Why is Measure H “in danger” if the Taxpayer Protection Act makes the ballot? Because they sold it with specific uses when it was a general use measure, “for general goverment use,” like the pension deficit and the skating rink and the pallet shelters and the lawsuits, etc.

I received a note from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as well as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) sponsors that a lawsuit is still proceeding through the Supreme Court that attempts to take the TPA off the November 2024 ballot before the voters even have a chance to consider it. Your governor and legislature at work!

Chico Taxpayers Association has joined a coalition of other groups to submit an “amicus letter” to the court on behalf of the TPA, I’ll keep you posted.

According to City Manager Mark Sorensen, Measure H, the one-cent sales tax increase passed by the city of Chico in November 2022, is “in danger” if voters are allowed to pass the Taxpayer Protection Act in November ’24. The city is quickly preparing a correction measure for the 2024 ballot. The city’s new measure would have to run on the same ballot with the TPA or they risk losing years of revenue. That’s right, without knowing if the TPA will actually even make the ballot, the city of Chico has authorized $100,000 for a new ballot measure.

The TPA would require two corrections in the text of Measure H – 1) a duration, or sunset date, and 2) “the inclusion of a particular phrase“. Sorensen didn’t say, but according to the staff report, the required phrase would be, “ for general government use.“

Sorensen didn’t want to mention the “general use” phrase out loud because that was not how they sold Measure H. As you see in the following press release, issued February 2023, they continued to claim that Measure H revenues would be spent on infrastructure and public safety.

Click to access city_of_chico_press_release_-_measure_h_2-27-23_wattachments.pdf

“This measure specifically supports the Chico community, and the dollars stay here locally.” said Vice Mayor, Kasey Reynolds. “Groceries, rent, and prescription medications will not be taxed. Chico visitors will pay their fair share, so residents won’t shoulder the entire cost. The State cannot take this funding, all Measure H funds will be locally controlled in Chico.

“The additional funds will be allocated by the City Council during the regular annual budget hearings in
May and June of 2023. Some of the concepts for utilizing the funds generated through Measure H are focused on public safety and infrastructure and may include:
• Maintenance and reconstruction of roads and sidewalks.
• Maintenance of parks, open spaces, trees and vegetation management.
• Maintain neighborhood police patrols, protect 911 emergency response times, preserve the
number of on-duty firefighters and police officers, and enhance emergency and disaster
preparedness ADD Repair and maintain storm drains

Some people are easily fooled – “Some of the concepts for utilizing the funds...” How many people would have voted for H if they admitted point blank in the ballot text that the money would be “for general government use”? Like paying the pension deficit, or getting out of various lawsuits they’ve blundered us into? Another $235,000 for the Downtown Skating Rink?

Opposition, like myself, reminded everyone that because H was a 50%+1 measure, it goes to the General Fund. Council can make their promises, but they have no legal obligation to spend that money on infrastructure or public safety. Actually, the road and sidewalk work currently being done around town is mostly paid for out of state and federal grants. They’re using Paradise disaster money for a Downtown remodel.

When they first started discussing this tax publicly, former finance manager Chris Constantin said older streets all over town needed complete replacement due to years of neglect, projecting the cost at 100’s of millions. At the rate they’re going, a pothole patch here, a slurry there, that will be the day.

Meanwhile, council allocated over $18 million from the General Fund into the Pension Stabilization Trust, for this year’s “catch-up” payment toward the CalPERS pension deficit. Only a couple of years ago, it was $11 million, now it’s over $18 million – you have to ask, where is that money coming from?

H was a 50%+1 measure because a consultant, paid with money out of the General Fund, told city council and staff that a 2/3’s measure had to have specific restrictions on use, like police or roads. Having attended those morning meetings since Sorensen was a council member, I know their biggest problem with a 2/3’s measure was the restriction on spending. At the same time, they discussed the pension deficit as the biggest financial problem facing the city, and tried to pass an illegal Pension Obligation Bond. They are desperate to pay down the city’s pension deficit, under intense pressure from the employee unions who finance our local elections.

So no, they don’t want to talk about the “general use” clause, those chickenshits. That’s really the meat of this issue. The voters were promised specific uses for the money, when it was a General Fund measure.