Chico Area Recreation District, for example, tells us they don’t have enough money to properly run programs they’ve run for years. They’ve dropped the Fourth of July pancake breakfast, closed a popular swimming pool, and cut back hundreds of part time employees to 28 hours or less to avoid the healthcare mandate, complaining they don’t have enough money. But at the same time, they spent over a $1,000,000 buying a rotten old building in Cal Park, then spent 10’s of thousands more in repairs. Meanwhile they took over the Nature Center, $200,000+ in debt to the taxpayers, and made plans for a grandiose recreation center miles out of town.
They continue to spend 10’s of thousands a year on consultants to help them get a revenue measure on the ballot.
And NOW they want the city of Chico to forgive half the debt for the Nature Center.
According to CARD’s budget, the Nature Center brought in about $250,000 last year, an increase over the previous year of $20,000. Why can’t they pay their debts?
Most CARD programs do not support themselves, taxpayers already subsidizing over half their expenses. Here’s a program that actually generates money, but instead of applying the proceeds toward CCNC expenses, they put the money in the general fund and use it to pay their $1.7 million pension deficit, generated years before they began managing CCNC.
That’s stealing, if you ask me.
Save your own money from being spent on more studies and consultants – contact Ann Willmann and the board now, at annw@chicorec.com. Tell them Willmann needs to pay more than 2% of her pension out of her $100,000+ salary, and they need to put CCNC proceeds in a separate fund until the ENTIRE loan is paid at the originally agreed terms.
From Chico Enterprise Record:
But it’s a six-digit amount.
At Thursday’s CARD meeting, the board agreed that taking over the Nature Center is a good move for CARD. The Nature Center’s board of directors approved dissolving the 501(c)3 under which it operates.
While the Nature Center program is a nonprofit, it has leased its center in Bidwell Park from the city.
“There is no problem with the Nature Center coming to us,” said CARD Director Bob Malowney, who serves on CARD’s Financial Committee and said the committee is happy with the idea too.
“We would like the city to meet midway on the outstanding balance, or better,” said Malowney.
There is the matter of a loan the city made to the Nature Center to help build classrooms while it was independent of CARD which the center’s board has been working to pay off in tiny chunks.
The original loan of about $185,000 had grown to more than $200,000 with unpaid interest after the Nature Center struggled over payments. Repeatedly, the center asked the city and was granted deferral of the loan payments and term changes.
According to a CARD staff report presented Thursday, there is a balance of $171,200 to the Nature Center loan from the city.
The Nature Center board has been working with the city to figure out how to proceed.
CARD General Manager Ann Willmann suggested to the board that CARD work with the city and offer to pay a portion of the outstanding loan. She did not indicate an amount or percentage.
Thursday, the CARD board agreed with Willmann’s suggestion, but was hoping for a small repayment amount, citing the numerous benefits the city has enjoyed since CARD began managing the Nature Center. and taking on its employees.
The Nature Center would continue to operate as the Bidwell Park Information Center and would be a benefit to the city, Willmann pointed out.
CARD Director Michael Worley suggested the city could provide CARD more access to the immediate area around the Nature Center, such as Cedar Grove or the deer pen.
Willmann will be getting in touch with the city for further discussions.
Feasibility study
The CARD board accepted the final draft of the feasibility study and needs an assessment it ordered in regards to EveryBody Healthy Body.
The study indicated that more rectangular fields, such as soccer fields, are required; that more land is needed; that the build-out of DeGarmo Community Park cannot fulfill the community’s recreational needs.
EveryBody Healthy Body coordinator Jovanni Triceri told the CARD board that the organization “is hoping to find out ways to collaborate (with CARD) in the coming months.”
“We don’t think CARD should do all of this,” he said in regards to the feasibility study conclusions, adding that his nonprofit wants to make sure the CARD master plan is implemented.
“Our needs are beyond the building out of DeGarmo,” said CARD’s Malowney. “We’re looking forward for any group coming forward …”
A nonprofit, EveryBody Healthy Body has been looking at several hundred acres south of Chico for a sports and recreation complex to be built out over the next 50 years.
I’m not a lawyer so I had a hard time trying to interpret the seemingly simple rule about using taxpayer money to run a tax measure campaign. I mean, it seems to me that using tax money to hire a consultant who will run a phone survey in your town, targeting certain people by demographics, using leading statements like, “would you like an ice skating rink?” to get voters to agree to a tax would be a prime example of illegal use of taxpayer funds to run a revenue measure.
This is exactly what both Chico Recreation District and the city of Chico have been up to. I’ve sat in meetings – most recently, a city finance committee meeting last month – and listened to one consultant after another tell elected officials that they must convince voters to vote for the measure before they put it on the ballot. It was the consultant who attended the city finance committee meeting that talked about measures he’d pushed in other towns, using a skating rink as bait in one example.
I wasn’t sure all of this is illegal, but after reading Dan Walters’ latest column COMMENTARY, DAN WALTERS I’m guessing the Fair Political Practices Commission might like to hear about it.
He quotes an article from publicceo.com, “a website devoted to governmental management, written by two lawyers well-versed in the subject.”
“There is ‘a fine line public agencies, officials and employees walk between legally disseminating information and illegally advocating for or against a ballot measure or candidate’ under California law.” He continues, “The article, essentially a warning, is timely because, throughout California, officials are at least straddling that line and may be crossing it as they attempt to persuade voters to support billions of dollars in bonds, taxes and fees.”
Like I’ve said, “A big example is Proposition 6, which would repeal last year’s $5-plus billion package of gas taxes and automotive fees. Anti-tax groups that placed Proposition 6 on the ballot complain that the state Department of Transportation has been colluding with other opponents of the repeal and last week, those complaints were bolstered by the Associated Press.”
“The AP reported that official emails it acquired reveal that “the state transportation agency coordinated frequently with the public affairs firm working to block the repeal on behalf of unions, construction companies and local government groups.
“The coordination, the AP said, included, ‘efforts to promote legislation to raise the tax to fund road and bridge repairs (and) after Gov. Jerry Brown signed it, the agency and the firm continued planning events and coordinating social media posts as opponents gathered signatures for repeal.'”
He also brings up the investigation the FPPC is conducting in Los Angeles County. “Two years ago, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors proposed a half-cent sales tax increase for services to the homeless and gave TBWB Strategies, a San Francisco consulting firm, a $1 million contract to work on the tax measure.
“TBWB’s campaign, including television and radio spots that touted the benefits of Proposition H, helped it win passage. However, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association complained to the FPPC and filed a lawsuit challenging the campaign’s legality.”
And get aload of this – “Last month, an FPPC hearing officer found probable cause for a 15-count formal accusation that the county supervisors contributed to the Proposition H campaign without filing a campaign donor report and following other campaign laws.”
So our situation is hardly unique, and I’m beginning to wonder if we need some investigating around here. The stuff I’ve seen at meetings! I agree with Walters, we need to shine a flashlight on these people, before it’s too late.
“The Los Angeles tax measure is one of hundreds of local tax proposals facing voters this year, many of which also are being promoted by “consultants” such as TBWB under lucrative contracts supposedly for information but in reality to influence voters.
“It’s high time the FPPC, local prosecutors and/or Attorney General Xavier Becerra stopped this undemocratic practice before it becomes ingrained.”