program Your World, hosted his show from the West Lawn of the State Capitol, in the midst of the crowd.

The Sacramento protest was organized by Mark Meckler, a local attorney and consultant. In addition to organizing, Meckler spoke at the event, calling those present patriots and stressing the importance of the Tea Party protests, calling them the "greatest citizens’ grass-roots movement in the history of the country."

Radio hosts Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty of the Armstrong and Getty show made numerous appearances at the podium over the course of the protest. They said attendees of the protests had been represented as wealthy "fat-cats," rather than average people. Getty described the crowd as being honest and hard-working, in contrast with the corporate recipients of government bailout funds.

While the speakers remained mostly focused on the theme of fiscal irresponsibility, many of those in the crowd promoted other messages, carrying signs or wearing T-shirts with anti-abortion slogans or religious messages. A small group of protesters were supporters of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, while others handed out leaflets for causes as diverse as immigration reform, gun ownership and the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4th District) remained on-message, saying, "You can't tax your way to prosperity," and, "The Obama budget relies on the biggest federal tax increase in our history."

McClintock cited California as an example of the failure of these policies, calling the state "a basket case." During his speech, the crowd frequently interrupted McClintock with chants of, "We've had enough."

What's one percent?

2009-03-31T18:47:41Z

When you go to purchase something on April 1, 2009 and see that the sales tax has gone up by one percent, don't expect to hear "April Fools!" come out of the cashier's mouth.

Beginning on the first day of April, as part of the state's budget, sales tax will increase by one percent throughout California.

Sacramento County will now have a sales tax of 8.75 percent; Placer County and El Dorado County 8.25 percent; with the city of Placerville at 8.5 percent. San Francisco will have a 9.5 percent sales tax; Stockton will be at 9 percent. Davis, West Sacramento and Woodland will be at 8.75 percent as well, despite Yolo County being at 8.25 percent due to voter approved increases.

According to the Board of Equalization's website, the sales tax increase will be in effect until July 1, 2011, or July 1, 2012, depending on the result of the vote in May for the Budget Stabilization constitutional amendment.

May 11, 2009 will see another increase in postage. The first class rate for stamps will increase two cents from $0.42 to $0.44.

For more information on sales tax increases, visit the Board of Equalization's website.

The Skinny on Lowering Property Taxes

2009-02-16T16:33:26Z

Have you received a letter? My household has been mailed two so far claiming that XYZ Company will help me lower my property taxes if I send them $95.00 or $179.00. Fellow residents, may I offer some advice? Don’t waste your money. We all want to pay lower taxes, especially in a declining market, but as a tax payer you can do this for free (or at least pay someone to help you when the time is right – only if you need to).

Here is what you need to do:

1. First off, wait to see what the Sacramento County Assessor’s Office says your home is worth. They should have this data available around May 2009. Figures for 2009 property taxes aren’t even out yet, so how can these companies accurately “lower your taxes” if they don’t know what your home is assessed at?

2. If you are not satisfied with your property tax assessment, you can contact the Assessor's Office and fill out a “Decline-in-Value Reassessment Application” between July 1, 2009 and November 30, 2009. There is no fee for this application. Basically, the application asks you to provide two similar properties that have sold in 2009 between January 1 and March 31.

3. If you hear back from the Assessor’s Office and still disagree with their value, you can file an “Application for Changed Assessment” with the Assessment Appeals Board by November 30, 2009. This application is free and basically asks you to provide evidence for your opinion of value. If you can supply this evidence through your own knowledge and research, that’s great. If not, this is where you may need to consult with a local and reputable real estate professional to deliver what you need.

4. Don’t wait until the end of November to do Step 2 because you may not hear back from the Assessor’s Office until after the November 30th deadline for filing Step 3. For example, if you do Step 2 on November 30, 2009 and you end up disagreeing with the Assessor’s Office value opinion when you hear back from them in 2010, there is nothing more you can do because you did not file an appeal before the November 30th deadline. Of course if you do Step 2 late in the game, you can also do Step 3 at the same time as a safeguard, but your your best bet is to take care of Step 2 early in the process so that you can hear back from the Assessor’s Office within the filing period and then determine if Step 3 is even necessary.

Keep your hard earned money in your pockets by following the steps above and also contacting the County Assessor’s office at 916-875-0455 or www.assessor.saccounty.net