Promises, promises – this time they’re telling us straight, Measure H was a lie – but they still expect us to pass a simple measure with no restrictions on spending – NO!

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!