Letter to the Editor: Measure H goes to the General Fund. 50% of General Fund surplus goes to the pension deficit, 25% to infrastructure – what do you think is the city’s real priority?

Sunday my husband and I got out early to do our grocery shopping, to avoid the ever worsening traffic jam on the south side of town. We hit the bargain stores to do the bulk of our shopping, all on the south end of town. Of course, Raley’s is expensive, but they had chicken parts for 97 cents a pound, so we stopped by to see what we could get. Who should we encounter in the parking lot but Mark Sorensen, Chico city manager. Yeah, at his $211,000/year plus benefits, he can afford to shop exclusively at Raley’s! Mark’s a shy guy, when our eyes met, he looked like he’d just seen somebody he owes money. My husband laughed out loud as Sorensen and his wife hightailed it into the store. He looked very uncomfortable, and I think he should be uncomfortable – he’s the biggest head on the stinking fish that is tanking our town right now. Cause when the fish stinks, it’s the head of the fish that stinks.

Sorensen is busy right now trying to save Measure H, City of Chico’s one-cent sales tax measure. Measure H is a train wreck. They spent hundreds of thousands over the past 10 years, hiring consultants to “survey” the public into taxing themselves. The consultants told council and staff that Chico’s main problems were the growing pension deficit, a “management top-heavy” staff, and public mistrust of council because of years of poor spending decisions. They told council that again and again, but council did nothing to alleviate those burdens, they just kept making it worse. They’ve created new positions at over $100,000/year, they’ve handed out raises without significantly increasing employee shares. As you see in the letter below, the pension catch-up payments get more than our tanking infrastructure.

When Sorensen was on council, he said he would not put a general measure on the ballot, he and Morgan both said they wanted a 2/3’s measure to show the public was behind the tax. I don’t know if they were lying, or just changed their minds under pressure. Actually, now that they’re both public employees, I believe they are trying to save CalPERS, cause they know who butters their bread (I know that’s not the original saying but that’s what my German mother-in-law said and it makes more sense).

Something the consultants told them repeatedly was that they could not pass a 2/3’s measure because surveys showed the public had not trusted council for many years, that they’d never get 2/3’s voter approval. But here’s what former city manager and his assistant told council repeatedly – a 2/3’s measure has restrictions on spending. You have to tell the voters what you are going to do, exactly, with a 2/3’s measure, and then you have to follow that plan to the letter. What they want the money for, is to pay down the pension deficit, and they knew they’d never get the voters to approve that. So they ran a general measure and they LIED. They still only got 52%.

The problem with a general measure, is you’re not allowed to promise specific uses. The TPA makes calls for even more restrictions on uses. But here’s where Chico council and staff got their dick in the mousetrap – the consultants also told them that the voters wanted specific stuff. So they promised all those street repairs in the text of their general measure, and that’s not okay. They never had any intention of putting that money toward street maintenance.

This year they’ve budgeted $18 million toward the pension catch-up payments, up from $11 million. They project the payments will be around $25 million by 2025. It’s a black hole, and they won’t make the employees pay more or accept lower salaries. They’re trying to trick the taxpayers into paying it – they tried to get a Pension Obligation Bond without even telling us about it, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers had to put a cease and desist order on them.

On a related note, I and other taxpayer groups joined HJTA in an “amicus” letter to the state supreme court, asking them not to throw out the Taxpayer Protection Act. I’ll keep you posted. Letters were also submitted by our Assemblyman James Gallagher and the California Business Roundtable, to mention a couple. Here’s a letter I’m sending to the Enterprise Record.

In November, the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA) will be on the state ballot – or will it? The governor and legislature are so worried about this measure they’re suing to remove it from the ballot before the voters have a chance to consider it.

The TPA requires voter approval of any new tax. It requires clear language regarding use of revenues. Chico staff informed council Measure H would be nullified if the TPA passed, because of ” a particular phrase”, meaning, use. Declaring the TPA “catastrophic”, staff convinced council to approve $100,000 to write a modified measure for the November ballot, in case TPA passes. The new measure will include the phrase “for general government use”.

Measure H was misleading, a 50%+1, or “general” measure that made specific promises which would require a 2/3’s vote under TPA – “repairing streets, storm drains, sidewalks, and fixing potholes; addressing homelessness; protecting 911 emergency response times; preserving the number of on‐duty police officers and fire fighters; maintaining/improving Bidwell Park, neighborhood parks…” General measures have no spending requirements.

If the new measure is passed, the revenues will continue to go into the General Fund. According to city budget policies, “financial surplus (determined by staff) in the General Fund shall be allocated as follows: 50% will be allocated to the Section 115 Pension Stabilization Trust; 25% will be allocated to the Public Infrastructure Replacement Fund…” the remainder going toward technology and equipment updates. This year council has budgeted $18,000,000 to CalPERS toward the pension deficit.