Archive | 100K pension club RSS feed for this section

Are you comfortable with 50% + 1 of your neighbors hitting you up with a tax?

4 Dec

I was pretty disgusted with a recent letter to the ER from frequent contributor Mark S. Gailey. For one thing, it wasn’t even original, he’d obviously lifted most of his letter from the California League of Cities propaganda. Come on Mark, I think you got better game than that! Let’s talk about why opponents are afraid of this measure.

I have to laugh at this little stretch – “CLC “believes the purpose of the initiative would be to create major loopholes for corporations.” If you read the text of the measure and the analysis on Ballotpedia, maybe you can figure out where they got that claim. I just don’t get it, it hardly makes sense. All I see in the text of the TPA is a restoration of taxpayers’ and voters’ rights that have been slowly whittled down by the California legislature without any input or vote of the public. And now the legislature – those people who are supposed to represent the voters – is joining Gavin Newsom in a lawsuit to keep the TPA off the ballot.

Can you kids say F-AAAA-SHIST? I wrote a letter about it.

California League of Cities claims the Taxpayer Protection Act “will upend and jeopardize revenue streams” and “residents will get less.”

According to Ballotpedia, “A ‘yes‘ vote supports amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

Yes, they’re afraid of the 2/3’s requirement, because voters have lost confidence in their local and state leaders and are rightfully leery of tax increases. Measure H squeezed in with only 52.72% voter approval. Are we comfortable with a slim majority like that, when we all have to pay it? Are we all comfortable with how they’ve been spending it? How do you feel about being threatened with “less”?

CLC “believes the purpose of the initiative would be to create major loopholes for corporations.”

Nowhere in this measure is anything about loopholes for corporations, read it yourself – why believe hearsay?

Opponents are so worried about taxpayers exercising their rights, they’ve not only put a competing measure on the ballot, requiring voter’s rights measures to get 2/3’s approval, but the governor has mounted a lawsuit to keep the TPA off the ballot.

Why are the governor, legislators, and public employee unions afraid of us?

I was at the store the other day – did you know there’s still a tax on tea? Think about that. ‘

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Next time I’d like to talk about levies, charges and fees – for example, were you really comfortable with the “sewer rate change” or the Vina GSA fees and the way they were enacted? Would that change under the Taxpayer Protection Act? I’ll do some research and get back to you.

Tags:

Pete Wilson: don’t allow Gavin Newsom to disenfranchise more than one million voters who chose to put the Taxpayer Protection Act on the ballot – get involved!

13 Nov

Realizing we were about to be overcome with the holiday season, extreme weather, and taxes, my husband and I took a quick road trip to Oregon to refresh and take advantage of tax-free shopping. Every time I pay that Measure H penny in Chico I feel like I’m being shaken down, it’s demeaning to be over-taxed and then get nothing for it.

So I buy my sundry taxable items at in various Oregon towns, at the usual chain stores – Target/Walmart/Lowe’s/Tractor Store. Boring stuff maybe – clothes, personal hygiene, household goods, building supplies and a 35 lb bag of dry food and two cases of canned food for our rescue kitties. But there’s plenty of other stuff to buy in a state that still values farms and Ag at many farmer’s markets and “antique malls” – I got homemade goat milk soap, jam, apples, honey, and one last summer tomato about the size of a baby’s head. Ate the last of that yesterday with bacon, lettuce and some bread we picked up at a bakery in Medford.

In one town there was a lady selling WHOLE PIES at a gas station, blackberry, apple, peach – who could walk away from the Pie Lady? We got a blackberry pie, hacked out a whopping chunk with my husband’s pocket knife and ate it with our bare hands on the tailgate of our car. It’s the little things, you know, like licking blackberries off your fingers and picking seeds out of your teeth hours later to remind you how much you enjoyed it.

Friendly people, every where we went they fawned on our dog and offered him treats. Vendors gave us free stuff. And it’s not just the sales tax – stuff is just cheaper, the economy seems to be much stronger, and there are more people shopping and WORKING.

But I love California, so we came home. You won’t get rid of me that easy, get used to it.

I know California is a mess right now and people are angry. Colleen Jarvis (look it up) once told me, “you have to pick your battles Juanita!”. She was right. I got a battle for you – the battle for your right to have more to say about being taxed. Support the Taxpayer Protection Act – you’ll be in good company. Other supporters include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, as well as groups like Reform California. Our former state senator Jim Nielsen just joined the board of HJTA.

Former Governor Pete Wilson has sent an “amicus letter”, correctly pointing out that ” Nothing in the Petitioners’ brief constitutes an emergency, especially one that would require this Court to take the extraordinary step to grant preelection review, ” and that Newsom’s lawsuit would “disenfranchise more than one million voters who chose to put the TPA on the ballot.” Thanks Pete!

I just received a notice about a Southern California group called “The Two Hundred for Home Ownership”, saying they “filed an amicus letter opposed to the governor and Legislature’s lawsuit to disqualify the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from the November 2024 ballot.” THFHO is “a statewide coalition of founders of civil rights organizations, community and business leaders, housing advocates, former state legislators, and cabinet members dedicated to mitigating the growing wealth gap in California through homeownership” I don’t know much about this group, but I know California has a tremendous wealth gap and that’s not a strong economy.

What is an “amicus letter”? From Wikipedia, “An amicus curiae is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. Whether an amicus brief [letter] will be considered is typically under the court’s discretion.” These letters can have a lot of impact on a case. I’ve signed similar letters, like the one that stopped the city of Chico from instituting an illegal Pension Obligation Bond.

Get involved, it does pay off. Go to https://taxpayerprotection.com/ to learn more about the TPA and brazen efforts to stop it from making the ballot – stopping the voters from having any say-so. Don’t just sit there gaping while they take your rights – if my husband and I and other members of the community had just sat on our hands, you’d be paying a monthly City of Chico tax on your cell phone (a percentage of your bill!) and a Chico Area Recreation District parcel tax on your house (a tax that would have gone up annually with the Cost of Living Index).

If you live in Chico, you are a member of the Chico Taxpayers Association. Exercise your rights. Send letters to the local papers, speak to your friends, don’t be shy. This is too important.

Tags: ,

Why would Gavin Newsom sue to stop the Taxpayer Protection Act?

6 Nov

Well, Happy Anniversary Chico Taxpayers Association – today I paid the annual fee for the blog, and as of January, this blog has been running for 11 years. And there’s been a lot of people who have contributed over the years, thankyouverymuch (say it like Elvis).

I started this blog when the city of Chico floated the cell phone tax – Measure J – onto the ballot, like a big turd. With the efforts of the Chico Tea Party (now defunct), Butte County Libertarians, Chico Republican Women, and many individuals, that measure was defeated. All it took was getting out there and informing the public of the details. Ann Schwab, then mayor and lead proponent of the tax, tried to tell people that the measure would actually lower the utility tax. They will say whatever they want, it takes research and a lot of push back to get the truth out there.

We faced the same kind of misinformation campaign from Chico Area Recreation District Measure A, a parcel tax. We attended meetings and heard CARD director Ann Willman, well, dropping some little fibs. Like when she tried to tell a group at an “informative” meeting that CARD had no debt, insinuating all the parcel tax money would go to expanding services instead of shoring up poor fiscal management. Dave called her on that one, and she had to admit her error – at that time, the pension deficit for an agency of about 35 employees had reached over $1.7 million.

It’s always shocking to me how the government will lie to get the voters to pass taxes on themselves, but that’s the way it is, and we have to push back. This is what we’re facing with the Taxpayer Protection Act – opponents, led by Governor Gavin Newson, are trying to stop the TPA from being on the 2024 ballot. Newsom himself has mounted a lawsuit, claiming the TPA “represents an illegal attempt to revise the state constitution” and “Administrative agencies would lose the power to do much of the work they do today under legislatively delegated authority.”

If you believe we should have more to say about taxing ourselves, find out more about supporting the Taxpayer Protection Act at https://taxpayerprotection.com/

Tags:

Finance Committee Report: Taxpayer Protection Act will invalidate Measure H in December 2025

27 Sep

Well, there I said it yesterday, and today I heard it – yes, city of Chico management is worried about the Taxpayers’ Protection Act.

At today’s Finance Committee meeting, city manager Mark Sorensen jumped on the Misinformation Bandwagon. “The act would amend the California Constitution to restrict the ability of the state, counties, other local agencies and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues.”

Restrict the ability of the electorate? You mean, the voters? How does an amendment that requires 2/3’s of the voters to agree on something before it is shoved up our collective patoot “restrict the ability of the electorate”?

One actual fact coming out of Sorensen’s report is that if the TPA passes, Measure H, the Chico sales tax, would be invalidated, void, deader than a doornail as of December 2025. He listed two reasons why Measure H did not comply with the TPA – the duration of the tax was not listed on the ballot measure, neither was the use of the revenue.

In fact, there are three reasons H would be invalid, but let’s talk about the ones he listed. I’m not sure the first one was important, since it was pretty clear that H would be perpetual. But that should be in the discussion, and in the language of the measure.

The second reason was the subject of a lawsuit in Yuba County. Like Yuba County Measure K, Measure H was a General Use measure, because it only required 50+1, meaning the revenues go into the General Fund with no restrictions on spending. The ballot measure should have said “for general government use“, me and other opponents tried to point that out again and again. The Finance Department Staffer even said that any “surplus” left over in the General Fund at the end of the year is likely to go toward the Unfunded Pension Liability. But, like Yuba County Measure K, Measure H listed specific uses, like public safety and road repairs, as bait. If that’s not illegal now, we really need to pass the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Furthermore, Sorensen mentioned NOTHING about the 2/3’s voter approval requirement. Is he in denial or what? The TPA will invalidate any measure that was passed with less than 2/3’s voter approval. Why did he leave that out of his report?

Sorensen listed several options.

Place a successor to Measure H on the Nov 24 ballot with the Acts additional requirements. That of course would mean, get to work immediately, and would entail a lot of money for a consultant to poll the public and write the ballot, etc. There was no dollar estimate there and nobody at the meeting expressed interest.

Wait to see if the act is passed by voters in 2024. Of course they would be able to collect the tax right along, and I’m not sure if they would have to pay it back.

If the act passes (pick one):

A) Declare an emergency to place Measure H back on the ballot, in compliance with the Act’s new requirements, prior to December 2025. I think that would require a special election because Sorensen makes note, with bright yellow highlighting – “High special elections costs”.

B) Do nothing and let the 1% sales tax expire in December 2025. Well, we have a winner as far as I’m concerned but Finance Committee member and Mayor Andrew Coolidge seemed more interested in the next option.

C) File a lawsuit to challenge the window period provision of the Act. Ha ha – here I’ll note – the city of Chico is up to their ass in lawsuits right now. In fact, the Finance staffer said the city attorney’s litigation fund is over budget by $770,000 (aka, three quarters of a million dollars …). So yeah, another lawsuit, that’s what we need – let’s just sue the voters! Cause that’s what it would mean to sue over a measure passed by the voters, wouldn’t it?

Coolidge wanted to know how many other cities have passed taxes that would be subject to the TPA – “how many other municipalities are in FREE FALL?” he asked. He asked Sorensen “can we get a legal opinion to amend Measure H?” I’m not sure what he means, except, he’s willing to spend more of our money to buck the will of the voters. He also asked for “an estimate of special election costs… “

Sorensen seemed annoyed – he reminded Coolidge, council members had received a confidential legal analysis of the TPA, and both of those questions were covered. You have to wonder if Coolidge even reads the staff reports.

In the end it all came down to “wait and see”. Sorensen discussed ACA 13, but obviously does not understand it. He “thinks” it will take effect immediately, requiring the TPA to get 2/3’s approval. I don’t know the answer to that either, but you know what – I don’t get $211,000/year to manage a town, and I don’t have a $200,000/year lawyer on my staff. So I’ll ask the folks at Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, I’ll send them a copy of Sorensen’s report and see what they think.

Coolidge expressed some childlike doubt that the TPA would pass – assuming it would need 2/3’s approval because he’s so sure ACA 13 will pass. He claims to know several union officials, and they’re making the defeat of the TPA a “Number One Priority“. Well, it’s just good to know who the mayor’s friends are. And that just goes to show you, it’s the tax advocates, not the taxpayer advocates, who are behind ACA 1 and 13.

Sean Morgan opined, “It’s like the CalPERS thing… we see a train coming… but we can’t do anything about it…”

Yeah, that’s the situation – these people have set our town on the train tracks. And it’s not just one train – we’ll cover the CalPERS Express next time, on This Old Lady Says “Get your ass off the tracks!”

Letter to Editor: Does the Cal League of Cities have more influence over our council members than we do? Ask your district rep.

26 Sep

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.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Tags:

League of California Cities supports a legislative bill (ACA 13) that would require 2/3’s approval for taxpayer protection measures while taxes pass with 50+1

22 Sep

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.

Homepage

“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.

Bill seeks to raise threshold for tax protection measures that seek to raise the threshold “they impose on others”? What?

30 Aug

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”.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240ACA13

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

https://www.csda.net/blogs/vanessa-gonzales/2023/08/25/aca-13-majority-vote-protection-act-clears-first-h

“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.

Tags: ,

VGSA – this process is just an end-run around a ballot measure

28 Jul

NOTE: After I wrote this piece, I saw today’s paper –

Butte County groundwater agencies approve fees; DWR approves plans
This was an end-run around a ballot measure.

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:

https://www.vinagsa.org/board-members

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.

Tags:

What’s Up Mike? ER editor questions my letter – I got the information from a story in his paper!

11 Jul

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.

Supervisors chip away at $252 million settlement from PG&E to address Butte County’s needs
I have to ask, does Wolcott read his own paper?

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.“

Butte County Supervisors consider PG&E settlement 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?

Tags: ,

Letter to the Editor: After 5 years of spending PG&E settlement money on salaries and benefits, the board of Stupes is threatening to close fire stations? What?

7 Jul

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.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →