Archive | local tax increases RSS feed for this section

Letter to the Editor: Kim Nott says we HAVE TO pay, I say we DON’T!

27 Jun

I don’t subscribe to the Enterprise Record anymore, cause I’m a tight-ass bitch, and even 99 cents spent on bad rubbish is 99 cents too much. But, yeah, it’s the only real public forum we have – you don’t have to sign up for Faceblob, or Snitter – and at least Wolcott prints my letters. So I keep sendin’ ’em.

I got a response to a letter I sent a couple of months ago (?), from a guy named Kim Nott. He says we have to pay “the obligation”. I say, no, we don’t!

Kim Nott wrote, “Nobody is happy about our ever-increasing obligation to CalPERS.  But given the legal constraints guided by the ‘California Rule’ it is just that.  An obligation.”

The “California Rule”, was drafted by the unions and passed by the legislature without any input from the taxpayers. But Nott continues ” don’t be under any illusion that we can do anything at all but pay the bill CalPERS sends out.”

If City employees expect to get the generous pensions and benefits they demand, they need to make more reasonable contributions.. City council and management negotiate the contracts, and the deal with CalPERS, not the taxpayers.

The city is hiring a new city manager, but “sunshining” of salary and benefits prior to the approval of the contract is not required by any state law or by any internal policy of the City.  The City of Chico “sunshine” requirements, implemented by council in 2008, apply only to our union groups.

So, “sunshine” does not apply to the taxpayers, nor do we have any say as to salary or benefits, but we’re “obligated” to pay?

Nott concludes, “if you don’t like our roads now you would be more displeased when maintenance money comes out of the budget to pay for the CalPERS obligation.”

Staff has willfully deferred maintenance for years, taking money out of every city fund to pay their CalPERS debt. But the deficit continues to grow due to overgenerous salaries and benefits.

Any new revenues would just be spit on the griddle.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Tags:

Clerk admitted members of the public were not able to sign into today’s Finance Committee meeting, but it went on anyway

26 Jan

On Saturday (1/22) I posted the letter I wrote to the Enterprise Record. Wolcott ran it Monday. I have complained here many times about trying to participate in closed committee meetings via Zoom, and I’ve made city staff and council members aware that I was not able to sign in or even watch meetings. I’ve also complained here and asked staff many times to make recordings of the meetings available to the public – they simply respond that they are not required to do so. They are required by law to post meeting minutes, but do so at their own speed. As of Christmas they were 6 months behind, so I complained about that. The clerk came back from Christmas vacation and posted the missing minutes in less than two days, without any explanation as to why those minutes weren’t posted within two days after the meetings.

My district rep Kasey Reynolds told me that the meetings would remain closed for the duration of Newsom’s mask mandate, February 15. Instead of holding important business – including various tax increases – until the public could be included, they scheduled an 8am Finance Committee meeting for today. Frankly, I’ve given up on trying to sign in. I have work to do, I can’t sit around all morning being held out of public meetings by the forehead. I was surprised to receive a notice from the clerk’s office about a half hour into the meeting.

We are having difficulties with Zoom this morning.  Please try the link again.

I received this message while I was at the grocery store. My grocery store does not enforce the mask mandate. Neither does the home improvement store at which I purchased a new washing machine this morning. I think that’s ironic – businesses I patronize are not supporting the mandate, why is the city of Chico still holding citizens out of meetings?

Today the agenda included discussion of a sewer tax. The city wants to tax the public according to how much water they use, water we not only already pay for, but water on which we pay a 5% Utility Users Tax.

And then there’s this scheme – read carefully, they’re basically issuing bonds on your toilet, another attempt at taxation without public approval:

For Option 1, The utility issues bonds secured by net revenues of the utility to pay the “sales” price. The General Fund receives an upfront cash payment from the utility. Alternatively, the City can do “seller financing”, where the City’s General Fund owns a note payable by the utility over time for the purchase price of the sale. In either the scenario, the utility is generating income for the General Fund, over and above what can normally be done under Proposition 218.
If the “sales” price is paid entirely upfront, and if the publicly offered bonds used to finance the
sale were sold on a tax exempt basis, then the proceeds of the sale/bond issue must be used by the City for public improvements. If the “sales” price is paid over time through “seller” financing, then the annual payments can be used by the City for any lawful purpose.

Read it again. They want to sell the sewer plant to themselves, and then issue bonds to pay themselves back? They put the money in the General Fund, and then it can be used for anything, and that’s going to be the pensions.

Read more here:

https://chico.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/1.26.22_fc_agenda_packet.pdf?1642784160

Mayor Andrew Coolidge and council member Sean Morgan are on the committee, Morgan is the chair. These guys are already under recall. Let them know how you feel about them planning to raise our taxes in meetings they have closed to the public.

andrew.coolidge@chicoca.gov

sean.morgan@chicoca.gov

Tags: ,

Business taxes, housing taxes, parking tax, pot tax, poop tax! City of Chico is on a Tax Blitz!

22 May

I got the agenda for next week’s CLOSED Finance Committee meeting and it’s a gobstopper.

https://chico.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/5.26.21_finance_committee_agenda.pdf?1621544673

Item A, Business Tax Analysis Update – just what it sounds like, only this also includes a tax on rentals.

Item B, Cost Allocation Plan – another (why?) presentation from consultant Chad Wolford about “allocating” money from one fund to another to pay management salaries and benefits.

Item C, Sewer Enterprise Study and Rate Analysis – oh, you people on sewer are not going to like this and those of you who have still held onto your septic tanks better take good care of them.

Item D, Overview of Revenue Enhancements – this is an item that brings the art of Euphemism to a new level. Yes, Dammit, they’re talking about taxes!

These items all have one thing in common – a greedy, desperate city staff that wants to fund their pensions, damn the torpedoes. I’ve talked about A, B, and C, and will talk about them again in future, but right now let’s dive into D, which I will call “Operation Tax Blitz”.

City Manager Mark Orme and Admin. Services Director Scott Dowell have announced budget surpluses the last three years running, but are still making dark predictions for the future, and trying to tell us we need to raise taxes.

“Although the City has made great progress to overcome deep financial deficits and reestablish reserves,
projections point to a likely budget deficit in the coming years if revenue enhancements are not
approved.”

What they won’t say, is that our problem, which Orme has called “The Elephant in the Room,” is the pension deficit, the Unfunded Actuarial Liability. They’re trying to tell us we’re cheap asses who don’t pay enough taxes. As a member of a family living on less than $50,000/year, with tenants who all live on about same, it is really tough to take that kind of smack from some asshole making over $200,000/year with a benefits package of over $50,000 who only pays 9% of the cost.

“California cities have a variety of avenues to increase revenues for services and capital projects, which ranges from general and special taxes to bonded indebtedness.”

And the report proceeds to list those avenues.

Admissions Tax – Admissions tax is a revenue enhancement used when people attend a show, performance, display or
exhibit.

Business License Fees – Business license fees are considered a tax and any increase would need to be approved by a majority vote of the electorate.

Cannabis Tax – A sales tax measure on cannabis is already being discussed by the City Council.

Construction/Development Tax – A construction or development tax is an excise tax imposed for the advantage of building within the City. The tax is imposed only on new construction and is generally based on number of units, number of bedrooms or square footage. These taxes differ from development impact fees in that impact fees must be spent on services or facilities to mitigate the impact of development. [NOTE: This is a redundant tax – in addition to Impact Fees, and not restricted to mitigating the impact of development. In other words, it’s just a GRAB, as are so many of these suggestions. This is one way the city adds to the cost of housing.]

Documentary Transfer and Real Property Transfer Tax – A document transfer tax is a revenue enhancement allowed under the State Transfer Tax Act on documents which transfer the ownership of real property… Butte County and the City of Chico enacted this tax ordinance and the City received one half of the tax, $0.275 per $500 in recorded value. [NOTE: So, the city already has an ordinance with the county, but here Staff suggests a separate ordinance just for the city, which will raise the cost of housing] Dozens of California charter cities have enacted their own transfer tax ordinances. The tax rates vary with rates as low as $1.10 per $1,000 to $15.00 per $1,000.

Local Vehicle Registration Tax – Local vehicle registration taxes are special taxes collected by the DMV in the form of vehicle registration fees and remitted to the participating counties who in turn remit to the City. [NOTE: Butte County already has this program]

Parking Tax – A parking tax is imposed on citizens who rent parking space that is privately owned.

Property Tax – Generally, property tax cannot be modified by the City and would require State action. California’s
property tax is ad valorem, meaning it is based on the value of the property. Proposition 13 limits property tax to one percent and restricts the enactment of any additional ad valorem property tax, transaction tax or sales tax on the sales of real property. Proposition 46 modified this rule to allow for an increase towards funding indebtedness. [NOTE: the only real “indebtedness” the city faces right now is the UAL]

Parcel Tax – Parcel taxes are a tax on a parcel of property and are not directly based on property value, which is what
allows a parcel tax to circumvent Proposition 13. [NOTE: Staff reports these have had a dismal showing lately, mentioning CARD’s failed attempt at passing Measure A last year.]

I’ll stop here to say, with the exception of the Cannabis Tax they are already discussing, I don’t think any of the above suggestions are serious. Tomorrow I’ll pick up with what they are really getting at – sales tax increase. Although, there is a frightening report on raising the Utility Tax, as well as a very frank discussion of the other kind of tax – franchise fees.

Next time, on This Old Lady goes to a Tea Party!

City Budget Workshop scheduled for March 12, 10 – 11:30 am, Old Muni Building on Main Street

6 Mar

I saw a blurb this morning in the Enterprise Record about a budget workshop hosted by city of Chico staff. That’s March 12, 10 am to 11:30 at the old Municipal Building on Main, right across the street from City Hall. 

The article said something about “transparency”.  Yes, the city has been pursuing “transparency”, but that only works if the public asks questions. I don’t really know who they expect to attend a weekday meeting at 10am, but I’ll try to attend. Frankly, I’m predicting, by March 12, I will be looking forward to getting my work done early and sitting in the air conditioning listening to these blowfaces try to foist their argument for a sales tax increase, cause that’s undoubtedly what is going on here. 

I have asked the city clerk if the meeting will be video taped, but I expect her to say no. I don’t think the old muni building was set up for video taping. If that is the case I will lobby for this meeting to be held in the recently remodeled city council chambers – the city spent almost $400,000 of our Comcast fees on that remodel, with the excuse that they needed to upgrade the technology by which they televised the meetings. So there’s no excuse for any more un-recorded meetings, that bullshit has to end. ALL the meetings need to be videotaped, that’s something we need to push for. 

 

 

Chico Area Recreation District lawyer tells the board what $taff wants them to hear – don’t buy it

24 Jul

I don’t know how many of you read the Chico Enterprise Record, but I only recently  found out – in a town of over 85,000 the ER has a circulation of less than 10,000.  Wow, that was a shock – especially since that would include readers all over Butte, Glenn, and other nearby counties. I grew up reading the ER out in Glenn County, most people had a subscription to both the Sacramento Bee and the ER.  As Chico’s population has almost tripled since my childhood, you’d think the ER would have at least 50,000 subscribers. 

10,000? And that includes people who only subscribe to the Sunday paper.  But, it’s the local daily, so I continue to read it, and send letters to the editor.  It’s better than nothing, and I mean that quite literally.

So yes, I saw the article ER shill Laura Urseny wrote about  a letter I had written to the CARD board. I told them I believe they are spending taxpayer money illegally to promote a tax measure.   District General Manager Ann Willmann had put my letter on the July 18 agenda for discussion, and also asked the district lawyer, Jeff Carter, for his opinion. That’s all a lawyer can give you, his opinion. 

Urseny reported, as I would expect, “Thursday night, CARD attorney Jeff Carter said outside the board meeting that CARD has not violated rules in dealing with EMC because it was a survey of the community and nothing more. The survey did question whether citizens would support any kind of revenue measure.”

Of course Carter says they haven’t done anything illegal – for one thing, they haven’t, yet. That’s correct – after I wrote the letter I finally received a response from Howard Jarvis Association counsel Tim Bittle, who said, “Unfortunately, it is not illegal.  Government Code section 54964 provides, ‘An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency may not expend or authorize the expenditure of any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure.’ “

He explained, ” Notice two things about that statute. First, it contemplates that the local agency may lawfully hire a ‘consultant.’ Second, the statute cannot be violated before the existence of ‘a ballot measure.’”

Apparently, they can’t violate the law until they have actually written and handed the measure over to the county clerk. But, as soon as that measure is given approval and a ballot title, the district is not allowed to spend any more money on it.

Well, what’s “legal” isn’t always “right”, and I still think this is an important detail when considering passage of a revenue measure. The district couldn’t get support from the citizens, who would have had to put it on the ballot by way of petition, which would have meant there was some support in the community. But that’s not what happened. So CARD has spent over a hundred thousand in taxpayer money putting this measure on the ballot themselves, that is a fact.

They’ve hired consultant after consultant – EMC has been hired twice. The district originally tried to get Aqua Jets swim team to front this measure – for a new “aquatic center.” Then they got a group called Every Body Healthy Body to propose a “megacility” sports center south of town. But a recent survey done by EMC blew up in their faces. It seems the 400 respondents were more concerned about transients camping on their kids’ soccer fields and stealing their wallets, laptops and cell phones from the dugout at ball games. 

According to a report from Ch 7 news,

https://www.actionnewsnow.com/content/news/CARD-survey-shows-park-safety-a-top-concern–510232051.html

“Rather than new facilities, the majority of people said they just want to feel safe.”

Here’s an interesting quote from that story, because this is what I have seen for over two years now –  “CARD is working on what to put into a possible tax measure.”  They are ready to promise us anything to get us to raise our own taxes.

This is exactly what EMC has been hired to do by  both CARD and the city of Chico – figure out what to tell people to get them to increase their own taxes. EMC blatantly claims to “offer a full suite of political research and predictive analytics to help your candidates, organizations and ballot measures succeed.” 

Their questions lead the respondents to think the sky is the limit if they pass a tax on themselves.  Tom Lando’s 2012 survey offered a sports stadium, CARD has offered various sports facilities – what they don’t tell us publicly is they are getting deeper into pension deficit because employees aren’t paying nearly enough to support their own demands for these unsustainable pensions. 

You have to read the budgets to see that CARD employees are paying less than 10% for pensions of 70% of their highest year’s salary. General Manager Ann Willman makes roughly $110,000 a year, paying less than $10,000 to  receive a $70,000/year pension for the rest of her life. That is unsustainable unless you get a gullible, lazy and poorly educated public to agree to pay for it. 

In my letter below I said Willmann pays less than $2,000, because that’s what she’s been paying, as a “classic member” of CalPERS. Reading her latest budget message, I see she’s been asked to pay 6% by next year, eventually 7%. Let me be  the first to say, “Big Fucking Whoopee Mrs. Potato Head.” 

These people are like chiggers – they attach themselves to taxpayers, and then they suck you dry, providing you no benefit whatsoever.  

I am not going to let them lie their way to the bank this time, so I wrote the following letter and sent it to the ER yesterday. Let them know how you feel about this grab – maybe you can convince  them to stop spending money on this endeavor, and start using those funds for proper upkeep of facilities we’ve entrusted to them. 

I beg to differ with Chico Area Recreation District attorney Jeff Carter. CARD’s consultant is up to more than a simple survey.  Read EMC’s claims at their website – “Great campaigns don’t just happen. That’s why we offer a full suite of political research and predictive analytics to help your candidates, organizations and ballot measures succeed.”

CARD has spent over $100,000 on consultants to help them push a tax measure, money that would have been better spent maintaining now closed Shapiro Pool.

In 2017, a survey concluded there was not enough support for the proposed aquatic center to go forward with a tax measure. The most recent survey showed the majority of the 400 respondents are more concerned with safety and lack of maintenance at the facilities CARD already operates.

In 2015 a consultant hired by CARD told them they could bring long-neglected Shapiro Pool back up to code with about $500,000 in repairs. For instance, the filter pump had not been working for years, and the diving board had  been torn out, leaving obvious trip hazards. Instead of doing the necessary repairs to keep the popular facility open, CARD made a $400,000 “side fund” payment toward their pension deficit.

CARD gets over $3,000,000 in property and vehicle taxes, another $2,000,000 in RDA funding. They spend $5,700,000 on salaries, benefits and pensions. Management pays less than 10% toward their own pensions, the manager paying less than $2,000 a year toward 70% of her $100,000+ salary in retirement.

 Join Chico Taxpayers in saying NO to self-service, greed and mismanagement.

Tags: ,

Dan Walters: local government officials throughout California have been thumbing their noses at a state law that prohibits them from using taxpayer funds for political campaigns

27 Jun

In February I read that the FPPC, under new chairwoman Alice Germond, is trying to expand it’s powers to prosecute government agencies who misuse public funding to finance tax increase campaigns. In March the request went to the legislature, as reported here by Dan Walters.

https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/2019/03/03/fppc-sets-sights-on-illegal-use-of-tax-funds-in-campaigns-dan-walters-calmatters-commentary/3022610002/

Walters says, “State law very clearly and specifically makes misuse of taxpayer funds for political purposes illegal, but the FPPC has no power to enforce the law. That’s up to local prosecutors and the state Department of Justice, but as the FPPC report concluded, ‘The Enforcement Division is not aware of any actions brought by state or local prosecutors related to those cases.’”

Of course, it seems pretty simple – why would a county employee – like Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey – bite the hand that pays his salary? Would it even be worth contacting Ramsey to report this? Not sure.  The school district is the major offender here, although, in the last bond election, they put up a sham “citizen’s committee” to do their campaigning – a committee that did not have public meetings, keep records, or disclose their membership. 

The city of Chico and Chico Area Recreation District, meanwhile, have both spent 10’s of thousands of public dollars – CARD has spent nearly $100,000 in the past few years – to hire consultants to put forward their tax campaigns. Ramsey must be too busy chasing pot farmers to pay attention. When I looked at his website to see how to file a complaint, the only form that popped up was for pot patches.

Mike, I think you should read a newspaper once in a while. Dan Walters has been talking about this issue for over a year now. 

So, I took some advice from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and wrote a letter to CARD, who has been the most egregious offender so far. I used a form letter at their website for inspiration, but I don’t use form letters, I write my own. Form letters look stupid and put up, and are easier to ignore. I made sure to ask that my letter be made part of the public record, and I included not only the manager Ann Willmann ( annw@chicorec.com ) but the entire board – tlando@chicorec.com, mmcginnis@chicorec.com, tnickell@chicorec.com, mworley@chicorec.com, and ddonnan@chicorec.com

Please Note: I would like this email to be part of the public record.

To Ann Willmann, CARD General Manager, and members of the board, Tom Lando, Mike McGinnis, Tom Nickell, Michael Worley and Dave Donnan. 

I believe Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) is illegally using taxpayer dollars for political advocacy. The Political Reform Act prohibits public agencies from spending public funds in support of or opposition to ballot measure campaigns. 

CARD has hired EMC Research to advise them in placing a tax measure on an upcoming ballot. A quote from their website:

https://www.emcresearch.com/what-we-do/#Political

“Great campaigns don’t just happen. That’s why we offer a full suite of political research and predictive analytics to help your candidates, organizations and ballot measures succeed.” 

CARD has paid EMC to conduct a survey.  EMC’s website makes it clear that they use demographics to shape the outcome of their surveys in order to sway public opinion in favor of passing tax measures. This is an illegal use of taxpayer funds. I have contacted the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and they tell me they have successfully sued agencies for this misuse of public money. The FPPC also requires these expenditures to be reported as campaign donations. 

Below I’ve provided links to a couple of recent articles from Cal Matters and the San Jose Mercury News that provide further details and resources.

Thank you for your anticipated responses, Juanita Sumner, Chico Taxpayers Association 

I included the following links to a couple articles Dan Walters has posted:

Finally, a crackdown on misuse of taxpayer money

Walters: California should crack down on misuse of taxpayer money

Yes, these two local agencies are illegally using taxpayer funding to put forward tax increase measures, but unless we call them on it, nobody else will. We have to get this issue out into the newspaper, and then we need to start a serious letter writing campaign to Ramsey, and then maybe the Grand Jury, asking that the city and CARD be investigated. 

In the meantime, write your own letter to Ann Willmann and the CARD board to let them know how you feel about a government agency that breaks the law. 

Tags: , , , , ,

CARD consultant admits a tax measure might not succeed, will take lots of “education”

29 May

Chico Area Recreation District has hired a consultant, EMC, of Oakland, to help them put a new  tax measure on the 2020 spring ballot. EMC recently conducted a survey of 405 district “likely voters” (meaning, picked and chosen)  and brought the following conclusions to the CARD board at their May meeting.

Click to access Survey+Results+Presentation.pdf

“A parcel tax measure may be feasible for the March 2020 ballot but a bond measure would be a significant challenge.” Furthermore, “Initial support for a parcel tax for local parks and recreation is near the two thirds threshold needed to pass.”

Keep that word “initial” in mind, I’ll get back to that.

“Given the survey findings and the current community climate following the Camp Fire, we recommend that CARD begin an extensive public outreach and engagement effort before placing a measure on the ballot. Informational communications are essential to the community’s understanding of the need for revenue, particularly funds to maintain park programs and safety.”

You may have read that the majority of survey respondents indicated “public safety/safe parks and playgrounds” as their main concern. I’ve seen a lot of posts on social media from disgruntled parents – a very common complaint is the play fields their kids’ sports  teams use are becoming illegal campsites, littered with trash, poop, and used needles. CARD has also complained about criminal activity and vandalism at various playgrounds, such as broken glass littering the skate park – bottles and trash thrown over the security fence after closing. 

In order of importance, survey respondents ranked “Reducing crime and homelessness in parks, providing clean, safe parks and recreational programs, and upgrading park safety features would be important components of a parcel tax measure.”  A graph on page 6 makes it very clear – of topics “Homelessness, Public safety, Housing, Street and roads, Public education, Jobs and the economy, Parks and recreation,” 63% of respondents ranked “Homelessness” (whatever that means…) as a “very high priority“, while only 22% ranked “Parks and recreation” as same.

Looking at that list, I only see one category that has anything to do with CARD, “Parks and recreation,” so, if you believe in the results of a survey of less than 5% of the population, carefully chosen to reflect the desired results, you would think very few people in this town give a rat’s patoot about CARD. Doing the math, I find that figure to be 89 people, which is a little more than 1% of the total population of Chico.

There’s doublespeak in this report. They start off saying there’s enough support to pass this tax, but here they reveal it will really take some convincing. They also remind the board, such a campaign needs to be “privately funded“. I love the words, “make sure the voters understand…” 

A parcel tax measure would be vulnerable to opposition. Therefore, a successful measure would likely require a well-coordinated, privately funded outreach effort to ensure that voters understand how additional funding would reduce crime and homelessness in parks, provide clean, safe parks and recreation for local residents, and help maintain the Chico area as a desirable place to live, work and raise a family.”

And there you see them listing the priorities respondents chose from their carefully worded survey options, using what the people want to hear, just like Joseph Goebbels. That’s exactly the intention of these surveys – they aren’t out to get your true opinion, they’re out to get you to say what they want, and believe it’s your own idea.

What’s the anecdote to brain washing? 

These are good …

but the truth will set us free! On page 12 of the power point presentation, there’s a graph showing that initial support dropped off as respondents were given “information.” Parcel tax support went from 67% to 59% over the course of the interview, opposition went from 36% to 44%. It shows similar results for a bond. 

The survey questions are provided in the report, give it a read, see how they twist the “information” their way. On page 9, for example, they lead us to believe there would be ” NO money for salaries.”

That is true for a bond, which is restricted to use for facilities, not “operating costs (salaries and benefits)” But a parcel tax is different – they can spend the proceeds of a parcel tax any way they want. 

And here’s the thing – since 2013, CARD’s pension liability has almost doubled. Next post I’ll talk about WHY, and how much money has been diverted from “provid[ing] clean, safe parks and recreation for local residents, and help[ing] maintain the Chico area as a desirable place to live, work and raise a family”  toward staving off the pension tsunami.

 

Tags: ,

Oroville transfers $366,000 in Camp Fire money to Pension Stabilization Fund

5 Mar

PUBLISHED OROVILLE MERCURY NEWS:  | UPDATED: 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

“Let the games begin, or should I say, let the shell games continue.  On Feb. 19,  Oroville Financial Director Ruth Wright,  gave an update on Oroville’s city  budget. She caught my attention when I heard her say $366,000 in FEMA funds were applied to the “Pension Stabilization Fund.”

Oroville’s previous council decided to repurpose all “one-time money”, to this fund.  This year over $1 million was swept  away from city improvements and funneled into the  CALpers stabilization accounts.

For those that voted themselves a one percent tax increase in hopes of fewer crimes, street repairs, and clean parks, I fear you will be disappointed. It’s all about  the unsustainable CALpers fund. Oroville now has a one percent added-on sales tax plus a five percent Utility Users Tax. Look at the five utility bills you receive each month. Check out the UUT you are paying.

The city has been asked to repeal the five percent Utility Users Tax now that the one percent sales tax has passed.  City staff has recommended “no,” citing the city’s precarious financial situation. The council decided to delay that decision for a year.

I would predict there will be no repeal. The shell games will continue. The city will still be crying poor. New fees and tax proposals will be pursued. The proceeds will be used for CALpers contributions in a futile attempt to delay its inevitable collapse.

— Lorraine Christensen, Oroville”

Tags: , ,

“Why is there always enough money for large pensions and raises (and propaganda) for bureaucrats yet never enough money to maintain the streets?”

4 Mar

I want to thank Dave for writing this kick-ass letter to the Enterprise Record last week. I know it ran either the day before or the day of the Finance Committee meeting last week and I know Mark Orme read it. Now I also know I’m not the only person who has a problem with paying for a campaign to raise my taxes to pay  for the pension deficit created by years of entitlement. 

Orme mentioned the pensions, but would not admit they are the real drive behind a revenue measure. He said they want the money to either  fix streets or hire more cops. But we’ve all seen the method by which they transfer money from every department into the “Pension Stabilization Trust” and the “UAL” fund to pay down a deficit that the employees created themselves by not paying enough into their own pensions. 

Write your own letter folks – don’t be an ostrich, stick your head up and be heard. 

Why is there always enough money for large pensions and raises for bureaucrats yet never enough money to maintain the streets?

And now our city council members have decided there is plenty of money in city coffers to propagandize the public, so they are giving tens of thousand of our tax dollars (and most likely more later) to a PR firm to sell us another bond measure (just another type of tax increase) or a sales tax increase. And this does not include the cost of the city bureaucracy’s staff time. Is this how you want your hard-earned tax dollars spent?

And whatever tax increase they sell you will be just a down payment as the city’s unfunded pension liability will only get worse. Just wait for the next recession and stock market plunge. Then the politicians will spend more of your tax dollars to sell you yet another tax increase.

I urge everyone to read the long time political watchdog and journalist Dan Walters’ editorials: “Despite law, politicians use taxpayer funds for campaigns,” “Local tax hikes cleverly packaged,” “Cities should fess up about taxes, pensions,” and “Property tax surge reveals the truth: Local tax hikes are all about pensions” athttps://calmatters.org/articles/author/dan-walters/. (Some of these editorials ran in the Chico ER.)

As Walters notes, “With very rare exceptions, however, officials who place the tax increases on the ballot will not publicly say the extra revenue is needed to offset rising pension costs. Rather, on the advice of high-priced consultants, they say the money is needed for popular police and fire services and parks.”And he says, “The League of California Cities has raised the alarm about ‘unsustainable levels’ of pension costs. Isn’t it time for the cities themselves to be truthful when they ask voters for new taxes?”

Our community is in a state that has some of the highest taxes and living expenses in the nation. And if the local politicians have their way your taxes and expenses are going up. Also, wages in Butte County are in the bottom 10 percent of the larger counties in the nation. California has the highest poverty rate in the nation at 19% and Butte County is even worse at 21%. It is unfair to increase this community’s tax burden while government employee pensions go unreformed.

It is long past time for politicians to spend within our means and represent us instead of special interests at our expense.

Tags:

Don’t be fooled – City of Chico’s proposed tax measure is all about the pensions

21 Jan

The city of Chico is ramping up their tax increase campaign, with city staffers soliciting the news paper for stories about funding shortages, and lately, using the Camp Fire as an excuse to seek a revenue measure.

https://www.chicoer.com/2019/01/15/theres-been-more-traffic-in-chico-since-the-camp-fire-and-thats-not-changing-anytime-soon/

No mention of the dramatic uptick in home sales and how the outrageous price increases will affect property tax valuations. No mention of the effect that 29,000 people swooping down on your retail sector is going to have on sales tax revenues. No mention of what full capacity motels will contribute in “Transient Occupancy” or “bed tax”. Property, sales, and TOT are three of the four biggest revenues our city receives. The fourth is Utility Tax, and that’s going up with increases in PG&E rates. It’s a win-win all the way around for City of Chico, but they cry poormouth and want a revenue measure.

Stand up people, and let them know what you think of this attempt to embezzle more taxpayer money into their own pockets. I sent the following letter to the Enterprise Record this morning. 

City staff says traffic congestion and accidents are up in Chico and asks more money for road improvements, police and fire staffing. Despite an unprecedented increase in property tax valuations, sales tax receipts and TOT due  to Camp Fire evacuees, council has directed staff to look into putting a revenue measure on an upcoming ballot.

Dan Walters opines most local revenue measures are “all about the pensions.” I agree. The mayor of Capitola admitted, “ if we put a measure across for pensions it would be doomed for failure immediately”, so their November ballot measure read “to help fund youth programs, protect parks, beaches and open space, and support local businesses.”

Pension liability is the difference between what is paid into the California Public Employee Retirement System, and what employees expect to get in retirement. City of Chico employees pay less than 10 percent of their pension cost, while the taxpayers pay roughly 30 percent. That leaves the city an unfunded liability of over $129 million.

In 2018 city staff made a $7,598,561 annual payment toward their pension liability. Part of that money is allocated from each department fund, based on total department compensation. The rest of the annual payment is allocated from the General Fund.  Council approved allocations are how they transfer money from one fund to another in order to avoid spending restrictions – like spending public safety or road funding on their unfunded pension liability.

Despite any promises to the contrary,  the city’s proposed revenue measure is all about the pensions.

Juanita Sumner, Chico

 

← Older Entries