Finance Committee Report: Taxpayer Protection Act will invalidate Measure H in December 2025

Well, there I said it yesterday, and today I heard it – yes, city of Chico management is worried about the Taxpayers’ Protection Act.

At today’s Finance Committee meeting, city manager Mark Sorensen jumped on the Misinformation Bandwagon. “The act would amend the California Constitution to restrict the ability of the state, counties, other local agencies and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues.”

Restrict the ability of the electorate? You mean, the voters? How does an amendment that requires 2/3’s of the voters to agree on something before it is shoved up our collective patoot “restrict the ability of the electorate”?

One actual fact coming out of Sorensen’s report is that if the TPA passes, Measure H, the Chico sales tax, would be invalidated, void, deader than a doornail as of December 2025. He listed two reasons why Measure H did not comply with the TPA – the duration of the tax was not listed on the ballot measure, neither was the use of the revenue.

In fact, there are three reasons H would be invalid, but let’s talk about the ones he listed. I’m not sure the first one was important, since it was pretty clear that H would be perpetual. But that should be in the discussion, and in the language of the measure.

The second reason was the subject of a lawsuit in Yuba County. Like Yuba County Measure K, Measure H was a General Use measure, because it only required 50+1, meaning the revenues go into the General Fund with no restrictions on spending. The ballot measure should have said “for general government use“, me and other opponents tried to point that out again and again. The Finance Department Staffer even said that any “surplus” left over in the General Fund at the end of the year is likely to go toward the Unfunded Pension Liability. But, like Yuba County Measure K, Measure H listed specific uses, like public safety and road repairs, as bait. If that’s not illegal now, we really need to pass the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Furthermore, Sorensen mentioned NOTHING about the 2/3’s voter approval requirement. Is he in denial or what? The TPA will invalidate any measure that was passed with less than 2/3’s voter approval. Why did he leave that out of his report?

Sorensen listed several options.

Place a successor to Measure H on the Nov 24 ballot with the Acts additional requirements. That of course would mean, get to work immediately, and would entail a lot of money for a consultant to poll the public and write the ballot, etc. There was no dollar estimate there and nobody at the meeting expressed interest.

Wait to see if the act is passed by voters in 2024. Of course they would be able to collect the tax right along, and I’m not sure if they would have to pay it back.

If the act passes (pick one):

A) Declare an emergency to place Measure H back on the ballot, in compliance with the Act’s new requirements, prior to December 2025. I think that would require a special election because Sorensen makes note, with bright yellow highlighting – “High special elections costs”.

B) Do nothing and let the 1% sales tax expire in December 2025. Well, we have a winner as far as I’m concerned but Finance Committee member and Mayor Andrew Coolidge seemed more interested in the next option.

C) File a lawsuit to challenge the window period provision of the Act. Ha ha – here I’ll note – the city of Chico is up to their ass in lawsuits right now. In fact, the Finance staffer said the city attorney’s litigation fund is over budget by $770,000 (aka, three quarters of a million dollars …). So yeah, another lawsuit, that’s what we need – let’s just sue the voters! Cause that’s what it would mean to sue over a measure passed by the voters, wouldn’t it?

Coolidge wanted to know how many other cities have passed taxes that would be subject to the TPA – “how many other municipalities are in FREE FALL?” he asked. He asked Sorensen “can we get a legal opinion to amend Measure H?” I’m not sure what he means, except, he’s willing to spend more of our money to buck the will of the voters. He also asked for “an estimate of special election costs… “

Sorensen seemed annoyed – he reminded Coolidge, council members had received a confidential legal analysis of the TPA, and both of those questions were covered. You have to wonder if Coolidge even reads the staff reports.

In the end it all came down to “wait and see”. Sorensen discussed ACA 13, but obviously does not understand it. He “thinks” it will take effect immediately, requiring the TPA to get 2/3’s approval. I don’t know the answer to that either, but you know what – I don’t get $211,000/year to manage a town, and I don’t have a $200,000/year lawyer on my staff. So I’ll ask the folks at Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, I’ll send them a copy of Sorensen’s report and see what they think.

Coolidge expressed some childlike doubt that the TPA would pass – assuming it would need 2/3’s approval because he’s so sure ACA 13 will pass. He claims to know several union officials, and they’re making the defeat of the TPA a “Number One Priority“. Well, it’s just good to know who the mayor’s friends are. And that just goes to show you, it’s the tax advocates, not the taxpayer advocates, who are behind ACA 1 and 13.

Sean Morgan opined, “It’s like the CalPERS thing… we see a train coming… but we can’t do anything about it…”

Yeah, that’s the situation – these people have set our town on the train tracks. And it’s not just one train – we’ll cover the CalPERS Express next time, on This Old Lady Says “Get your ass off the tracks!”