Bill to Bail Out State Athletics Would Impact Pro Sports Fans : Finances: Proposal seeks a 3% tax on tickets costing $5 or more to help fund existing school programs at all levels.

With athletic and after-school sports programs from elementary school through college imperiled by what the state Department of Finance is calling California’s worst economic and fiscal crisis since the late 1930s, Assemblyman Steve Clute (D-Riverside) believes fans of the state’s professional sports teams should provide a bailout.

Clute is sponsoring AB 694, a bill that would impose a 3% tax on professional sports tickets costing $5 or more to help fund existing school sports programs. The Senate Education Committee has scheduled a hearing on the bill for today.

“This is modest,” Clute said. “Statewide, it could raise maybe $7.1 million or so and perhaps another $500,000 from an income tax check-off. That certainly isn’t going to be a great boost all around the state, but in some cases it may be the difference between going under or staying above.”

The bill states that the money would “not be used to offset or otherwise reduce the current or subsequent years’ budget appropriations” for physical education, after-school and competitive sports. The funds would be distributed to school and junior college districts on the basis of average daily attendance, like other general state education funding.

The State University system would get 10% of the total funding. Clute said the University of California system was omitted from the bill because of its “well-established alumni (organizations) and fund-raising.”

AB 694 has drawn the support of the labor unions representing teachers and professors on the kindergarten through 12th-grade levels (California Teachers Assn.) and state university system (California Faculty Assn.).

“Our schools are in tremendous financial straits,” said Thomas Byrnes, California Interscholastic Federation commissioner, whose organization also is backing AB 694. “Anything that can be of assistance in this regard is certainly welcome. It isn’t a lot of money, but maybe it could keep our programs alive. Maybe one, 10 or 100 more kids can play because of this.”

Walt Rilliet, commissioner of athletics for the state’s junior colleges, also favors passage of the bill.

“We appreciate Assemblyman Clute’s care for us,” Rilliet said. “As we perceive it, it will be a lot like the lottery funds. We really like the wording of it that those monies must be used to maintain programs as they are.”

Professional sports franchises are less enthusiastic. Tom Seeberg, the Angels’ vice president of civic affairs and broadcasting, said his organization would “hate to see a tax imposed upon fans.”

“Baseball is one of the last professional sporting events where a family can afford to go to a game,” Seeberg said. “If something like this were to pass, it would be an extra cost to fans at a time where you’re certainly not looking to pay more taxes. I’m not sure it’s the answer.”

If AB 694 were to become law, taxes on Angel tickets would range from 21 cents on a $7 reserved view-level seat to 33 cents for the team’s highest-price seat, an $11 field or club box.

A similar one-year plan is in effect in San Francisco, taxing Giant tickets 25 cents and 49er tickets 75 cents to fund the city’s high school sports programs.

Seeberg, while saying that the Angels “certainly empathize with high schools and education,” wonders how much of an impact the plan would have.

“By the time you spread this across the state, it’s going to be pretty thin,” Seeberg said. “Is it worth the effort? If somebody asked you if you were going to help education, where would be the thrust of where it would go? Would it be to the classroom and teachers?”

California Sports Inc., which owns the Lakers and Forum, opposes AB 694.

“We are opposed because we think that what (Clute) would like to have funded is part of the general educational experience, and that is the responsibility of everybody, not just one industry,” spokesman Bob Steiner said. “It would be like taxing the music industry to support band programs. We think this bill is prejudicial to one small segment of the business community.”

Clute said he is willing to compromise.

“I certainly would like to work with them, and perhaps they can come up with some ideas that might be better that perhaps could even put it on a voluntary basis if in fact there were a follow-through and some compliance there,” Clute said.

Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a statewide group founded by the late co-author of Proposition 13 to protect the 1978 property tax-cutting initiative, said he is concerned about earmarking funds for certain programs.

“We don’t know whether it will produce enough money for the sports programs or too much money,” Fox said. “One of the biggest problems California has is that about 80% to 90% of the general budget is earmarked and the Legislature has no control over how to reduce certain programs or fix problems. This continues that trend, and I think it’s a bad trend.”

Said Lisa Giroux, a consultant to Clute: “It makes sense to earmark these funds for after-school programs because many professional sports figures gained a lot of their expertise and became interested though programs they were able to take advantage of in school.”

If AB 694 clears the Senate Education Committee, it would go to the Appropriations Committee. Because it is a tax bill, a two-thirds vote on the Senate floor would be needed for passage.

“(Two-thirds) is not easy to get, especially on a tax issue, but we hope people will appreciate the greater need for funding for young people to get a more well-rounded educational program,” Clute said.

Should AB 694 pass the Senate, it would return to the Assembly for concurrence on its amendments before heading to the governor’s desk.