Archive | public employee contracts RSS feed for this section

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has successfully sued at least twice to stop POBs on the grounds that they must have voter approval

29 May
Bonds are a risky way to deal with pension woes
This article from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sheds some legal doubts on the whole POB scam.

On a tip from a reader, I found this article, originally printed in January 2020. Jon Coupal begins with statewide bond measures, but picks up with a warning about Pension Obligation Bonds. “...at the local level, taxpayers need to be aware of a recent resurgence in the use of pension obligation bonds, a risky financing method that fell out of favor during the recession but is now making a comeback.”

Coupal analogizes, “A POB is basically paying your Visa bill with your MasterCard,” adding, “Pension obligation bonds (POBs) are bonds issued to fund, in whole or in part, the unfunded portion of public pension liabilities by the creation of new debt.“

Council members Andrew Coolidge and Sean Morgan, and other proponents of POBs, are denying that a POB is new debt, they chant it like a mantra, because they think they can hypnotize us into believing it.

Coupal continues, “The use of POBs relies on an assumption that the bond proceeds, when invested with pension assets in higher-yielding assets, will be able to achieve a rate of return that is greater than the interest rate owed over the term of the bonds.“

Even Staffer Scott Dowell has used the word, “gamble“, even while he and city manager Mark Orme have pressed forward with this scheme. Council has given them permission to send this bond for judicial approval. The consultant told council and staff that this type of bond does not require voter approval. They said it would only take approval from a judge, which should only take a few months. The expect to implement this thing within the next few months.

If this seems odd to you, you’re not alone, the HJTA is on your side.

“Back in 2003, the state of California attempted to float a statewide pension obligation bond without voter approval.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued to invalidate the bonds and prevailed in court.“

That’s not the only lawsuit HJTA has pursued against POBs. The reader who tipped me to all this sent me the story of HJTA vs the city of Simi Valley.

City of Simi Valley reaches settlement with taxpayer groups, rescinds authorization for pension obligation bonds

“The Simi Valley City Council voted 5-0 on April 6, 2020, to rescind a December 2019 resolution authorizing a $150 million pension obligation bond and future similar bonds, thanking the Ventura County Taxpayers Association for working with the City in avoiding what could have been a lengthy battle over legally questionable bonds. The rescission was part of a settlement agreement with the VCTA and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.“

Apparently, the city asked for validation from the Ventura County Superior Court. HJTA and the Ventura County Taxpayers Association then “answered” the suit. And the city backed down, but I’m not really sure why.

“In settling, the Simi Valley City Council recognized the constitutional concern in the VCTA/HJTA answer to the City’s lawsuit — whether the California Constitution requires two-thirds voter approval of any such bond. Agreeing to wait for legal clarity, and with each side bearing its own costs, the City agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice, and rescind the bond authorization resolution.“

“recognized the constitutional concern” ? ” Agreeing to wait for legal clarity” ? I’m not sure what has happened since then – has the court given any further ruling on these bonds? Any legal clarity? I’ll have to look into that. But I think that’s a good question for Staff at that POB forum.

DAY: Tuesday, June 8, 2021
TIME: 2:00 P.M.
PLACE: City Council Chamber – 421 Main Street

While our town struggles with financial insolvency and sagging infrastructure, the staffers responsible skip off to another town, at a higher salary, with their pensions intact

3 Dec

A few points I’d like to make clear about POBs:

  1. amount to millions in new debt, with interest
  2. success dependent on the stock market, just like CalPERS investments
  3. don’t need voter approval but the voters/taxpayers will be on the hook for the payment
  4. POBs are guaranteed – that means, the payments come out of the General Fund at the expense of infrastructure and services
  5. without true pension reform POBs will lead to insolvency and bankruptcy – as was the case in Stockton and San Bernardino

Here’s a shocking article about San Bernardino, 

San Bernardino deficits grow after bankruptcy

What I get from this article, is that the police unions are the biggest threat to financial solvency facing California cities. They demand higher salaries and refuse to pay a sustainable share of their pensions costs. Instead of asking for concessions from the highest paid public employees in the state, “Stockton said from the outset pensions are necessary to be competitive in the job market, particularly for police.”  Vallejo backed down from pension reform after being threatened by CalPERS. 

Chico City Council has done same. When I asked my district rep Kasey Reynolds why such a high salary for the new police chief (higher than the departing chief), she responded, “ I just looked at other communities that are like size and their Chiefs are 20-40k higher.”  I sent her the publicpay.gov records for Chico and Sacramento – yeah, Sacramento salaries are a little higher, but city of Chico pays more of the pensions. If we are going to continue to offer these crazy salaries, Chico cops need to pay more toward their pensions. I never got any response from Reynolds.  They hired the chief above the old salary and just recently approved a new contract for CPOA without asking any concessions. 

So, letter writer Steve Wolfe is correct – our elected officials are complicit with our city employees in driving our town into the financial abyss. He’s right again when he predicts the city will pursue a new revenue scheme.  A POB would be just the vehicle to take us down! Here’s my response. 

Steve Wolfe is right – the city is seeking a new revenue measure. At the Finance Committee meeting September 23, a consultant was asked to pitch Pension Obligation Bonds to the full Chico City council. Staff said the bond could be implemented as early as January 2021 because POBs don’t require voter approval. 

POBs are a way of borrowing money to pay bills, while hoping to re-invest the borrowed money, producing a profit used not only to service the bond but to pay off the pension liability. If this outright gamble doesn’t work out, the taxpayers are on the hook not only for the unfunded pension liability, but the additional bond debt. POBs put Stockton and San Bernardino into bankruptcy.

This bond will not appear on your property taxes, it appears in the form of sagging infrastructure and service cuts – these bonds are guaranteed, bond holders take priority over our streets, our parks, our sewers and even public safety needs. 

Instead of taking on new debt, we must reduce the long-term cost of public pensions for future employees. That’s not happening.  With emergency powers, the city manager hired three new positions this year at $100,000+ salaries. New hires are paid more than predecessors.  There’s no accountability for these decisions.  While our town struggles with financial insolvency and sagging infrastructure, the staffers responsible skip off to another town, at a higher salary, with their pensions intact. 

Contact your new, “fiscally conservative” council super majority, and tell them what you think. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , ,

Who will pay the unfunded liability? Taxpayers living on a median income of $43,000/year, or well-paid, well-heeled, entitled public employees making over $100,000/year?

5 Nov

It’s been said, the campaign begins the day after an election.  I like to hit the ground running. Here’s a letter I just sent to the ER. 

Butte County, like the city of Chico, is considering a Pension Obligation Bond.

POBs are a financing scheme that allows state and local governments to get the taxpayers to pay unfunded pension liabilities by issuing a bond guaranteed by tax revenues. Like CalPERS, POB proponents claim investments will pay for both the bond and the retirement fund. According to Oregon PERS manager Mike Cleary, “Some people call this arbitrage, but it’s not, it’s really an investment gamble.”

In fact, in 2013, Stockton and San Bernardino went bankrupt. According to the court, “Generous pensions awkwardly propped up with ill-timed POBs contributed to both debacles.”

In recent years, returns on POBs have often fallen below the interest rate paid by agencies to borrow the money, digging the liability hole even deeper. Nonetheless, they remain popular because they are instant money without voter approval.

Chico’s Unfunded Pension Liability has grown enormously over the past year – from $123,000,000 to $140,000,000, with another $146,000,000 interest – because of unrealistic employee contributions. Chico employees pay, at most, 15% for pensions that run from 70 – 90% percent of hundred-thousand-plus salaries. Meanwhile, taxpayers not only contribute a payroll share, but the annual “catch-up” payments come at the expense of city services – this year $11,000,000.

Who will pay the unfunded liability? Taxpayers living on a median income of $43,000/year, or well-paid, well-heeled, entitled public employees making over $100,000/year?

Let your elected representative know what you think of this scheme to leave the taxpayers holding the Pension Deficit Bag.

Juanita Sumner, Chico

Tags: ,

No on Measure E; and there will be a quiz later today about that Finance Committe meeting!

16 Oct

Wow, who would have guessed Measure E – city council districts – would be such a hot topic. Looking at the stats the last week or so, that’s what people have been hitting – “Measure E – Divide and Conquer”.

In the music business, they would call that a “throwaway piece.” I was just annoyed and frustrated over the response I got from the city clerk when I asked about this measure. The clerk is like a sphinx, you could know her 30 years, and I almost have, and never know what’s on her mind. She states the facts, she answers a question as you ask it. Never opines. But, this time she seemed genuinely confused – it’s a stupid measure. And it makes a person think, council pulled a fast one – like the cell phone tax they collected illegally for years – and they need the public to approve it.

I hope that’s what other people are thinking, and I hope it fails. Districts are not only unnecessary, they are a ploy by both the liberals and the conservatives, who both seem to think they can manipulate this system.

Prepare to be manipulated!

And if somebody feels like emailing city finance man Scott Dowell, scott.dowell@chicoca.gov, they could ask him how much it is going to cost to REDRAW THE DISTRICTS after the upcoming CENSUS.

I’m also shocked to see how interested people are in the school board race. I’m sure glad, and I’m sorry I don’t have anything better to offer than “vote for people who aren’t/haven’t ever been school district employees”, but that’s my story, and I’m standing by it.

But I’m sincerely grateful to those of you who have downloaded and watched the video I posted –

https://gofile.io/d/zqp5BI

with big THANKS to DAVE for that link. Since I posted that last Friday, almost 100 people have seen it, and, as committee member Sean Morgan agreed, that’s a helluva lot more people than actually attend those meetings.

So, after I finish my chores this morning, I’m going to make a QUIZ! We all love a quiz, don’t we? I’ll try to make it good and tough. And yeah, I’ll probably allow cheating. The teachers I learned the most from were the ones who allowed open book/notes tests. And that’s the point here, I want more people to see how the city operates behind closed doors.

Tags: , , , , ,

If you see more revenues coming in to your city, and you keep wondering why your roads are looking like crap, and you believe you’re not getting the type of services you should be getting, it’s the pensions

30 Apr

Thanks Dave, for sending me the link to this ongoing discussion about the Pension Time Bomb.

Robert Kiyosaki, entrepreneur, author, and radio show host, just published his latest book (co-author Ed Siedle)  in January, “Who Stole My Pension? How You Can Stop the Looting” .

In this five radio part series, he speaks with his co-author, Ed Siedle, and his local city council member Sal DiCiccio (Phoenix, AR) how public pensions are ruining our economy.

Kiyosaki states what should be obvious, “This pension thing is very suppressed, people don’t know much about it. If you think COVID is big, the pension failure will be bigger.”

Yes, we’re being misled as to the enormity of the problem by public $taffers that put their own interests first. Chico City Manager Mark Orme and his Ass City Mangler Chris Constantin, along with “Services Director” Scott Dowell, have walked a tight rope – they tell us we need more revenues but they won’t say why. Even when they tell us that revenues have been ahead of budget, they keep saying we don’t have enough money to maintain infrastructure.  If you pay attention, you see what Kiyosaki and his guests are saying – the city gets more revenue every year, but it’s just never enough.

Phoenix AR council member Sal DiCiccio says it very plainly.  “If you see more revenues coming in to your city, and you keep wondering why your roads are looking like crap, and you believe you’re not getting the type of services you should be getting,  it’s the pensions. Every city and state is on the same plan. Phoenix is a growing economy but we still have crappy roads because more and more money is being sucked into government pensions.”

Regardless of whether you live in a “right to work state“, DiCiccio explains, the unions  elect all the politicians, putting millions into elections every year.  In Chico the biggest donors are the Chico Police Officers Association  and the Service Employees International Union – SEIU was the biggest single contributor to CARD’s ill-fated Measure A, and CPOA president Jim Parrott ran the campaign pac. 

DiCiccio says “We’re becoming a pension machine, and they’re making the cities unliveable.”  Next time we’ll talk about why. And  get ready for the next installment in Kiyosaki’s series – “Kentucky Fried Pensions.” You  can see more at his website, 

https://www.richdad.com/radio

A conversation that needs to be had before November – WHO will pay the pension deficit?

14 Feb

Here’s a NO on A letter that merits further discussion – this is a conversation that needs to be had. 

Before we hand CARD $3 million a year with Measure A, here’s why we’re smarter not to. First, we have a massive pension debt and no solution yet. I’m willing to vote higher city taxes this fall to help with that, but not to launch CARD on a spending spree for new toys – the main one being an aquatic center we didn’t all want. But about $3 million a year in new money should get that done in a few years, so why a permanent parcel tax? And why is CARD putting the money into a $36 million bond? Bonds mean one hell of a spending spree ahead, and losing a third or more of the money on interest payments. It’s kind of like how we’re funding pensions, except CalPERS and the unions never mentioned how much we’re about to lose by the state and them not paying it up front like we were told. Tricky thing dissembling.

There’s one more problem. The reason we don’t already have an aquatic center is that the city council wouldn’t buy CARD one. Council members have to think when it comes to what city agencies want and what our taxes can cover. If Measure A fails that will keep happening. I like that. We don’t even know what all the toys are CARD will start throwing money at once nobody can get in its way anymore. CARD will be a pretty hefty sow by the time it shows up at city council overextended again.

— David P. Smith, Chico

 

A line that I find very disturbing is, “I’m willing to vote higher city taxes this fall…”

 

Why the hell would you do that, Dave?  

And then he says, “It’s kind of like how we’re funding pensions, except CalPERS and the unions never mentioned how much we’re about to lose by the state and them not paying it up front like we were told.”   He assumes we all know how the pensions are funded, and what he means by “how much we’re about to lose by the state…”  I don’t think very many people really understand how we fund the pensions. Nor do I believe the average voter/taxpayers is aware how much CalPERS has lost in the stock market through bad investments. But the part that really interests me is “them not paying it up front like we were told.”

Thanks Dave, cause this is the conversation that needs to be had. 

First of all, the pensions are funded through payments made by the public agency and supplemented with stock market investments. Unfortunately, CalPERS made big, stupid promises, saying they could fund more than 50% of the pensions through investments. They amassed a lot of assets – a high rise building in NYC? – and began building a portfolio, promising a 7% return. 

But,  CalPERS investments have never held up to their promises because they continue to make bad investments. They have been lucky to get 3%. So, their investments end up costing money.  Some of these investments have been made inappropriately.  In fact, in 2015, “a federal grand jury indicted two former top officials on fraud, conspiracy and obstruction charges.”

https://www.cnetscandal.com/2015/11/ex-calpers-official-villalobos-commits.html

A CalPERS executive and a board member were found to have been taking bribes to buy poorly performing stocks. 

“Villalobos, collected tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street firms for steering CalPERS business their way.”

“At the center of the investigation was the role of placement agents, the middlemen or intermediaries hired by private equity firms and other financial institutions to win CalPERS business. The investigation came during a rough financial stretch for CalPERS. Its investment portfolio value had plummeted nearly $100 billion, to $169 billion, during the recession.”

Guilty as hell, Villalobos committed suicide before he could be sentenced. His partner was convicted and went to prison.  Since then, CalPERS claims to have cleaned up their act, but their portfolio continues to do badly. So they hired an “assassin” – a guy who comes in and cleans up the mess.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nothing-is-sacred-for-new-calpers-pension-leader-2019-12-11

In his first week, Mr. Meng surprised staffers by introducing himself to employees from the most junior to senior level. Over the next few months, he was taken aback by how little some staffers knew about the fund’s investments, a person familiar with the matter said. Mr. Meng concluded some lacked information he thought needed to be routinely monitored.

So there’s corruption and incompetence here, not surprising. What would surprise me is to hear that some management was fired, possibly even investigated. What would surprise me even more would be CalPERS actually making money instead of pouring it down the toilet. 

Unfortunately, CalPERS corruption and incompetence only add up to half the conversation.  

Here’s the conversation that still needs to be had.  Who should pay the deficit?

Right now, the taxpayers are picking up not only the monthly payroll amounts, but the semi-annual deficit payments as well. Here’s how that pencils out – I’ll use CARD as an example.

The agency pays 14% of the cost of it’s management pensions. The employees pay 5.5 to 8% of the 14%.  It works like this:  for a $100,000/year salary,  the agency pays (100,000 x .14) $14,000/year, total. This is a management salary, management pays 8%, so that employee would pay (14,000 x .08) $1,120/year. For a pension of 70%, or $70,000/year. That base figure goes up with cost of living increases, based on the Consumer Price Index. 

The agency only pays 14%, the other 86% is the deficit. As their stock market returns continue to disappoint, CalPERS demands more money. That money has been taken from CARD’s General Fund, by way of a “Pension Stabilization Trust”. Money that would have been better spent maintaining district facilities. 

Meanwhile, CARD employees continue to receive above market salaries and pay pennies on the dollar for very generous pension packages.

CARD General Manager Ann Willmann told us at her “informational meetings” that she has personally met with CalPERS officials and “begged” them to change the employee shares. Really? She should be talking to the board, because that’s who negotiates the salaries and the shares. City of Chico pays different shares than CARD, so these contracts are obviously negotiated in house.

What can we do?  The problem we need to solve is, the public is left out of the negotiations. We have no real representation – not in Chico, where too many pensioneers are on our council and various boards. For example, of the five members of the CARD board, two are public pensioneers – Tom Lando, former city of Chico manager, and Tom Nickell, former CHP officer.

I believe these people have a conflict of interest between their own benefit and the public benefit. I think it behooves them to keep approving the salary increases, because that means the agency pays more into the pension fund.  It is obviously in their best interest to keep making the deficit or “side fund” payments, or CalPERS would have gone bankrupt by now and they would be out their nice pensions. In fact, Lando is one of the top five pensioneers in Butte County, having retired at about $134,000/year, with COLA, he’s now getting over $155,000 in annual pension payments.  I’m not sure about Nickell, but I sincerely believe Lando is pressing this tax measure not for CARD, but for CalPERS. He has put $6,000 of his own money into Measure A – you have to spend money to make money, folks.

I also think Lando has been on the CARD board long enough, and needs to step down when his term is up in November. That’s not likely.

Here’s my solution.  I am hoping some competent and honest candidates come forward for CARD board in November. I think a good candidate would  be a local business person who has experience with CARD. Somebody who doesn’t have financial gain to be made. Somebody who understands finance on a basic level. Somebody who has a long stake in the community, whether business or family. And, somebody who has the support of their family, because there are some minor inconveniences involved, like monthly meetings, “special” meetings, and excursions to various district facilities.

I don’t think that’s a complete list, and I didn’t mean to leave anybody out.  I would say, if you are interested in  filling a position like  this, the first thing you’d want to do is attend meetings. Familiarize yourself with the website, and be sure to contact staff with any questions. Read agendas and reports. Read the minutes of past meetings. Read the budgets, not just the most recent, but past budgets to compare. That’s all on the website. I can also give you information I’ve got from staff that’s not on the website, feel free to ask. 

CARD board is doable. It’s not an expensive election, the meetings are short. And, if you are interested in getting involved, CARD is a good start. THINK ABOUT IT!

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: ,

Keep rattling your chains – write letters to both papers, tell them we know where the money is going

31 Mar

Dave Howell wrote a great letter to the News and Review, taking on the pensions. Thanks for going to the trouble to write these letters Dave, I know it’s not easy to get a letter in the N&R. 

The problem is pensions

Re “Taxes and police” (Letters, by Martine Stillwell, March 14):

Martine Stillwell is justifiably outraged that our city’s politicians are pushing a tax increase to fix the roads after letting them fall into disrepair thus increasing the cost to repair them.

I wonder how much more outraged she would be if she knew that tens of thousands of our tax dollars are being paid to an opinion research firm to sell us that tax increase. And that doesn’t include the cost of the city bureaucracy’s staff time.

The reason for the awful condition of our infrastructure and the reason for this tax increase are the unsustainable cost of government employee compensation, especially pensions. For many years money for infrastructure repair has been siphoned off for raises and unsustainable pensions. Does she know our bureaucrats have pensions worth millions?

Yet instead of pension reform, our politicians believe that in a county with low wages, very high living expenses and a 21 percent poverty rate, the answer is to pass a tax increase that hits the poor the hardest.

I wonder if Martine and others will be outraged enough to vote in the next election against the tax increase and the politicians who push it and encourage others to do the same.

Dave Howell, Chico

In the same issue this letter appeared, editor Melissa Daugherty bitched about the park budget being shorted these last few years – but she didn’t mention why?  So I wrote a letter about it.

Melissa Daugherty is correct (3/28), Bidwell Park has suffered deferred maintenance since massive layoff of park staffers over the last six years. The park department was absorbed into Public Works, where director Eric Gustafson oversees not only the park, but the airport, city buildings, street trees, right of way zones, street cleaning, traffic safety, city vehicles, and the sewer plant.

Like Dave Howell said (3/28), the problem is “the unsustainable cost of government employee compensation, especially pensions.” I’ll add, management top-heavy.  Twelve  management positions overseeing the park, including Gustafson, cost over $1 million in total compensation. The park division only has five “maintenance workers”, amounting to less than $300,000 in total compensation.

While staff defers maintenance in the park and other infrastructure all over town,  they continue to pay almost $20 million a year toward their pensions, about $8 million of that toward the pension deficit. At the April 2 council meeting, staff recommends renewal of the CalPERS agreement, requiring employees to pay only 11% of the cost of their pensions, the taxpayers expected to pick up the deficit.

As long as council and staff continue to place the pensions ahead of the public, infrastructure will continue to be short changed, including Bidwell Park.

Juanita Sumner, Chico 

I got my information from publicpay.gov (GCC, secretary of state)

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/City.aspx?entityid=79&year=2017

and the city website – management contracts are available on the Human Resources page.

http://www.chico.ca.us/human_resources_and_risk_management/labor_agreements_home.asp

At the GCC website, you’ll see, the park budget also pays for several police/traffic officers, interns, and two “administrative assistants”. The city has to bring in Salt Creek inmates because they don’t have enough workers. And management is without a clue.

Eric Gustafson spends most of his time in meetings, same for “Resources Manager” Linda Herman. I’d bet my last $5 they don’t even own an appropriate pair of shoes to walk in the park. Both are clinically obese, and neither has any kind of credentials suggesting they are qualified to run a park. 

The city continues to use the park and other sagging infrastructure to press for a revenue measure – I think we need to press for some firings Downtown. Starting at the top, with Mark Orme, followed by Chris Constantin, Scott Dowell, and every department head. It’s time for a tick dip. 

Tags: , , ,

Chico recreation board says it’s better off regarding pensions – huh?

6 Jun
I was pretty shocked to read the following story in the Chico Enterprise Record.
Chico Enterprise Record posted 5/31/18
by Laura Urseny

CHICO  — The Chico Area Recreation and Park District is concerned about unfunded pensions, but its directors say it is in a better position than most public agencies.

During a 2018-19 budget discussion Wednesday, the directors of the special district talked about the future of pensions.

It has roughly $1.7 million set aside in its pension reserves, while its total pension liability – as of April – was about $2.4 million. That pension obligation changes regularly, noted CARD General Manager Ann Willmann.

Willmann told the board that $1.7 million is in reserves – but in “spendable, unassigned” cash. Nevertheless there are some options. While board members agreed they weren’t interested in touching that reserve, they did talk about the possibility of paying off fully or in part its CalPERS obligation.

That would get rid of a regular payment, along with interest charges, saving the recreation district money, Director Tom Lando noted.

Should CARD pay off part of its liability, it could lower its payments and lengthen the amortization period, Willmann noted.

Yet  Lando noted that he thought the reserve should be left is, in fear the state could change what happens with pensions – by discounting or changing liabilities – and that money would be lost to CARD.

Willmann has been involved in a number of state-level pension discussions, and regularly reports to the board on pension discussions, especially as it pertains to the financial disasters that unfunded pensions are causing public agencies and governments.

The CARD board has lamented not being able to set aside more for deferred maintenance and equipment repair, so there was a short discussion whether directors wanted to use reserve funds for that, but the board agreed with Lando not to touch it.

The public hearing on the preliminary budget is planned for 7 p.m. June 21 at the Chico Community Center, 545 Vallombrosa Ave.

 

A better position than most agencies? Well, that’s pretty subjective. Here’s what Ann Willmann told me just a year and a half ago after a presentation from their Mattson and Isom auditor:

 

AW

Ann Willmann
Reply|
Wed 12/21/2016, 8:20 AM

Tags: , ,

Chico Chamber ramps up sales tax increase campaign – And when you ask them, “How much should we give?” Ooh, they only answer “More! More! More!”

24 May

This press release below was made yesterday by the California Chamber of Commerce and forwarded by Chico Chamber of Commerce. Time to watch the county and city clerk’s office for a ballot measure. 

What this release doesn’t tell us is that Tom Lando is one of Chico’s biggest pension hogs – especially when you consider he never paid anything toward his pension. Current City Mangler Mark Orme pays less than 10%, and he’s been given a pay raise every time he’s agreed to pay a percent or two more. That’s like throwing gas on a fire – every time you raise his salary you raise his pension.

Here’s an old link – make note, at the time I ran this post, Lando was getting about $135,000, just in pension, it doesn’t include his health, vision, life insurance, etc. Look at that – $11,000/month. There are families in this town living on $19,000/year. 

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2012/01/30/heres-why-lando-wants-to-raise-your-sales-tax/

That information is from 2012 – do you realize, pensions go up every year – “cost of living adjustment” – based on a percentage of the already gross amount. So, I’ll opine – he’s getting around $150,000 a year in cash and benefits. On top of that, Lando runs a consulting firm, the city has paid him consulting fees for various tasks. 

But now Piggy wants more! Read on!

From Michelle Woods at Chico Chamber:

SACRAMENTO, CA — The California Chamber of Commerce honored business executives from Chico and Torrance today with its 2018 Small Business Advocate of the Year Award, recognizing them for outstanding advocacy on behalf of small businesses.

The CalChamber announced the awards in Sacramento before more than 200 attendees at the CalChamber Capitol Summit.

The 2018 Small Business Advocate of the Year Award recipients are:

  • Mark Francis, president and CEO, Golden Valley Bank, Chico;
  • Tom Lando, principal, Tom Lando Consulting, Chico; and
  • Michael Shafer, owner, The Depot Restaurant, Torrance.

 

Mark Francis and Tom Lando

Lando was chairman of the board of directors for the Chico Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center in 2011 and currently chairs the chamber’s Legislative Action Committee. Francis was chairman in 2015 and spearheaded the chamber’s Community Vision, which not only guides local policy decisions, but has become a sought-after model for chamber advocacy throughout the nation.

At the direction of the Chico Chamber Board in early 2017, Mark and Tom spearheaded the effort to better understand how business priorities like a safer community and improved roads are indelibly linked to changing city finances.

Together, Lando and Francis co-chaired the groundbreaking Task Force on City Revenues and Expenditures, the first of its kind in the Chico Chamber’s 110-year history, which resulted in the publication of a special report and call to action. The task force investigated the solvency of Chico’s finances—past, present and projected—and delivered a bold and forceful recommendation that the City Council consider a revenue measure to fund business priorities outlined in the Community Vision.

The City of Chico is one of 11 cities its size in California to maintain a baseline sales tax rate of 7.25%. The region is largely tax averse.

The task force worked throughout 2017 to study four key areas affecting city finances—pension, fire, police and roads—and outlined needs, expectations and costs. Lando and Francis hosted several task force meetings with city officials to gain a deep understanding of the city’s financial status and met weekly to follow statewide news on pension reform, sales tax policy, the gas tax and other impacts, always weighing local opportunities and challenges.

Task force findings were communicated to the public via the chamber’s most recent state of the city address and through a publication entitled Special Report. A call to action was made directly to the Chico City Council to consider a revenue measure to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Chico, a risky yet pivotal move by a chamber of commerce in a tax-averse region.

In nominating Francis and Lando for the CalChamber award, Katie Simmons, president and CEO of the Chico Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center, wrote: “Mark and Tom deserve to be recognized equally for their tremendous insight, influence and service to the Chico Chamber of Commerce. This pivotal community conversation would not happen without the knowledge, dedication and time Mark and Tom give to the chamber and our community. Their work is relevant across all communities in California struggling with the very same issues.”

Tags:

City consultant: “more people, more payroll, more allocations” – this is how city of Chico management siphons money from the road fund into their own wallets

1 Mar

Thursday March 8,  City of Chico finance mangler Scott Dowell will give a dog-and-pony presentation about how the city spends money. That ought to be a gas, but instead, I attended yesterday’s (2/28/18) Finance Committee meeting to hear a consultant explain the process of “cost allocation”.

Dowell is disingenuous – who does he really expect to show up on a Thursday at 10 am? Oh yeah, I’ll just ask my boss if I can come in early and take two hours off at lunch, everybody does that! 

You know, I might have had bosses who would go for that, but only once. And you wouldn’t be allowed to discuss it at the work place, that’s a pretty standard rule of getting along with fellow employees  – leave your politics in the parking lot. So, in this way, Dowell is very pointedly leaving out the working class who would have to support the sales tax increase he is going to be selling at his “workshop”.

But, when you have limited time, you use it wisely. Who wants to hear a spin from the Fox in Charge of the Henhouse, when you can listen to a visiting watch dog? That’s how I see consultant Chad Wolford, eversince 2015 when he told council they were spending too much money on “overhead” – administrative salaries and benefits.

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2017/12/21/no-kidding-our-city-is-headed-for-deep-doo-doo-2/

As the consultant describes it, cost allocation means, “central administration cost (also referred to as “overhead”) spread down to departments as operating costs.”  Just repeat that a few times, and remind yourself, “operating” means “actual work,” such as fixing the streets, or maintaining the sewer plant. 

Cost allocation is the process by which these ridiculous management salaries are cherry picked from all the departments. Makes it look legal and fair, but it’s really the same old system of moving peas under walnuts shells. Money is moved between restricted and non-restricted funds to pay for stuff that money was not originally earmarked for. 

What’s the use of restricting funds (to their original purpose, such as street maintenance) if you can just transfer them wherever you want to pay for whatever you want? This is the process by which administrators like Orme, Constantin and Dowell take grant money that was originally intended to fix streets and pad it into their wallets. 

The consultant is a nice man, he admitted to me, “this is a very complicated process.”  I replied, “No kidding!” That’s why  I had tagged him into the lobby of the building when he finished his presentation, I had to ask some additional questions. 

Well here’s something that he made pretty clear – the “changes”  (increases) in the allocations are based on staff and salary increases. “More people, more payroll, more allocations,” Wolford said. “Salaries and benefits have gone up, operating budgets are up…” 

So, I don’t think I’ll be bothered with Dowell’s dog and pony show Saturday – ‘scuse me, that’s Thursday March 8 – I already heard how the city of Chico spends it’s money. 

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries