I had my hopes up for this lawsuit out of Grants Pass but now I realize the whole thing is completely meaningless as long as we don’t have a jail to put these people in.
Here’s the most recent news I’ve heard about the jail expansion, from September 2023.
Our jail has long been known to be sub-code, and I’d say, inhumane. The Grand Jury reported years ago that the womens’ jail was sub-par, plumbing didn’t work, the place was filthy. There were court cases involving sexual assaults, including one guard found to have been coercing women into sex for tampons. A recent lawsuit involved a prisoner allowed to wander the jail free at night who assaulted two other prisoners so badly they are left with permanent injuries.
The above article, from 2023, promises updates that have been promised for about 20 years. Sheriff Kory Honea received $44.5 million almost 10 years ago – I saw agenda items indicating that money was being used to pay down the sheriff’s office pension deficit. According to the article, the county still needs to come up with almost $5 million to complete this update.
In 2015, Butte County supervisors established “jail impact fees”, to be tacked on to the price of your home. Yes, they charge a lot of fees for the building of a house, which are passed along to the home buyer.
This is the most recent article I could find regarding jail fees.
Jail fees were eliminated in 2017 due to a lawsuit brought forward by several of Chico’s major developers. I don’t know what happened after that, I can’t find anything further about jail fees. I do know the county received annual funding from AB109. Here’s a post I wrote about how they were spending it as of 2020.
I’m too busy to cut excerpts, so read this article, thoroughly, before you ask me any questions or accuse me of anything. But let’s see how this lawsuit plays out – a new game of Whack-a-mole, involving a round trip to an overcrowded jail, is what I’m expecting.
I read Bob Mulhullond’s letter to the editor – I won’t print it here, because it was about as poorly written as the “Argument Against” Measure H that he and Karl Ory tried to submit to the ballot pamphlet in 2022. But, he made a good point – as soon as Chico City Council, knew they had Measure H, city manager Sorensen (and clerk Presson) got 5 and 7% raises.
In 2012, when I started this blog, then city manager Brian Nakamura reported a $68 million pension deficit, now it’s over $92 million. In order to get us back on our financial feet (he said… ), Nakamura not only fired a bunch of staffers, he got management to pay a share toward their own pensions, a first. That was good for us, but not enough.
After Nakamura left, Mark Orme followed, instituting the “Pension Stabilization Trust”, and the city started funneling millions out of the General and other funds to make the annual “catch-up payment”. That was bad for us. That’s when they shifted the major burden of the pension deficit from the employees to the taxpayers. At first it seemed to work – at least once I saw the pension deficit start going down.
But that was short lived, the deficit at first stalled, then started to grow more every year as they added more police positions and increased salaries across the board. Then suddenly, over 2021-22, it went UP by $28 million – given the millions they’ve been paying to CalPERS in catch-up payments, that’s shocking. Here’s why – they added at least four new management positions over the last few years, all over $100,000 in salary, with really nice packages. And now we see our pension deficit went up $28 million over that period?
So I thought I should add to Bob’s letter.
A letter mentioned recent management salary increases. Here’s what that means to the pension deficit – $92,247,723, and growing exponentially like a pack of rabbits.
Management pays the least amount toward their own pensions and benefits – 10.5% of a pension worth 70% of their highest year’s salary. The city borrows the rest from CalPERS. That’s how the pension deficit was created and continues to increase despite millions in “catch-up payments”. Catch-up payments are made annually, in addition to the regular CalPERS monthly contribution. This year’s payment is budgeted at about $18 million. It’s spit on the griddle folks – the pension deficit grew by $28,000,000 over the 2021-22 fiscal year, despite an $11,000,000 catch-up payment.
Where do they get the money to pay increased salaries and the corresponding increase in costs? From the General Fund, including Measure H monies.
When Mark Sorensen was a member of city council, consultant Chad Wolford reported that our city was “management top-heavy” – too many redundant management positions with high salaries and low contributions. Subsequent consultants have told council that their biggest problem is the increasing cost of CalPERS. Why then do they continue to create new management positions and give out raises, while telling us we need to pay a higher sales tax if we actually expect to get any services?
It’s distressing that as soon as they have a sales tax in the can they go about divvying up the pie among themselves, but that’s what we get for giving them a general tax measure.
You probably already heard that the California Supreme Court has taken the Taxpayer Protection Act off the November ballot. This also means that the measure Mark Sorensen talked the city of Chico into spending $200,000 rewriting is unnecessary. Just another instance of money wasted by bad management.
Sorensen could have waited to see if the TPA made the ballot, and then waited to see if it passed, but he was in such a panic about losing Measure H, knowing that it was a weak, 50+1 measure that barely passed in 2020, that he talked council into paying a consulting firm (at least) $200,000 to put a new measure onto the same ballot.
Sorensen is a worm. He wormed his way from a private sector job and city council position into a public management position, and then he wormed his salary up to over $200,000 a year. Now he’s wormed himself two raises over the next two years. Knowing fully well the effect his greed is having on our financial situation.
Next time you see this man at the grocery store let him know what you think of his tax measure. He likes to shop at Raley’s.
I got a loaf of bread in the oven, so this will be short. A couple of weeks ago, Mark Sorensen plopped out his NEW AND IMPROVED! tax measure for council to rubberstamp. Here’s that agenda item with the report.
Here are some excerpts that I found particularly entertaining.
3.90.050 – TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of 1% of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this chapter.
Well, you can see the kind of game these desperados are playing. For the “privilege” of providing necessary goods and services to the citizens of our town? For the “privilege” of taking huge financial risks to promote the financial health and welfare of our town? The consultants who wrote this measure try to make it sound like retailers are getting away with something, as though this TAX actually only applies to the retailers and retailers just pass it along cause they’re a bunch of jerks. NO the city is taxing US and they know it. This measure is intentionally MISLEADING.
.90.070 – USE TAX RATE. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this chapter for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of 1% of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
wow – sales price includes delivery charges – yes, this tax includes “services” of all kinds, including that trip to the vet for hot spots and all the medications that go with it.
But here’s the most important part, this is one of the reasons why they have to put this measure on the ballot (so far spending about $200,000 from the General Fund to do so) –
.90.120 – NEW REVENUE USE RESTRICTION. Any new revenues generated by the passage and collection of this transaction and use tax for general government use that is available for unrestricted general revenue purposes.
They sold us this tax saying they would use it for public safety and infrastructure, but yes, there was a clause in the original measure that said it would go to the General Fund, meaning NO RESTRICTIONS ON SPENDING. I know a lot of the voters were hip to that , the original measure barely passed. Unfortunately this time it will run again as a General 50+1 measure. Why? Because neither Staff nor council wants to be restricted in spending the revenues. In fact, next month they will make an $18 million payment to CalPERS on the unfunded pension liability. And they’ve already given staff raises that will exacerbate the liability – including 5 and 7% raises for our city manager and city clerk over the next two years. These folks don’t pay squat toward their pensions.
.90.160 – EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUMISSION TO VOTERS. Pursuant to California Government Code section 53724 and Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.9, this Ordinance was duly approved for placement on the ballot by a minimum two-thirds (2/3) supermajority of all members of the City Council. This chapter relates to the levying and collecting of the City transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9217, this Ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect only if approved by a majority of the eligible voters of the City of Chico voting at the General Municipal Election of November 5, 2024. It shall be deemed adopted when the City Council has certified the results of that election by resolution and shall take effect ten (10) days thereafter. This Ordinance shall only take effect if the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (“Measure _” on the November 5, 2024, State of California General Election Ballot) is approved by a sufficient number of voters of the State of California.
I wasn’t sure what this passage meant by “sufficient number of voters of the State of California” and I get tired of being accused of spreading misinformation, so I asked Ben Granholm, who is working to pass the Taxpayer Protection Act. He was aware of Measure H and confirmed my suspicions that the new measure will be a 50+1.
Measure H was a general tax that passed by just shy of 53%. While Measure H did list specific uses, the wide variety of uses indicates a general tax. The City feels it necessary to put the measure before voters again, due to the same confusion you are citing, as the original measure does not specifically state that it is a general tax for general government use.
Yes, you are correct – as a general tax, it requires a 50% +1 majority vote to pass.
Well, here we go again, but at least we’ve made them come forward and tell us the first measure was a blatant lie. Why couldn’t they come up with a 2/3’s measure when they know that’s what people want? Because they want to be able to spend the money as they please, like they’ve already been doing.
This is exactly why we need to pass the Taxpayer Protection Act and defeat Measure H and the new measure as well. These people will tax you at will, as they already have for years, unless you stand up on your back legs and say NO!
I hope everybody sees what a bait-and-switch City of Chico sales tax Measure H has been. City council and management promised us they’d fix our streets and do something (?) about the state of lawlessness we’ve been living in for the past 5 or 6 years. Instead we see they are using Measure H funds for questionable projects and raises for city management. To date council has already approved $275,000 toward a new sales tax measure for the November ballot. That money comes out of the General Fund, which includes Measure H revenues. Next month they have scheduled an $18 million payment to CalPERS, the annual catch-up payment for the employee pension deficit, money that has been siphoned out of the General Fund.
We’ve all known people that can’t handle money – we’re living in a city run by those kind of people. The more revenues they get, the deeper they run into debt. You realize, that without existing laws requiring some voter input, these people would just raise taxes whenever they needed more money to shovel into their debt machine. They already do – remember the sewer “rate change” passed over Christmas by a mailed ballot? They doubled sewer fees, using a mailed ballot that if it was not returned meant you voted Yes. That’s legal as hell, by rules made in legislative chambers behind our collective back.
So we need the Taxpayer Protection Act, which reinstates rules that have quietly been removed from the books by a governor and legislators who want to be able to raise your taxes to cover their champagne and French Laundry lifestyles.
The TPA was put on the ballot by petition of the voters, the legal number of signatures was gathered, and the Secretary of State approved it for the ballot. The governor and his cronies were pretty pissed about it, claiming, ” citizens are simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of taxation and should not be allowed to render such a decision.“
Are you insulted by that? Cause I’m insulted. Wouldn’t you think, if the voters are so dumb, it’s the state schools that are responsible for that, and why do we keep shoveling money at schools that turn out people too dumb to vote? To think they’d just say something like that, as if it’s completely disconnected – sounds like Matt Tennis.
These people are trying to keep us from voting on tax measures because they know we’re anything but dumb. We’ve finally been overturning tax measures over the last few elections, and now the voters have put the TPA on the ballot because we want more control over how we are taxed and what the money is spent on.
Last night Chico City Council heard an update from Mark Sorensen regarding the ballot measure they want run in November, with changes necessitated by the possible passage of the TPA. I’ll talk more about that next time.
Here’s a quick read from Attorney Jonathan Turley, (thanks Dude) discussing why the governor and legislators are trying to upend this essential right of the voters.
Dave Waddell made some pointy observations on my last post about the generous raises being considered for city manager Mark Sorensen.
“On June 30, 2024, Mark Sorensen will be making $207,000 annually. On July 1, 2025, the taxpayers will be into him for $232,565 annually (times 14 years of free service credit in CalPERS = a gazillion dollars).” That last remark is a reference to the deal Sorensen made with the city of Chico (thanks for that correction Dave) when he left the City of Biggs (East Biggs?) (why is there a difference?) and took the city manager position here. Chico residents paid for him to be gang-jumped into CalPERS, since, at his decrepit age, he would never have time to accrue 15 years of service to qualify for pension. At this point he has still not served 15 years and I’m guessing he will retire before he does.
And what a retirement – at 70% of a salary of $232,565/year, with a very generous 4.12% COLA, Sorensen will be part of the One Percent. And Chico’s pension deficit-unfunded liability will continue skyward like TWA 800.
Which is what is important here – the effect these endless and unwarranted pay raises have on the city’s pension deficit and overall debt. And here’s what pisses me off – Sorensen, a former city council member, even mayor, knows fully well how the pension deficit works. As far as I’m concerned, his full knowledge of the fact that he is enriching himself at the cost of our city’s financial welfare makes him corrupt and unfit for public service. But that’s just me, old lady at large.
While we can’t vote Sorensen out of office anymore, or send him out of town in a hail of rotten tomatoes, we can pass the Taxpayer Protection Act and we can refuse the new tax measure he’s talked council into putting on the November ballot. Here’s a recap – because the TPA would require local tax measures to have 2/3’s voter approval, retroactive to 2020, if passed, it will overturn City of Chico one cent sales tax Measure H. Sorensen, whether or not he really believes TPA will pass, has convinced council to spend – to date – $275,000 on a new, updated Measure (?) for November. This new Measure (?) will supposedly be written to conform to the TPA.
Here’s the good news – that would mean, the new measure would either need to include specific uses or it would require 2/3’s voter approval. Council will discuss all of this at tomorrow’s meeting, the report is in the agenda, I’ll try to post more tomorrow.
Handing these people more money has only emboldened their ludicrous spending habit. It’s time to cut up their credit cards, and that starts with defeating both of their tax measures in November and passing the Taxpayer Protection Act.
Chico Taxpayers Association 