Chico Taxpayers Association

I read Bob Mulhullond’s letter to the editor – I won’t print it here, because it was about as poorly written as the “Argument Against” Measure H that he and Karl Ory tried to submit to the ballot pamphlet in 2022. But, he made a good point – as soon as Chico City Council, knew they had Measure H, city manager Sorensen (and clerk Presson) got 5 and 7% raises.

In 2012, when I started this blog, then city manager Brian Nakamura reported a $68 million pension deficit, now it’s over $92 million. In order to get us back on our financial feet (he said… ), Nakamura not only fired a bunch of staffers, he got management to pay a share toward their own pensions, a first. That was good for us, but not enough.

After Nakamura left, Mark Orme followed, instituting the “Pension Stabilization Trust”, and the city started funneling millions out of the General and other funds to make the annual “catch-up payment”. That was bad for us. That’s when they shifted the major burden of the pension deficit from the employees to the taxpayers. At first it seemed to work – at least once I saw the pension deficit start going down.

But that was short lived, the deficit at first stalled, then started to grow more every year as they added more police positions and increased salaries across the board. Then suddenly, over 2021-22, it went UP by $28 million – given the millions they’ve been paying to CalPERS in catch-up payments, that’s shocking. Here’s why – they added at least four new management positions over the last few years, all over $100,000 in salary, with really nice packages. And now we see our pension deficit went up $28 million over that period?

So I thought I should add to Bob’s letter.

A letter mentioned recent management salary increases. Here’s what that means to the pension deficit – $92,247,723, and growing exponentially like a pack of rabbits.

Management pays the least amount toward their own pensions and benefits – 10.5% of a pension worth 70% of their highest year’s salary. The city borrows the rest from CalPERS. That’s how the pension deficit was created and continues to increase despite millions in “catch-up payments”. Catch-up payments are made annually, in addition to the regular CalPERS monthly contribution. This year’s payment is budgeted at about $18 million. It’s spit on the griddle folks – the pension deficit grew by $28,000,000 over the 2021-22 fiscal year, despite an $11,000,000 catch-up payment.

Where do they get the money to pay increased salaries and the corresponding increase in costs? From the General Fund, including Measure H monies.

When Mark Sorensen was a member of city council, consultant Chad Wolford reported that our city was “management top-heavy” – too many redundant management positions with high salaries and low contributions. Subsequent consultants have told council that their biggest problem is the increasing cost of CalPERS. Why then do they continue to create new management positions and give out raises, while telling us we need to pay a higher sales tax if we actually expect to get any services?

It’s distressing that as soon as they have a sales tax in the can they go about divvying up the pie among themselves, but that’s what we get for giving them a general tax measure.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

You probably already heard that the California Supreme Court has taken the Taxpayer Protection Act off the November ballot. This also means that the measure Mark Sorensen talked the city of Chico into spending $200,000 rewriting is unnecessary. Just another instance of money wasted by bad management.

Sorensen could have waited to see if the TPA made the ballot, and then waited to see if it passed, but he was in such a panic about losing Measure H, knowing that it was a weak, 50+1 measure that barely passed in 2020, that he talked council into paying a consulting firm (at least) $200,000 to put a new measure onto the same ballot.

Sorensen is a worm. He wormed his way from a private sector job and city council position into a public management position, and then he wormed his salary up to over $200,000 a year. Now he’s wormed himself two raises over the next two years. Knowing fully well the effect his greed is having on our financial situation.

Next time you see this man at the grocery store let him know what you think of his tax measure. He likes to shop at Raley’s.

I got a loaf of bread in the oven, so this will be short. A couple of weeks ago, Mark Sorensen plopped out his NEW AND IMPROVED! tax measure for council to rubberstamp. Here’s that agenda item with the report.

Here are some excerpts that I found particularly entertaining.

3.90.050 – TRANSACTIONS TAX RATE. For the privilege of selling tangible
personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated
territory of the City at the rate of 1% of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of
all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date
of this chapter.

Well, you can see the kind of game these desperados are playing. For the “privilege” of providing necessary goods and services to the citizens of our town? For the “privilege” of taking huge financial risks to promote the financial health and welfare of our town? The consultants who wrote this measure try to make it sound like retailers are getting away with something, as though this TAX actually only applies to the retailers and retailers just pass it along cause they’re a bunch of jerks. NO the city is taxing US and they know it. This measure is intentionally MISLEADING.

.90.070 – USE TAX RATE. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or
other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer
on and after the operative date of this chapter for storage, use or other consumption in
said territory at the rate of 1% of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall
include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless
of the place to which delivery is made.

wow – sales price includes delivery charges – yes, this tax includes “services” of all kinds, including that trip to the vet for hot spots and all the medications that go with it.

But here’s the most important part, this is one of the reasons why they have to put this measure on the ballot (so far spending about $200,000 from the General Fund to do so) –

.90.120 – NEW REVENUE USE RESTRICTION. Any new revenues generated by
the passage and collection of this transaction and use tax for general government use that
is available for unrestricted general revenue purposes.

They sold us this tax saying they would use it for public safety and infrastructure, but yes, there was a clause in the original measure that said it would go to the General Fund, meaning NO RESTRICTIONS ON SPENDING. I know a lot of the voters were hip to that , the original measure barely passed. Unfortunately this time it will run again as a General 50+1 measure. Why? Because neither Staff nor council wants to be restricted in spending the revenues. In fact, next month they will make an $18 million payment to CalPERS on the unfunded pension liability. And they’ve already given staff raises that will exacerbate the liability – including 5 and 7% raises for our city manager and city clerk over the next two years. These folks don’t pay squat toward their pensions.

.90.160 – EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUMISSION TO VOTERS. Pursuant to
California Government Code section 53724 and Revenue and Taxation Code section
7285.9, this Ordinance was duly approved for placement on the ballot by a minimum
two-thirds (2/3) supermajority of all members of the City Council. This chapter relates to
the levying and collecting of the City transactions and use taxes and shall take effect
immediately. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9217, this Ordinance shall be
deemed adopted and take effect only if approved by a majority of the eligible voters of
the City of Chico voting at the General Municipal Election of November 5, 2024. It shall
be deemed adopted when the City Council has certified the results of that election by
resolution and shall take effect ten (10) days thereafter. This Ordinance shall only take
effect if the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (“Measure _” on
the November 5, 2024, State of California General Election Ballot) is approved by a
sufficient number of voters of the State of California.

I wasn’t sure what this passage meant by “sufficient number of voters of the State of California” and I get tired of being accused of spreading misinformation, so I asked Ben Granholm, who is working to pass the Taxpayer Protection Act. He was aware of Measure H and confirmed my suspicions that the new measure will be a 50+1.

Measure H was a general tax that passed by just shy of 53%. While Measure H did list specific uses, the wide variety of uses indicates a general tax. The City feels it necessary to put the measure before voters again, due to the same confusion you are citing, as the original measure does not specifically state that it is a general tax for general government use.

Yes, you are correct – as a general tax, it requires a 50% +1 majority vote to pass.

Well, here we go again, but at least we’ve made them come forward and tell us the first measure was a blatant lie. Why couldn’t they come up with a 2/3’s measure when they know that’s what people want? Because they want to be able to spend the money as they please, like they’ve already been doing.

This is exactly why we need to pass the Taxpayer Protection Act and defeat Measure H and the new measure as well. These people will tax you at will, as they already have for years, unless you stand up on your back legs and say NO!

I hope everybody sees what a bait-and-switch City of Chico sales tax Measure H has been. City council and management promised us they’d fix our streets and do something (?) about the state of lawlessness we’ve been living in for the past 5 or 6 years. Instead we see they are using Measure H funds for questionable projects and raises for city management. To date council has already approved $275,000 toward a new sales tax measure for the November ballot. That money comes out of the General Fund, which includes Measure H revenues. Next month they have scheduled an $18 million payment to CalPERS, the annual catch-up payment for the employee pension deficit, money that has been siphoned out of the General Fund.

We’ve all known people that can’t handle money – we’re living in a city run by those kind of people. The more revenues they get, the deeper they run into debt. You realize, that without existing laws requiring some voter input, these people would just raise taxes whenever they needed more money to shovel into their debt machine. They already do – remember the sewer “rate change” passed over Christmas by a mailed ballot? They doubled sewer fees, using a mailed ballot that if it was not returned meant you voted Yes. That’s legal as hell, by rules made in legislative chambers behind our collective back.

So we need the Taxpayer Protection Act, which reinstates rules that have quietly been removed from the books by a governor and legislators who want to be able to raise your taxes to cover their champagne and French Laundry lifestyles.

The TPA was put on the ballot by petition of the voters, the legal number of signatures was gathered, and the Secretary of State approved it for the ballot. The governor and his cronies were pretty pissed about it, claiming, ” citizens are simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of taxation and should not be allowed to render such a decision.“

Are you insulted by that? Cause I’m insulted. Wouldn’t you think, if the voters are so dumb, it’s the state schools that are responsible for that, and why do we keep shoveling money at schools that turn out people too dumb to vote? To think they’d just say something like that, as if it’s completely disconnected – sounds like Matt Tennis.

These people are trying to keep us from voting on tax measures because they know we’re anything but dumb. We’ve finally been overturning tax measures over the last few elections, and now the voters have put the TPA on the ballot because we want more control over how we are taxed and what the money is spent on.

Last night Chico City Council heard an update from Mark Sorensen regarding the ballot measure they want run in November, with changes necessitated by the possible passage of the TPA. I’ll talk more about that next time.

Here’s a quick read from Attorney Jonathan Turley, (thanks Dude) discussing why the governor and legislators are trying to upend this essential right of the voters.

Dave Waddell made some pointy observations on my last post about the generous raises being considered for city manager Mark Sorensen.

“On June 30, 2024, Mark Sorensen will be making $207,000 annually. On July 1, 2025, the taxpayers will be into him for $232,565 annually (times 14 years of free service credit in CalPERS = a gazillion dollars).” That last remark is a reference to the deal Sorensen made with the city of Chico (thanks for that correction Dave) when he left the City of Biggs (East Biggs?) (why is there a difference?) and took the city manager position here. Chico residents paid for him to be gang-jumped into CalPERS, since, at his decrepit age, he would never have time to accrue 15 years of service to qualify for pension. At this point he has still not served 15 years and I’m guessing he will retire before he does.

And what a retirement – at 70% of a salary of $232,565/year, with a very generous 4.12% COLA, Sorensen will be part of the One Percent. And Chico’s pension deficit-unfunded liability will continue skyward like TWA 800.

Which is what is important here – the effect these endless and unwarranted pay raises have on the city’s pension deficit and overall debt. And here’s what pisses me off – Sorensen, a former city council member, even mayor, knows fully well how the pension deficit works. As far as I’m concerned, his full knowledge of the fact that he is enriching himself at the cost of our city’s financial welfare makes him corrupt and unfit for public service. But that’s just me, old lady at large.

While we can’t vote Sorensen out of office anymore, or send him out of town in a hail of rotten tomatoes, we can pass the Taxpayer Protection Act and we can refuse the new tax measure he’s talked council into putting on the November ballot. Here’s a recap – because the TPA would require local tax measures to have 2/3’s voter approval, retroactive to 2020, if passed, it will overturn City of Chico one cent sales tax Measure H. Sorensen, whether or not he really believes TPA will pass, has convinced council to spend – to date – $275,000 on a new, updated Measure (?) for November. This new Measure (?) will supposedly be written to conform to the TPA.

Here’s the good news – that would mean, the new measure would either need to include specific uses or it would require 2/3’s voter approval. Council will discuss all of this at tomorrow’s meeting, the report is in the agenda, I’ll try to post more tomorrow.

Handing these people more money has only emboldened their ludicrous spending habit. It’s time to cut up their credit cards, and that starts with defeating both of their tax measures in November and passing the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Above is the link to the agenda, here are links to the reports regarding each salary increase.

Debbie Presson’s salary will be increased to $198,000/year.

https://chico-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=812&meta_id=91595

Sorensen already makes over $211,000,year, he also gets 7 and 5% raises over the next year.

https://chico-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=812&meta_id=91599

They’re also asking for another $175,000 to pay costs for putting their new sales tax measure on the ballot. Council has already approved $100,000.

Coming home from Winco the other day, my husband and I were almost hit on Vallonbrosa by a Ford F350 swerving to avoid a gi-normous pothole. This letter popped right into my head.

I saw the signs at Humboldt and Stilson Canyon Roads – newly surfaced and paved with Measure H money. How many city dwellers do these roads serve?

Meanwhile, the street in front of my house, in an old well-populated neighborhood annexed over 20 years ago, is not only crumbling, but long stretches have no sidewalks or drains. Thirty years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, pedestrians are forced into the street, to compete with cars and bikes – all dodging the enormous puddles and serial potholes created by years of no maintenance. Every time I ride my old bike around the hood I watch drivers swerving into oncoming traffic to miss various road hazards.

Driving over to patronize various South Chico businesses,, I see the traffic is backing up as expected around the Bruce Road corridor, adding almost an hour to the trip, eating my gas as I sit, polluting the hot summer air. A sign on Springfield Avenue boasts that widening is being done with Measure H money, even though it’s obviously necessitated by new development. They’re asking for state grants to widen Hwy 32 for the Fogarty subdivision. Why aren’t developer fees paying for those projects?

One last question – how do I get on the list for some Measure H funds on my street? The street I pay taxes on needs complete resurfacing, not just slop-job pothole patches. I’m still waiting to see the benefits of that garbage tax they foisted on us 10 years ago.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Today (5/21/24) the city is having a special 1pm council meeting – one topic they will undoubtedly discuss is the $30 million+ drop in revenues compared to this time a year ago.

From KRCR News: “Sales tax revenues citywide are down eight percent, but for the Downtown North area, between First and Fifth streets, sales tax revenue is up 2.3 percent.”

Wow, THIRTY MILLION. Even with their one-cent sales tax, not to mention hundreds of millions in Camp Fire and COVID disaster relief money. They pissed that money away like a bunch of drunks with their dad’s credit card. Sometimes Sean Morgan even reminds me of Ed Helm.

You remember where that money went – yep, stuff like a skating rink, parklets for bars, plans for Downtown remodels – it’s just been a hayride for consultants these past five or six years. And the city claims sales tax revenues have actually been up for the Downtown sector. Wow, 2.3% – they’re bragging about that while the rest of town is down 8%?

Tom Van Overbeek, speaking on the local news, seemed to think it’s okay that while the rest of town is down, Downtown is on the up. He doesn’t mention how much money has been poured into that tiny grid, how many empty storefronts there are, and how many businesses are complaining about changes the city has made. City Plaza is (again) full of tents and trash, the streets are about to be torn out to accommodate a new sewer system, and more businesses are leaving. This man is in total denial.

“The recession has not materialized, people’s sense of anxiety about that has gone down They’re going out and buying drinks and going shopping,” said Chico council member Tom Van Overbeek. “There’ve been a number of initiatives to make the downtown cleaner, safer, and more interesting. We put up historical signs, we have police patrols now; Downtown Chico Business Association (DCBA) has been active in getting people downtown.”

But could Downtown pay for itself? Starting with a complete rehaul of the sewer system and then a new “streets plan”? Is Van Overbeek telling us Downtown generates enough sales tax to pay for that stuff? On restaurants, bars, and expensive crap shops?

Meanwhile, in the rest of town, I hear the usual complaints – mostly about the condition of the streets. Sure, potholes and fissures are bad for your tires and your car in general. They’re dangerous because people drive crazy to avoid them. Cycling around town also presents a lot of dangers that are not overcome by a white stripe painted along the side of the road. While the city is planning to spend millions on bike lanes Downtown, they seem to forget that people live elsewhere in town, on streets that are not conducive to cycling. I know a lot of people, like myself, that walk, drive, and cycle, and we’re not happy with the condition of the streets. That’s bad for business – it’s a lot easier to shop online, and plenty of nearby towns with nicer retail areas.

That brings us to the issue of pedestrian safety. In fact, the ADA, which requires sidewalks and street crossings suitable for people in wheelchairs, was passed in 1990 – 34 years ago. There are commercial and residential areas all over Chico that have no sidewalks, seriously damaged sidewalks, and damaged street crossings. Especially shocking to me are the TRIP HAZARDS, in the form of broken curbs, sink holes in the middle of crossings, and overgrown, unmaintained city street trees with roots that have lifted whole sections of sidewalks and streets.

Meanwhile, Downtown sidewalks have been redone twice in my recent memory, including the bulbing of the corners and the Studebaker strips.

Another huge problem all over town is lack of drainage – I’ve driven around town and seen entire blocks of both commercial and residential streets with not one drain. In my neighborhood that amounts to puddles the size of ponds that sit and stink for a week after a rainstorm. This forces pedestrians and bikes out in the street – thank you City of Chico. It also causes flooding and damage in yards. The people across the street from me all pay for flood insurance because the city has never placed drains along our street except in front of new subdivisions. When we were annexed over 20 years ago we were promised we’d get the full menu of city services, but all we’ve had so far are sewer hook-ups and the resulting shoddy patch jobs – future potholes.

So yeah, I’m angry about the work done on Humboldt and Stilson Canyon Road, and I’m wondering how many other questionable projects have been funded with Measure H while my neighborhood street – Old Chico! – voided the warranty on my new tire! “Excessive Road Hazard”!

I know others out there are similarly disgruntled, I hope they’ll write letters to the paper, I plan to.

I got a comment here about road work done with Measure H money – in Stilson canyon? Sure enough, when my husband and I checked it out, we saw that the city had not only resurfaced Humboldt Road but Stilson Canyon Road.

Stilson Canyon is a neighborhood of luxury homes in Chico California offering an assortment of beautiful styles, varying sizes and affordable prices to choose from. Stilson Canyon single-family homes for sale range in square footage from around 2,000 square feet to over 6,600 square feet and in price from approximately $479,000 to $2,349,000.

According to the city map, some of this neighborhood is in the city of Chico, but this sign shows that most of them live in the county.

You can see from this point, there is nothing, no housing, along that section of newly paved road. There are no city residents on Humboldt Road either. Who was served by this project – paid for with Measure H funding? This type of project should be funded with property taxes, and these people all pay property taxes to the county. Why are Measure H funds being used? Well, some very influential people live in this neighborhood, is about all I can figure.

A few weeks ago I got a cranky comment from “Susan” regarding the sales tax measure Butte County Supervisors are considering putting on the ballot in November. I’d expected it – just a few months ago, media shills were using the same old “county cutting library hours” bullshit to drum up support for a possible county parcel tax. I knew they’d switch to a sales tax – a general sales tax only needs 50%+1 to pass. Can you smell the chicken shit?

This past weekend, the news outlets picked up the story – again, showing pictures of Butte County library.

The library isn’t the problem – why don’t the news shills ask the real questions? How much is Butte County’s pension deficit? When did they pass that illegal pension bond? Bill Connelly told me it was back in the early 2000’s, and it was passed without voter approval, which is illegal. How has that worked out? Apparently it was implemented in 2004, but the county pension deficit continues to grow in leaps and bounds. Look how much the county is laying out both in regular and “catch-up” payments from their illegal pension obligation bond.

https://www.buttecounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/1551/Pension-Obligation-Bond-Payment-Strategy-Summary-PDF

According to this report

Cal PERS is short about $465 BILLION. How much of that is Butte County’s unfunded liability? As you can see on page 78 of the report, despite the pension obligation bond and the millions Butte County has paid into the deficit year after year, the county’s liability has grown over $30 million since 2018.

Here’s a question your news reporters should be asking – how much are we paying these people to run our apple cart off the road?

Andy “Maximo” Picket, County Chief Admin Officer – as of 2022, he was making a “regular” salary of $242,255.00. Add “extra pay” for a salary of over $257,000/year. Add the benefits package of $67,751.00 for a grand total of $324,543.00.

The board of supes can raise their salaries on a vote, giving themselves about $1,000 raise every year. In 2020, they lowered their salaries about $2,000, but as of 2022 the salary was back to about $62,000/year, same as 2021, and growing again. You would probably be more surprised at the generous benefits packages that they are allowed to choose for themselves. Like City Council members, they pay a small percentage of their salary toward their benefits packages, which currently range from about $18,000/year to about $33,000/year per member. They also get “other pay” – you can ask them about that, I won’t speculate. Connelly somehow wrangled his total salary to over $75,000, add his benefits package for total compensation of over $95,000. Teeter managed to get himself over $100,000.

Which means, given the few thousand dollars a year they pay toward their benefits, they each have personal pension deficits that are part of the county’s total unfunded liability.

Holy shit, no wonder they can’t keep the library open.