County economic facts helped drive formation of our organization as we discovered that the county would not be in much better shape to take care of the Parkway in the future as it was taking care of it in 2003 when we incorporated.
We also learned what this editorial closes with, while here applying to a new arena, also applies to the Parkway:
“Sacramento County has a financial mess on its hands. Arena or no arena, that mess is not about to go away. And anyone who tells you that a small boost in the sales tax will build an arena and free up money for new county services and amenities is either uninformed or misleading you.”
Whether it’s uninformed or misleading, neither is very appropriate for public leadership.
An excerpt.
Editorial: Arena or not, county faces a King-size deficit
With the future written in red ink, where will supervisors find money to play with?
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, July 30, 2006
Scenes from two recent meetings of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors:
At one, hundreds of county employees, wearing the colorful T-shirts of their unions, demanded higher raises in a new contract. At the other, an overflow crowd urged supervisors to support or oppose a quarter-cent sales tax increase to build a new arena and to provide new funds to the county.
These two debates may seem to exist in parallel universes. But in Sacramento County, those universes are on a collision course.
The county has chronic budget problems that are expected to get much worse in the years ahead. Before supervisors can discuss increasing the "quality of life" with this higher sales tax, they first must stop the fiscal bleeding. In fact, if the county's own numbers are right, the bleeding is likely to continue even if voters approve this sales tax.
The county is facing a massive mismatch between rising costs and shaky revenues. Much of the mismatch occurs in The Uncity, those unincorporated urban areas such as Antelope, Carmichael and Fair Oaks.
The aging retail strips in these communities aren't providing growing sales tax revenues for the county. But the costs of serving these communities are going up. As a result, the county predicts cumulative deficits of more than $300 million in the next five years. The trend is red.
Enter the arena debate: Supervisors have backed an election for a quarter-cent sales tax increase that would last 15 years. A companion measure would suggest spending no more than half the money on an arena. That would create political pressure, but no legal requirement, to spend the money on an arena.
For the first seven years, all the sales tax funds would pay for the arena. After that, advocates of the deal promise to divide the funds among the county and local cities to spend however they wish -- perhaps $260 million for the county alone.
But remember, the same county also estimates $303 million in cumulative budget deficits over the next five years. The numbers add up to red ink and cuts in basic services, not a future surplus and money to share with cities or to spend on extras.
And don't forget those county employees in the union T-shirts demanding bigger raises than the county is offering. If the supervisors say yes to the unions, look for bigger deficits and even deeper cuts in services.
