Archive | February, 2026

As the City Tanks: Council giving out more raises tomorrow night, when will they ever learn?

16 Feb

Tonight Chico City Council will most likely approve more salary increases for Chico PD and Fire. Trying to follow up on suggestions of outsourcing other positions to pay for these raises, I just happened to find a November article in the Chico News and Review. The author paraphrased a blog I posted regarding the effect these raises are having on the deficit, of which CouncilmemberTom Van Overbeek only recently seems to have become aware of.

From Chico CN&R, 11/20/25, https://chico.newsreview.com/2025/11/20/underfunded-chico-city-worker-pensions-addressed/

“The Chico Taxpayer Association maintains that contracts with city workers should have obligated them to pay for more of their own retirement costs, and that Van Overbeek’s motion is irresponsible from a conservative point of view. On its website it asks the councilmember: “You have signed onto contracts offering guaranteed raises and abysmally low shares of benefits costs without wondering where the money would come from to pay for these raises, or what effect the raises and underpayments would do to our CalPERS obligation. Why didn’t you ask these questions during the Measure H campaign?”

Wow, he included a response from VOB, but it’s not exactly an answer.

Van Overbeek answered that 2022’s Measure H sales tax increase primarily funded a police force “that was literally melting down,” and not intended for the UAL. “We said we were going to spend the money on cops and roads,” he said.

In this response, he does not engage the question about making employees pay more, he doesn’t even touch it. He refuses to engage the question about more employees and more raises without requiring higher shares is increasing the deficit. He also insinuates that the measure promised Measure A revenues would be used to fund “cops and roads” – it’s not legal to list specific uses for a “simple” 50+1 ballot measure. He also insists that Measure A funds are not being used to pay down the deficit – how can he promise that? Simple measures go into the General Fund.

Sacramento CN&R Author Ken Magri misstates the deficit payments at $7 million a year. That is way off, I’m pretty sure he got that figure from Artificial Intelligence. The city paid $18 million in 2023, I haven’t checked lately, but I know they go up every year. By millions. I get my figures from staffer Barbara Martin’s reports, available in the minutes from the Finance Committee Meetings.

Yes Mr. VOB, the cops are still melting down. The over-generous salaries are not getting “better” people, as evidenced in the recent revelations about police department inappropriate behavior. These salaries are tanking our town. When will they learn? When they get their ass handed to them at election time, that’s when.

Tags: ,

Letter to the Editor: It’s the contracts, Stupid!

9 Feb

BC asked, Why is it only the taxpayers are on the hook for the unfunded pension liability?

Good question, I wrote a letter about it!

After my last letter a friend asked, “Why is it only the taxpayers are on the hook for the unfunded pension liability?”

It’s in the contracts. Council agrees to the terms regarding salary and benefits. Council also approves the inadequate shares employees are paying toward their benefits, which has left the city wandering deeper and deeper into pension debt with CalPERS.

Year after year, Council approves the increasing annual payments toward the resulting pension deficit – $18 million in 2023 alone. Despite millions in “catch-up” payments, the deficit continues to rise, at last report, over $180 million.

And that’s how the taxpayers get left on the hook. How can we get off?

Elect council members who will negotiate taxpayer-friendly contracts. Employees should shoulder their own pensions. Instead of allowing the pension deficit to “ride the market” down the road to Perdition, set up realistic defined contributions from employees, based on the true cost of their pensions instead of Pollyanna market projections. The taxpayer (“employer”) contribution should be based on merit and length of service. Employees should be responsible for the losses as well as the gains.

Outsource jobs? The city culled positions in 2013, but here we are again. It’s the contracts.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Tags: ,

BC: Why is it only the taxpayers are on the hook for the unfunded pension liability?

2 Feb

Thanks BC for coming over to the last post

We’re about to hire a new city manager – it’s past time to discuss the effect these outrageous salaries and benefits are having on the city budget

You brought up a lot of important points about public employee compensation. The lush salaries and benefits are not conducive to good work ethic. Instead of promising sky’s-the-limit salary and benefits off the top, Council needs to offer a reasonable starting salary and set specific metrics for performance, future salary increases and long-term benefits. And other stuff, thanks for keeping the conversation going!

You observed and I agree, “The lack of accountability and the lack of responsibility in jobs where a fixed salary is present generates a much different work ethic than incentive based compensation plans in the private sector . ” I’ll add, defined benefits plans – employer-sponsored retirement plans that promise a specific, predetermined monthly income for life after retirement, regardless of performance, and regardless of our town’s financial well being. This type of employee compensation is not only tanking our town financially, but like you said, it’s not an efficient way of guaranteeing quality performance.

A better system would be defined contributions plans. Meaning, essentially, the employees pay more for their benefits, and they shoulder the responsibility when CalTRANS tanks. I don’t pertend to be a expert in these affairs but I been studying up on it. I really don’t trust city management to give me straight answers, I look it up on The Wikipedia.

BC echoed a sentiment I’ve had for years, “Why is it only the taxpayers are on the hook for the unfunded pension liability? I believe it’s because the biggest contributors in the city council elections are the employee unions. That’s another conversation, but it has to be had before we will get any changes in the compensation scam.

I’ll say, if we had good employees, they wouldn’t be feathering their nests with all of our future. Why do we put up with it? Because we have our jobs, and our kids, and our bills to pay. We need to take some time to think about these issues so we can make informed contributions to the conversation Downtown. Especially at Election Time.

Next time, on “This Old Lady Gets the Bill… and so do YOU!”

Tags: , ,