We talked about ACA 13, but another state ballot measure to be concerned about is ACA 1. I mentioned ACA 1 when it was introduced a few years ago. It lowers the voter threshold for special taxes and bonds to fund low-income housing projects. It went out of circulation when it failed to get enough votes in committee, but a Solano County assemblywoman reintroduced it and it made it’s way through the process to the ballot.
Yes, it is ironic that we have one measure aimed at protecting taxpayers and two others that aim to lower the bar for raising taxes while raising the bar for protecting taxpayers. Sacramento is the biggest fight pit in the state, a cock-and-bull circus. We pay for this manure pile – agencies like the Cal League of Cities are funded with our tax dollars, in the form of city membership dues, as well as exorbitant fees for conferences and “workshops”. The city of Chico (taxpayers) paid about $30,000 this year for our city manager to be a member of this non-public organization – does Cal League have more influence over our city council members that we do?
I would very much like to see ACA1 and 13 go down in flames, and while I hope to see the Taxpayers Protection Act pass with flying colors. I get disgusted with the slew of misinformation that agencies like the Cal League are spreading, using OUR MONEY. So I wrote a letter about it.
There are three state measures headed to the 2024 ballot regarding local taxes. ACA 1 and ACA 13, respectively, would lower the voter threshold for tax measures and raise the threshold for taxpayer protection measures. The Taxpayer Protection Act would raise the voter threshold for tax measures back to 2/3’s.
The California League of Cities claims ACA 1 and ACA 13 would actually “empower local voters”. How would measures that raise voter approval for taxpayer protection to 2/3’s, while lowering the bar for tax measures to less than 55%, empower voters?
Opponents, including CLC, claim the Taxpayer Protection Act “would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon.” I hear, “we’ll tell you when you need to pay more, or we’ll cut services…”
Opponents also claim the TPA would “create major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.” But they don’t list the loopholes, and they again threaten service cuts.
Here’s what they’re really worried about – besides restoring the 2/3’s voter threshold for tax measures, the TPA would void tax increases passed with less than 2/3’s approval since January 2020, including Measure H, the one-cent Chico sales tax increase.
The city of Chico pays $30,000/year for membership in the CLC. Last March Mark Sorensen handed council a resolution to oppose the TPA, but it was not discussed publicly. Ask your council representative what they plan to do.
Well, so much for quitting – quitters never win and winners never quit. We’ve had some victories folks – you’re not paying a tax on your cell phone, are you? And CARD was not able to put a parcel tax on your house, well, not so far. Those measures, J and A, were overturned by a dedicated group who took the time and trouble to inform their friends and neighbors about the truth behind those measures. Measure A, the City of Chico sales tax, passed because there was no organized opposition, period. This time I was busy in my personal life, I didn’t have a group, and I didn’t have money for signs.
The city did – they had plenty of OUR money, and they used it, despite the obvious ethical questions. Council members forwarded a 50+1 measure to the ballot because they knew fully well they couldn’t get 2/3’s approval. They got 52.72%, while 47% voted NO. That is a good sign of the division that exists in a town overburdened with publicly salaried citizens who make two to three times what people make in the private sector. Of course they will vote to their best interests, while our town goes down the shitter all around them.
Here’s what’s important to know – WE CAN OVERTURN MEASURE H. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will overturn all tax measures that were passed with less than 2/3’s voter approval, back to January 2020. That of course includes Measure H.
At the recommendation of the California League of Cities – Chico pays about $30,000/year for membership in this organization – Chico City manager Mark Sorensen agendised a council discussion about formal opposition to the TPGAA. They dropped that discussion – your guess is as good as mine – but now we see the League is supporting ACA 13, a legislative attempt to require a 2/3’s vote for measures that seek to protect the taxpayers. Read more here.
“The legislature and the courts have found ways to make it easier to raise taxes by creating loopholes in previously approved voter initiatives,” said Gary Boyer, Mayor of the City of Glendora. “We were elected to provide better futures for our residents and yet, Californians are facing a skyrocketing cost of living due to some of the highest tax rates in the nation and it is forcing residents, business, and jobs out of California. Taxpayer protection measures like the TPA are vital to keeping California’s cost of living in check.”
Are you still mad about Measure H? Or maybe you voted for it, but you’re not getting what you were promised? Ask your council representative if they support ACA 13, see what they say.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act has made the ballot. This measure will require a 2/3’s vote for any new taxes, and even better – it will overturn measures that have been passed with less than 2/3’s approval, like Chico sales tax increase Measure H. Read more about it at https://taxpayerprotection.com/
But there is a group of California legislators who are determined to make it easier to raise taxes than stop them – (Assembly Members Aguiar-Curry, Berman, and Lee), (Coauthors: Assembly Members Robert Rivas, Ortega, and Rendon),(Coauthors: Senators Durazo and Wiener). These people have participated in legislation to lower the voter threshold for everything from sales tax measures to new housing taxes. They have also made determined attacks on Proposition 13.
Now they’ve authored an amendment to the state constitution that would require two-thirds voter approval for measures that increase the voter threshold. What? Yes, they’ve made it possible for tax measures to pass with a 50+1 simple majority, but the want require the taxpayers to come up with 2/3 majority to protect themselves – “the Majority Vote Protection Act”.
This measure would further provide that an initiative measure that includes one or more provisions that would amend the Constitution to increase the voter approval requirement to adopt any state or local measure would be approved by the voters only if the proportion of votes cast in favor of the initiative measure is equal to or greater than the highest voter approval requirement that the initiative measure would impose.
These people are desperate for taxes to save a failing state economy, and their jobs and fat benefits. They are tax junkies, and they’re hooked bad on the stuff. The measure passed a hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee August 23 on a 5-2 vote. Here’s a pro-piece from the California Special Districts Association, aka, Tax Hungry Motherfuckers
“The CSDA-supported measure would require initiatives seeking to raise voter thresholds to meet the same threshold they seek to impose on others.” Wow, we’re “imposing” our constitutional rights on our government – that’s how they look at it. We’re the enemy as far as our government is concerned, and they are most certainly out to strip our rights to protect ourselves.
Do what you can to support the TPGAA – tell your friends, and explain it to them. If they don’t like to talk politics, maybe you should get some other friends.
the “residents” were unable to stop the board from assessing the tax. I still have some problems with this “district” – which has never been approved by the voters. Read on, and please send your thoughts.
Wednesday night, Vina Groundwater Sustainability Agency held their board meeting and public hearing regarding a proposed per acre fee for properties located in their “district”. But, as of now, I can’t find any news of how the balloting went.
I have been exploring their website – here’s the board:
I had no idea until now that my city of Chico council rep is a member of the Vina agency board. This whole affair has been kept pretty closed.
I had a confusing response from the county staffer assigned to this agency –
Thank you so much for getting the word out! I am not familiar with Debbie Presson with the City of Chico, my contact there is usually Linda Herman, the Administrative Manager for the City. Linda is Chico’s Member Agency Management team member, and she reports information to Chico Councilmember Kami Denlay. Kami is Chico’s Board member for the Vina GSA.
The first thing I’m hearing is that there’s a “Chico Member Agency Management Team”, including Linda Herman, and who else? Furthermore, Denlay is no longer a city council member and is not listed as a member of the VGSA board. And they accuse me of spreading misinformation!
How does Evan Tuchinsky rate as a “stakeholder” – aren’t we all “stakeholders“? How was this whole board set up? By the county of Butte, who is just doing an end run around a ballot measure.
I asked the county gal about the results of the balloting – am I the last one to know? Anybody got any clues? I’ll get back with any response from the county staffer, but that probably won’t be until Monday because today is Flex Friday.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth writing letters to the Enterprise Record but you know, it’s really the only public forum we have. Here’s how Editor Wolcott responded to the letter I sent the other day about county spending and the fire stations:
Hi Juanita, your last letter begins with this paragraph:
“In 2021, Butte County supervisors approved the use of more than $252 million in PG&E settlement money, received on behalf of Camp Fire survivors, for the creation of over a dozen new staff positions, with salaries over $100,000/year. At the time the county was already carrying more than $44 million in pension liability because of overgenerous salaries and unrealistic employee contributions.
The supes also approved the use of settlement money toward paying down their pension deficit.”
I can find no record of the supervisors using the funds to create new staff positions.
I had to inform him – I got the information from this 2021 article posted in the ER.
Wolcott then tried to tell me, “In this story [link below], we reported “The money was put into a fund to go toward maintenance, rebuilding and recovery after the fire. Flash forward to September 2022 and the Butte County Probation Department took out a loan from the fund for its new office that it is paying back. The interest generated from this would go toward what Chief Administrative Officer Andy Pickett suggested as a cost center.“
What money is he talking about? Because the 2021 story I posted details the spending of $252 million in “PG&E settlement money…”, listing new positions to be created with the money. Furthermore, he’s just proving my point – a new department, the “cost center”, with new positions, new salaries, new pensions, and more pension deficit.
That’s another post, we’ll get back to “cost centers”. For now, I responded to Wolcott.
“below is the link to the story I referenced, ER dated 4/14/21. They created new positions with PG&E settlement money, BUT! I see a mistake in my letter, I said “for the creation of…” I think that should be “including the creation of…” How’s that? They did other stuff with the money, including making a big payment toward the pension deficit, but that was too many words to get into the letter. “
I haven’t received a response, but I haven’t seen the letter in the paper yet. Of course, you can tell Wolcott has been on another one of his extended vacations – no letters one day, three letters the next, and now, a regular avalanche of letters. Including a really nasty letter from regular writer Michael Bertsch, accusing everybody of global warming. But no letter about the misspending of PG&E settlement money, the county pension deficit, or the fact that the supervisors are perpetuating it.
It’s hard to get the truth out when your local newspaper is in on the racket. What’s up Mike?
Every year at budget time the Butte County board of stupes threatens to cut library funding. That is a discussion that needs to be had. But, even after two major catastrophic fires that have affected local communities, Butte County supervisors has the nerve to put fire stations on the chopping block.
What the hell do they think we have counties for? Why do we pay property taxes if not to protect our property? I doubt I’m the only one here who believes fire protection is a service we should be able to expect from the county. I’d call that a “no-brainer”, wouldn’t you?
The county collected millions in PG&E settlement money after the fire – how much did you get? The only money we got was from our insurance company. We rebuilt our Paradise rental, adding more than $100,000 to the taxable value because of upgrades forced by the town and county. But as of today, and I’ve checked, the street in front of our rebuild is still crumbling, there are still dead trees standing in the old neighborhood, and the grocery store and the hospital have skipped town.
What nerve Bill Connelly, Todd Kimmelshue, Tami Ritter, Peter Durfee and especially Doug Teeter have, to tell people who watched their entire town burn to the ground that they will close fire stations if they don’t get more money. Especially after all that settlement money, and who knows how much COVID relief funding, have been twittered down the shitter.
So you know me, I wrote a letter about it!
In 2021, Butte County supervisors approved the use of more than $252 million in PG&E settlement money, received on behalf of Camp Fire survivors, for the creation of over a dozen new staff positions, with salaries over $100,000/year. At the time the county was already carrying more than $44 million in pension liability because of overgenerous salaries and unrealistic employee contributions.
The supes also approved the use of settlement money toward paying down their pension deficit.
Since then they have done nothing to rein in the deficit, giving raises without requiring more realistic contributions from employees. Looking at the county payroll, you see over a dozen management employees with salaries in excess of $200,000/year, including thousands of dollars in overtime, “other pay”, and generous benefits packages, raising their total compensation to over $300,000/year.
The supervisors themselves contribute to the deficit, approving their own annual salary increases – as of 2022, $62,827/year, plus “other pay,” pension and benefits. According to the State Controller, in 2022, the taxpayers contributed $114,749 toward board members’ “total retirement and health contribution”. For one year.
Now they tell us they can’t afford to keep firehouses open? What kind of mismanagement is that? We don’t ask much of these people, if they can’t keep fire houses open they need to step down.
Tell your supe they need to find the money in the budget. They can start by asking employees – including themselves – to accept more rational salaries and pay more reasonable pension shares. This isn’t the Gravy Train.
I’ve been frustrated with the city of Chico’s approach to housing. For one thing, I don’t think a city has any responsibility for “providing” housing, they have a responsibility for regulating housing.
They are supposed to designate areas in which housing can be built, based on good planning practices as well as environmental and other legal restrictions. They are supposed to make sure housing in the city is up to city code, and that streets, sidewalks and sewers are maintained. But I do not believe there is any law stating that the city is responsible for providing the actual housing.
But a city profits from development – starting with builder fees, plan check fees, inspection fees, and ending up with more property tax and sales tax revenues, into perpetuity. Unfortunately the city of Chico is collecting the fees but is not keeping up with the infrastructural requirements for all these new residents. Every time I drive that section of Bruce Road between 32 and Skyway I wonder how they will fix that bottleneck at that funky little subdivision – it looks to be physically impossible. And if they build out Valley’s Edge, that part of town will shut down completely, all day, every day. You won’t be able to pull a needle out of that mess with a tractor.
It is ridiculous for the city to proclaim we need Valley’s Edge to solve our ‘housing crisis’ – who will be housed at Valley’s Edge?
Here’s how the city could help provide more affordable housing – talk to the county and the state and the feds, who are supposed to provide for social welfare. Put more pressure on those agencies like HUD to do their jobs.
For one thing, HUD could reinstate the emergency rent programs, which appear to have been unfunded since 2021. I’ve known many people – families and single people – whose marginal jobs hardly covered their rent. We need these people, they fill essential jobs. When they have emergencies such as illness or an eviction or loss of job that isn’t their fault, it would behoove all of us if they had the support of a taxpayer funded agency. When I looked at HUD’s website it said that neither the emergency rent program nor the landlord incentive program had any money left.
Landlord incentives? They offer to pay $1,000 if you sign up to take Section 8 vouchers and another $500 each time you sign a rental agreement with a qualified renter(s). But read further – not only is that program unfunded, but the Section 8 program does not offer any type of security deposit, nor does it guarantee the renter will pay their rent or take proper care of the unit. HUD needs to either provide their own housing or guarantee landlords more protection.
I would ask both HUD and Butte County to fund and manage more building/renovation of existing housing for families falling under the Chico median income of about $60,000. Neither private landlords nor developers nor the city of Chico should be expected to run a charity.
I know you’ve noticed this – the city of Chico has it backward – the more housing they approve, the more expensive housing gets…
I hope you are all a titter about our upcoming holiday. When you consider the trouble our founding fathers and mothers went to, you’d be an ass not to be grateful.
Unfortunately, the city of Chico isn’t planning any activities. What?
CARD is hosting a “community picnic” on Saturday July 1 at Community Park on 20th Street. A daytime affair, there will be no fireworks but there will be music and “entertainment”. Frankly, it’s just not the same for me if it’s not on the Fourth.
Private events listed for Tuesday the Fourth include parties at bars like the Tackle Box, as well as an outdoor drinking party hosted by the developers of Merriam Park. Both of those will take advantage of the annual fireworks demonstration at the nearby Silver Dollar Speedway. Of course if you want to get in to the races you have to pay for a ticket but the fireworks can be enjoyed just about anywhere in town.
Meanwhile, Biggs, a tiny town just south of Chico, has a pancake breakfast, a parade, a faire, and fireworks. And if you’ve never been to Butte Meadows, you might want to check it out next Tuesday –
ButteMeadows 4th of JulyParade Tue Jul 04 2023 at 10:00 am UTC-07:00 Location Sierra Steel Harley-Davidson Chico, CA Advertisement Come ride in ButteMeadows annual 4th of Julyparade! Meet at Sierra Steel on the 4th of July at 10am and we will ride up to ButteMeadows to be in the parade! The theme for the parade is “Team USA”
According to other announcements, there will be judges convened at the Mercantile. The general requirement is patriotism and points will be awarded.
Fourth of July is a big holiday, as it should be. When my husband and I traveled up to Portland in the days before 4th of July 2021 – the height of COVID – we saw that towns all the way up Hwy 5 were planning their own celebrations. Banners touted fireworks, rodeos, parades and other events. One town was looking for entrants to a pie eating contest.
I remember Chico of the past, of course – here’s a past event you might remember – a repost of a repost from 2016 –
This event has not reappeared since 2016. Chico Running Club hosted that last pancake breakfast, I believe, at the suggestion of club member and former mayor/council member Randall Stone. That was the last year we had Bob’s Pancake wagon, celebrity pancake flippers, and a band on that forlorn bandstand at One Mile.
If you’re sitting in the lobster pot, it’s hard to know when you’re done. You have to take that fork, aim it right at your ass, and punch it in there, hard. Here’s a fork – you have just been stuck with a one cent sales tax increase, a sewer rate increase, and now you’re staring at a well tax for a well you don’t own… (more on that later) What does it take to get you out of that pot?
I got good news in my email box – Finance Committee meeting scheduled for next Wednesday – June 28 – to decide whether or not to fund the ice skating rink at City Plaza for next year. And here’s something interesting I found in their report – they lost a lot more in 2021 and 22 than staff had previously reported. Read further.
If this was Major League Baseball, Somebody would be getting fired right now. Here’s Somebody’s report.
Over the years, City staff have evaluated and considered ways to enhance the downtown experience for our community, as well as an attraction for outside tourism. The plaza was an underutilized asset in the winter time and therefore, we narrowed in on the concept of the Downtown Chico Ice Skating Rink to further enhance the holiday festivities in our downtown. As a family-friendly event, this provided a means to provide an experience that people of all ages can enjoy. By having a cost-effective event for families downtown, there are other intrinsic values that it brings to get more people downtown. The Downtown Chico Ice Skating Rink was initiated and started in 2021. The original intent was to transfer management and full operating/rental costs to another group, such as the Downtown Chico Business Association (DCBA) or the Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) after the first year of operation. Therefore, the first year (2021), City staff managed the operations with support from DCBA and the second year (2022), DCBA fully managed the operations of the program with City staff still managing the setup of the rink.
Ways to enhance the downtown experience?Well, how about getting rid of the panhandlers, perverts and pedophiles? The people who break into our cars while we’re eating a super-spendy dinner or perusing overpriced crap stores? The people who shit on the entry ways of businesses and vandalize anything that can’t run away. Stop treating these people like privileged visitors and start treating the rest of us with some respect and maybe we’ll decide to come out of our homes and spend some money.
The fact that neither CARD nor DCBA came rushing forward to run this dud should tell us even more. CARD is a recreation district starving for revenues – if they thought this thing would pan they would have jumped on it. As for sponsorships – in 2021, local businesses came forward with $116,100 in donations. For 2022 only $65,196 in sponsorships. Sounds like city staff and council were the only ones who didn’t notice the rink was not only a failure but it made the public really mad. The city of Chico needs to stop doctoring their own Kool Aid.
Ottonboni also claims, “The plaza was an underutilized asset in the winter time“…? No, say what you really mean Kid – it was used as a homeless shelter, illegal campers ignored by Chico PD and city management. Downtown business owners/tenants and the general public were getting really mad. It sat there for years, got so bad, there was a flea infestation. They closed the plaza for over a month for cleaning and fumigation, and then they just let the campers take it right back.
In order to get the bums to stay out of their skating rink, the city fenced the plaza off to EVERYBODY. The first year they actually fenced off the parking places directly surrounding the plaza, eliminating how many parking spaces? So, the plaza became even more unusable to shoppers and others who pay taxes to enjoy a lively and thriving central core.
Their plans were a miserable failure – a financial loss equating to more than the salary of the staffer who picked up the idea from that consultant and pitched it further to the city – Brendan Ottoboni. Ottoboni actually left the city a couple of years ago only to come back to a new department head position and a $40,000 raise.
Ottoboni asks the committee and council “for direction”. I sure would like to give him a direction – my husband says “go to Hwy 99 and head south….” I’d like to tell him he’s a department head now and he needs to buck up and make a suggestion, like the suggestion he made that got us into this mess in the first place. If you really want a good shock read the rest of the report. Here’s a good one – to date, the city has laid out almost $500,000, out of the General Fund, for “starter costs“.
I love the passive-aggressive terminology – “negative project cost” – just say LOSS you little weasel! “The first two years resulted in losses of funding directly linked to program costs and revenues. In 2021, the program had a negative project cost of $142,557.76, and in 2022, a negative project cost of $188,779.43.” Those are not the figures I was previously given by staff. In 2021 they reported a $29,000 loss to the news media, and finance staff just gave me a figure of about $176,000. And that includes “$70,053.64 of net revenue from the DCBA.” They seem to be digging themselves deeper every time we hear about it.
“The estimated amount of funds anticipated for the startup costs this year are approximately $200,000. This will be our initial capital outlay and staffing time, with net revenues from the operations to cover a portion, if not all of this initial outlay.“
Yes, they spend OVER $200,000 on salaries for this thing. For one year.
But get a load of this – Ottoboni still wants to continue funding this train wreck – boy I just want to kick this guys ass – “While the direct revenues did not cover the startup and operational costs in each of the first two years, City Council, staff and the community have concerns on the ability of this event to be fiscally sustainable. However, there are other intrinsic values that this brings to one of our community features, Historic Downtown Chico… “
And then this – “anecdotally we have heard that businesses generally performed better during the period of the Downtown Chico Ice Rink operation…” It’s the end of June, why don’t we have the actual figures in this report? Mr. $184,000+/yr can hand us “anecdotes”?
So, every time they mention funding this dud again, I will mention the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, coming to the 2024 ballot. I’m not sure I need protecting, but I’d like some accountability.
* As of staff report dated 6/28/23, that’s $188,779.43…
In April I attended a Finance Committee meeting but the discussion seemed weirdly clipped – at one point, I swear to Gawd, both Staff and committee members lowered their voices as if they didn’t want anybody to hear what they were saying.
The subject was the skating rink. A finance department staffer told the committee that the skating rink had an operational loss of …. what? Her voice was so thin, I couldn’t hear the figure, but I definitely heard her saying there was a loss and council would “have to make a decision...” At one point committee chair and current mayor Andrew Coolidge slumped down in his chair, folded his arms across his chest, his comments almost inaudible, but I could hear him clearly say, “well…it’s good will… “
Somebody always has to pay for good will, and in this case, it’s the taxpayers.
In the old days, when I went to these meetings, I would just wait until the person was done talking, and, if I didn’t hear something clearly or didn’t understand, I’d hold up my hand to ask for clarification. I try to be businesslike at these meetings, I read any reports that are provided ahead of time, and I write stuff down. I keep it short, no chitter-chatter. That was how the old meetings used to be, there was a good rapport between the public and staff, and many staffers were very glad to answer questions. I’ll never forget when the consultant at the garbage tax meeting who beamed at me and said “Good question!” Chico was a smaller town then.
Well, not anymore. Mark Sorensen, our newish city manager, has put an end to “back and forth” conversations at meetings. You have to fill out a card and wait your turn to “speak”. And, they are no longer as willing to answer questions. In fact, Sorensen has instructed staff that all questions from the public must be posed as a formal “Public Information Act Request”.
So, when I emailed staff after the meeting to ask some questions,
“Hi – Reading the budget report presented at the last Fin Comm meeting, I have several questions – 1) how much money did the skating rink make this 2022-23 season? I see a figure of ($113,835) on the “City Recreation” Fund and I wonder, is that the loss from the rink? 2) What other recreation does the city sponsor out of that fund? 3) Also, where did the original $277,000 fund balance come from? Thank you, at your convenience, for either answering my questions or forwarding them to someone who can – Juanita Sumner”
I received a friendly palm of the hand in my face.
Hi there Juanita, You will need to fill out a PRA request form from the City Clerk’s office for the information that you are requesting. It’s easy though! Just follow the instructions located here:
Yes, very sweet and polite, but a new hurdle to “sunshine”. You have to create an account, password, sign in, blah blah blah. Just a hurdle, not a roadblock. I Jackie Joyner-Kersee’d it and waited for a response, about 10 days later I received it.
Was there a loss on the rink? The answer – “Ice Rink made over $237,375 in revenue, and expenses were $413,738. As of 5/31, City Recreation Fund expenses over revenues (come on, just say L-O-S-S) is $176,363. See income summary being released.” The income summary was attached, more on that later.
I had also asked what other activities were included in the City Rec Fund, because the city used to have what could be considered recreational expenses, for example, they used to pay the lifeguards at One Mile. But it looks as if that’s a new fund, created for the rink. “Currently, City Recreation Fund activity only relates to Ice Rink.”
Last, I had asked where the money had come from to fund the rink in the first place. I had seen a figure of $277,000 in the “revenues” column, I thought that was their seed money, and I assumed it had included any generous donations from Downtown businesses or the DCBA or maybe Tonya Harding. I guess I should have given a page number – they didn’t recognize the figure. But it didn’t matter, the answer I wanted was where they got it.
“Staff is not clear on $277,000 fund balance number from question. Fund started fiscal year with $157,442, which was what was remaining from original $300,000 transfer from the General Fund in fiscal year 2021-22.“
They lost $29,000 on the 2021-22 ice rink, that was on the news. I posted it here:
So they had $300,000 to start, they lost $29,000, but had $157,442 left over. I’d had to look at the budget again, it’s all there. But there are pages and pages of crap in the budget, it will make you blind looking at that shit, needle in a haystack. So I thought I was allowed to ask staff when stuff just didn’t make sense to me. Nope, asking staff just started to cost money.
“The City doesn’t have a duty to engage in questions/answers under the Public Records Act process, however the City is making an exception as a courtesy. The City will only provide records in response to future requests.“
You have to pay per page for documents, and they don’t have to explain anything, you just get a pile of figures, like this:
The document posted there by the city attorney/staff in response to my questions is interesting but it doesn’t specifically answer my questions. In fact there’s stuff that should inspire more questions. But we are no longer allowed to ask questions of staff, at meetings or otherwise. We can only make public information requests and then try to figure out what it all means on our own.
Ironically, I just got the same information from a staffer who shall remain nameless. This email from Mark Sorensen to Council, is part of a discussion about the agenda of this month’s Finance Committee meeting, which will not be made public until June 23rd. I notice he uses exactly the same words I got in the response to my questions.
From: Mark Sorensen <Mark.Sorensen@chicoca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 10:51 AM To: All City Council <All-City-Council@Chicoca.gov> Subject: Ice Rink
Mayor and Council:
We’ll be bringing the item to Finance Committee for additional conversation, but please find attached and below some data points regarding the 2nd year of operation of the ice rink.
We’ll be discussing ideas for changes that can be made to improve the economics of the effort. In the current budget, the ice rink for this calendar year is not funded.
Ice Rink made $237,375 in revenue, and expenses were $413,738. As of 5/31, City Recreation Fund expenses over revenues is $176,363.
Currently, City Recreation Fund activity only relates to Ice Rink.
The fund started fiscal year with $157,442, which was what was remaining from original $300,000 transfer from the General Fund in fiscal year 2021-22.
Well, that’s interesting – the rink is not included in the current budget. And then this weird aside –
For reasons that we do not yet understand, DCBA forwarded net revenue (for their part of the operation) that was $5,000 less is revenue than their report showed. However, they sent us back a $30,000 deposit we had given them at the outset of our agreement with them, which offset total costs in the fund.
What “net revenue” is he talking about? What $30,000 deposit? We are not privvy to agreements made between the city of Chico and Downtown Business Association, but that’s interesting. Somebody pays you back money you loaned them, and you look at it as income that offsets your costs? That’s government accounting for you. I don’t believe the rink provides that much benefit to Downtown Businesses, we’re offered no documented proof. If I were a Downtown Business, I’d feel like I was dealing with The Mob.
The city is making a decision as to whether or not to put the skating rink in next year’s budget – I say NO. Chico is not a rich town like Redding, we don’t have millionaire donors, we have to stop living beyond our means. This council that uses our taxes like Monopoly money needs to be told that. Contact council – hey, I think you can use the address Sorensen used – All-City-Council@Chicoca.gov Tell them you are sick of paying for the lifestyles and privileges of the One Percent.
Chico Taxpayers Association 