Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Sewer fund in trouble because of developer fee deferrals, transfers to salaries/benefits/pensions – Constantin says we have to raise fees now to avoid big fee increase in future?

3 Dec

Chico Assistant City Manager Chris Constantin assured a group of $taff, council members, and a few members of the public that our sewer treatment plant is in great shape – in the same breath he mentioned a sewage spill at Chico airport. What?  

Constantin was walking a fine line at yesterday’s Finance Committee meeting, trying to assure us that there was no imminent danger, but we better make a plan anyway, so we don’t have any more situations like the above (very quickly mentioned) spill. Not only do we need to maintain our sewer plant, but we need to plan for future hook-ups. He says 20 percent of incorporated Chico is not on sewer, and we need to plan to accommodate those households. I don’t know whether he expects people to hook up voluntarily, or if he is urging some sort of mandate, but he does not seem to think our gazillion dollar poopy ponds will be able to handle it.

He says we need some sort of regular fee increase schedule to avoid big increases in future. 

Yeah, I know – he says this was a concern before we even discussed hooking Paradise to our system. But the council went ahead and told Paradise to “look into it.”  “Look into it” meaning tens of thousands in consulting fees, but whatever, it’s not their money.

Constantin mentioned “nitrates”, as if that is the main concern in getting people to hook up to Chico sewer.

My mom gave me these. She used to go to a lot of these meeting too.

My mom gave me these. She used to go to a lot of these meetings too.

Constantin’s daddy must have been a glass maker, cause I can see right through that guy. It is NOT about the nitrates. That’s the excuse they used to get that grant to run all those lines into certain neighborhoods in town, higher density neighborhoods where they SPECULATE nitrates would be high. They have no proof, no report, nothing that says nitrates are polluting our drinking water. They do have plenty of paperwork involving the old dry cleaning establishments and gas stations around town, but those lawsuits ended up in the turnip patch.

Again people, it’s the Pension Deficit.

I have a stack of financial reports next to me – I’m not an accountant, these spread sheets look like something you’d find in the bathroom after a KISS! concert. I’ll tell you one thing I know – parentheses around numbers mean “shortfall”, “deficit”, – FUND EMPTY and still being used. There are parentheses all over our budget reports, enclosing figures in the hundred thousands and even millions. Millions of dollar of deficit in these funds, and where did it go?

You got to follow those walnut shells People, you’re getting kinda slack. $taff has learned to spin the wheel on us, move money from one pile to another so fast we can’t keep track. In fact, I think council can barely hold on themselves.

Yes, we’re in trouble. Chico is going to become a very expensive town to live in – I know, that’s already happened with the price of homes, which carries up the price of everything else with it. We need to start thinking, not only about all the tax campaigns that are rolling at us, but who we will support for council in 2016. We’ve got a mess on that dais. We have four spend-thrift “fiscal conservatives“, and then we have three liberals who don’t seem to have a clue either. They all spend other people’s money like it grows on trees.

Sheesh! 

The other thing we need to think about is, do we want to go all the way and make Chico Taxpayers a PAC? Right now it’s a registered  website, a discussion  site, but we can go all the way and  register it a PAC – that is what we need to get any respect out of the county recorder so she’ll give us the registered  voters’ list. She says only PAC’s can have the list, that’s her rule. This whole thing is pretty stacked against “grass roots” involvement. If we want to make an impact in 2016, we might want to think about it.

 

 

 

 

Cal Water being generous with ratepayers’ money

29 Nov

From today’s Enterprise Record:

Water provider brings blessings to families

On behalf of the families who are living and changing their lives at our Esplanade House Program, the Community Action Agency would like to express its appreciation to California Water Service for its generous donation of $3,000. Because of their commitment to community, our families get the opportunity to receive holiday food baskets.

Many of our families have been separated from their extended families during the holiday season. The joy brought by simply providing a holiday meal is immense. Our families are amazing as they work to overcome poverty, addiction and mental health issues while increasing their self- sufficiency and bonding with their children.

Thanks again to Cal Water for blessing our families over the holidays.

— Thomas Tenorio, Chico

Tom Tenorio is with Esplanade House. As much as I feel we need Esplanade House, I have not liked the management for a long time. I think they squander money on salaries that could get more families in, but that’s difficult to assess since they don’t post their salaries and they get very defensive when you ask.

I’ve seen Tenorio at meetings. At the Local Governments Committee meeting he made a little speech that didn’t say anything, just made the meeting longer, about what a great community we live in.

Does he have any idea what he’s talking about? Does he realize, that $3,000 came out of our bills? Does he pay his own water bill? Does he have any idea what the Esplanade House pays for water?  Does he think for 30 seconds what water rates are doing to families right now? The utility companies are impoverishing whole communities to pay pensions for people who make salaries in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Having met Tenorio on various occasions, I’d say, he’s carrying a bowl of jello between his ears.  He’s another one of those snout-nosed trough dwellers who gets a salary for “caring” about the poor, but doesn’t have any concern for the people who pay for all this generosity until they end up on the street. 

28 Nov
Here's a good tip for a Winter cold - throw some lemon sections in a cup, add a teaspoon of honey and some hot water.

Here’s a good tip for a Winter cold – throw some lemon sections in a cup, add a teaspoon of honey and some hot water.

 I am stuck inside with a cold today so thought I might go over this “Fair Healthcare Pricing Act of 2016.” 

http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0101%20%28Affordable%20Healthcare%29.pdf

I’m not a lawyer, but this is mostly plain English. A little repetitive – gotta cover all the bases. I see a limit of 25 percent profit over “costs” and a demand for refunds to patients who are found to pay more than 25 percent over “costs”. The operative word here being, “costs.”  We have to trust the hospital to tell us the true cost of their services?

What I like about this bill is “Public Availability of Charge Setting Methodology.” 

“Public Availability of Charge Setting Methodology. (a) Within 210 days of the end of a hospital’s fiscal year ending on or after January 1, 2018, a hospital shall report the following information to the department: (1) Total patient care expenses; (2) Total private payer patient care expenses: (3) Actual qualifying losses: (4) Qualifying expenses: (5) Reasonable and allowable costs in each of the categories set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 1339.616; (6) Qualifying reimbursements; (7) Revenues received in each of the categories reflected n paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (l) of Section 1339.616; (8) Total charges; and (9) Any refund made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1339.611. (b) The department shall make the information provided pursuant to subdivision (a) available to the public upon request.”

Now we already have the Patient’s Bill of Rights, which is supposed to be posted in plain sight of any patient who is brought into the hospital. It says, among other things, you can ask what the services are going to cost you – their price – and they have to tell you. That’s how I found out a room at Enloe was about $7,500/day when my husband was sick. I wondered, at what they pay nurses these days, how they could justify that.

 

I found out, prices are already available on the State of California website:

http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/Chargemaster/default.aspx

The Chargemaster is a list of services and prices charged at a hospital. Just type in “Enloe” and you will find information dating back to 2005. Don’t be intimidated – I was confused as to the descriptions given the various services. I just had to look until I saw something I understood. “Boarder” or “Room” obviously refers to a room charge, with different charges for different levels of care.  A “CCU” or “Critical Care Unit” – is listed at $12,883. That’s per day. And that does not include a lot of stuff – read on – some of these charges are per minute.

I did see an item I recognized – a special kind of baby bottle called a Haberman Feeder. The nipple is made to mimic the function of the human nipple, and is supposed to be easier for new babies, particularly those born with any kind of mouth issues or general weakness, to get their nourishment. They also claim to keep babies from swallowing too much air and suffering colic.  I found these bottles on line, priced between $27 and $36. Playtex has similar bottles and sells “starter kits” with five bottles each for about $22.

The hospital charges $66 for one Haberman Feeder.  That’s almost 100 percent mark-up – more if you get the sale price, or say, buy them by gross, like Enloe does. And why not Playtex? Playtex has been making these specialty bottles since before I was born, and offers all kinds of choices ranging in price. Why the spendier bottle, and why nearly 100 percent mark-up? 

This is why we need some legislation to control the prices hospitals are charging. I’ll have to finish reading the whole measure, but so far I like what I’m seeing. 

 

 

 

City of Chico discusses filing for ‘Party’ status in Cal Water rate increase case; let’s encourage them to go all the way and file for ‘Intervenor’ status

25 Nov

The agenda for next week’s city council meeting (Dec. 1) includes a proposal for the city to file for “Party Status” in the rate increase case filed by Cal Water last July.  Here is an excerpt from the report:

California Water Service Company (Application No. 15-07-015) California Water Service Company (“Cal Water”) filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission to increase rates and consolidate the Chico district into a proposed “Northern Region.” This memorandum seeks City Council authority to become a party in the pending application.

Cal Water provides water service to the City and its residents. Cal Water is requesting water rate increases for years 2017, 2018 and 2019. The proposed increases are 19.1%, 1.6%, and 2.8% respectively.

The proposed rate increases would impose a significant burden on the City, as a customer of Cal Water. The rate increases would also impose an undue hardship on City residents. As a Cal Water customer and on behalf of its residents residing in the Chico district, the City has an interest in minimizing the proposed rate increases.

In addition, Cal Water is seeking to consolidate its Chico, Oroville, Marysville and Willows districts as the proposed “Northern Region.” The proposed consolidation affects City and its residents because the City is one of the districts to be consolidated. If consolidation is granted, Cal Water requests rate increases of 20.3%, 1.7% and 2.4% for years 2017,2018 and 2019 respectively, for the combined Chico and Oroville districts within the Northern Region. lf consolidation is granted, the City, as well as Oroville residents, will shoulder an even higher burden than that which is requested in Cal Water’s general rate increase.

Although Butte County has joined as a party, the City’s specific interests are not adequately represented. The City’s participation will be relevant and beneficial to the proceeding.

CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council direct staff to file a Motion of City of Chico to Become a Party

“Party Status,” unfortunately, just means the city, along with the county, are on the notice list of events in the eventual raising of our rates. In order to make a formal protest, they must file as “Intervenors,” but I can’t seem to convince them of that.

Please write to council and the supervisors and ask them to take that further step. Be nice – you get more flies with honey than vinegar. 

Chico City council can be reached by way of the clerk’s website – 

http://www.chico.ca.us/city_council/home_page.asp

Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk was the first one to respond to my request, she went through a really onerous and ridiculous filing system to get on the Party List right away. Then she asked the board to do so.  She even went to a Chico city council meeting and sat there waiting through a long agenda to make a case for the city to do something.  I sat at home in my snuggies that night, yelling “Go Maureen! Yeeeee-haw!” into my computer screen.  

The CPUC rep that contacted Supervisor Kirk even admitted it would be good to have a lawyer’s assistance in filing the paperwork. I don’t even know if an individual can file for Intervenor status, that’s really a job for the entire board of supervisors. 

Reach them here: 

http://www.buttecounty.net/boardofsupervisors/Home.aspx

Consultant report: if we stopped subsidizing new development, we could get a whole ‘nother cop!

14 Nov

Next Wednesday the city has scheduled two concurrent meetings – a Finance Committee workshop starting at 8:30 am and an Internal Affairs Commission meeting starting at 9am.

http://www.ci.chico.ca.us/document_library/minutes_agendas/finance_committee/11-18-15FinanceCommitteeAgendaPacket.pdf

http://www.ci.chico.ca.us/document_library/minutes_agendas/internal_affairs_committee/11-18-15IACAgendaPacket.pdf

You might recall councilwoman Tami Ritter changed the time of the IA meeting from 8am to 9am because she can’t get her big ass out of bed, through the shower and coffee shop drive-thru before 8:45 am. 

Both of these meetings hold items of interest to me. I question their scheduling these meetings concurrently but where’s that going to get me?  At the Finance Committee workshop they will discuss how developers have been getting away without paying fees for years, putting the Development Fund as much as  $9 million in the red for years. I had to print that figure in red, I mean, $9 million dollar deficit? How does that happen? 

Well, it happens when you don’t collect the fees, but you continue to pay city employees to do work for developers. There’s a whole department full of salaries up in that building devoted to for-profit developers. 

This problem was highlighted about 10 years ago when Cal Trans threatened a lawsuit against the city for not “dedicating” funds for widening of Hwy’s 99 and 32 while they permitted subdivisions all over town that were obviously going to strain our roadways. Tom Lando, then city manager, argued that the state should  pay for the widening, but Cal Trans showed without effort that the strain was coming from five specific subdivisions the city had approved, including Meriam Park – “a city within a city…”

I sat in a meeting where former city employees told us  these “planned communities,” like Westside Green over on Nord, were going to take the quality of life in our town on a one way ride. At that time most of our major roads had an ‘A’ or ‘B’ rating for travelability,   $taff said they were moving quickly toward ‘C’ and would never return. 

Ultimately Chico was ordered to dedicate funds, but in a conversation I had with Mark Sorensen about a year ago, he said the city had never collected the funds from any of the developers named in the suit. It looks like they still haven’t. Read the report I cut-and-paste from the agenda:

Specific Fee Category Results.   The analysis revealed that 70% (412 I 590) of the current fees for New Construction (a count of plan check and inspection fees combined) are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining fees (30 %) are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. In other words, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), some of the current fees would increase, and others would be reduced.

Read on – “new construction” means new homes and commercial buildings – 70 % of building activity going without paying fees!  “The remaining fees” are homeowners doing remodels, etc to their existing homes – we’ve been paying fees “set equal to or higher than full cost…”  It says there, “some of the current fees would increase, and others would be reduced.”  

Well, let me add a suggestion – they ought to have to give us our fucking money back, homeowners have been ripped off to pay for the big boys.

Read on:

Overall, since the annual volume of new construction permit activity applies more heavily to those fees that are currently under-charged (subsidized), the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue in New Construction fees of approximately $ 260,000. A pattern of over- and under-charging for individual fees is very common for building studies. Wohlford Consulting normally finds that New Construction fees under-recover the cost of services for smaller project sizes and over-recover for larger project sizesparticularly at the extremes of the range. The existence of an overall deficit or surplus in New Construction fees depends on the mix of projects among sizes, but it most commonly results in an overall deficit or potential increase in revenues if fees are set at full cost for all project types and sizes. This latter result is evident in the Chico Building analysis. The results for the Miscellaneous Commercial fee category also show a mix of subsidized and surplus fees, but the overall revenue result is different. Although a large majority of fees by tally (71% or 132/185) are currently under-charged and subsidized, enough volume of activity occurs in the over-charged fees that the net result is an annual surplus of $48,000 and a cost-recovery rate of 114%. In particular, overcharges in the group of fees for small remodels or renovations (Fees# 12-17 in the Building results) offset all of the subsidized fees in the Miscellaneous Commercial fee category. In other words, the fees for small remodels and renovations are partially funding a variety of other fee services. As a result, if the City sets fees at 100% of full cost in this category, some fees would increase and others would decrease, but the net revenue would decrease by approximately $48,000 per year. A slight majority (53% or 45/85) of fees in the Miscellaneous Residential fee categories are currently set at or above full cost. The annual fee activity volumes for those categories result in a net surplus of $ 44,000 and a cost-recovery rate of 131% when compared to full-cost-recovery fee levels. Even though two of the three general Building fee categories present a revenue surplus, the funding deficit in New Construction is large enough that the net effect of all of the categories combined (New Construction, Miscellaneous Commercial, and Miscellaneous Residential) is an overall subsidy of $169,000. This subsidy also represents a potential annual revenue increase of $169,000 if the City sets fees at the full-cost-recovery levels. 

And let me remind you, Franklin Paving, one of the “big boys”, was probably the biggest single contributor to Mark Sorensen’s recent campaign. Look at the reports for Mike Maloney’s PAC, I ain’t got time to school you again on that.

Meanwhile, in the room next door, the Internal Affairs committee will be discussing an ordinance written almost specifically for the protection of our adorable City Clerk, Badge Bunny, and Best Pinner Ever!, Debbie Presson – a new Code of Conduct Policy that does not allow council members to go to the public with their concerns about staff. 

So there you are, I know you can’t make it. I’ll keep you posted.

Why CARD isn’t going to fix Shapiro Pool

11 Nov

Two weeks ago CARD had a “public meeting” to start discussion on their proposed aquatic center. They didn’t notice the meeting ahead, so only about 25 people showed up. They were given a short presentation by a couple of consultants and then asked to break into groups and write down their own wants for such a project. They were encouraged to dream big – water slides, 50 foot competitive pool, therapy pool – you name it!

I had attended the committee meeting earlier that day, and had a different kind of report from the consultants. At the committee meeting they made it clear the public would have to agree to a tax, not only to build this thing, but to maintain it in perpetuity. The consultants both made it clear this facility would be used by a very small portion of the public but would have to be supported by every home owner, renter, business owner and citizen of Butte County.

Consultant Lauren Livingston made it clear – if you  try to charge “users” based on the true cost of this thing, they couldn’t pay. But make it too cheap, and everybody would want to use it, and then it would be too small. “These things are not the cash cow people believe they are…” she said.

David Little, who did not attend the committee meeting, wrote an editorial blaming the consultants for pitching this big dream. I wasn’t at the public meeting, I don’t know what went on there. But at the committee meeting, both of those consultants told the committee they needed to plan something the community would use and could afford. But, committee members, especially Haley Cope and Jackie Santos, kept demanding all the bells and whistles. Cope was really insulting, saying in so many words the community doesn’t know anything and shouldn’t be taken very seriously in the decision making process.  She reminded us she was an Olympic medalist, but I don’t know what kind of grasp she has on the constitution.

Cope kept saying this thing would drag in people for “therapy”. The consultant told them no, there are already therapy pools in town, including a new pool at Enloe. And, he added, insurance companies won’t pay for therapy unless it’s done in a “dedicated therapy pool,” meaning they’d have to build a separate facility up to medical code.

Tom Lando, champing at the bit, declared such a facility would bring in hundreds and hundreds of people from our surrounding areas.  Redding has a pool. Durham has a pool. Willows has a pool. Exactly who does he think is going to drive to Chico to pay a membership at our aquatic center?

The entire time, the consultants kept shooting them down, telling them these facilities never pay for themselves, and they’d have to get some sort of commitment out of the taxpayers before they made any real plans. Certain committee members just wouldn’t understand – they want to bait the public with flashy drawings, without telling them about the cost. They kept demanding that the consultant come up with some sort of plans to show the public, and he kept telling them that’s not what he was hired for.  He was hired to find out what kind of center the public is willing to pay for, and like Little also noted – that’s not coming into the public conversation.

So, reading Little’s editorial, I had to write the following letter:

I attended an Aquatic Facility Advisory Committee meeting held before the public meeting October 28 to hear their consultant’s suggestions. 

 

Dennis Berkshire of Aquatic Design Group and Lauren Livingston of The Sports Management Group made it clear that CARD will need to put a tax measure on the ballot to fund the kind of project AFAC is encouraging. “You can find a bazillion partners who want to use it,” said Livingston, “but none of them bring anything of value.”  Berkshire added we could expect, at best,  “40 – 45 percent annual operating cost recovery” from user fees, the rest would have to be “subsidized” by the taxpayers.  

The cheapest plan I have seen presented so far is $10 million, and the rainbow visions go as high as $28 million.  

 

Former CARD director and board member Ed Seagle reminded the committee that in 2012 they ran a survey which indicated the public is not willing to be taxed for this project. Since 2012 CARD has spent almost $100,000 on out-of-town consultants, trying to convince the public to pay for an aquatic center which might be used by a projected 15 percent of our population. 

 

Meanwhile, a local consultant recently reported we can remodel Shapiro Pool for about $550,000. 

Yes, we could have Shapiro better than it was before, for less than $600,000. But we have to remind ourselves what this is really about – it’s about the pension liability CARD has piled up – over $1.7 million –  and how they will pay it.

Council to discuss taking over parts of the local groundwater basin – Nov 17, 6:30 pm, council chambers

7 Nov

The city of Chico is making plans to take over sections of our groundwater basin.  While  I might like more control  over our water supply, I have to question people who place a 2 x 4 inch notice of a very important public discussion on  page B6 of the daily paper. Plus, this doesn’t give me more control, it gives the city of Chico more control, and that’s always cause for concern.

At a regular council meeting in city chambers at 6:30pm on November 17, council and staff will discuss “whether the city should elect to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency under the Sustainable Water Management Act for the portions of the Vina and West Butte groundwater basins within the boundaries of the Chico City limits.” 

But no explanation as to what that means. I found more here:

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/gsa.cfm

I see the words “joint power authority” – that means, this “agency” will be able to raise taxes with the same kind of “special” election the Butte County Mosquito District used to put a bond on  your house – an election of “stakeholders” where people who own more property get “more weighted” votes.

I assume this agency will make the city the recipient of more state and federal grants for salaries and pensions, as well.

I don’t know if I’ll be able to attend this meeting, since it’s not safe to  be out on a bicycle after dark in  Chico anymore.  I hope to hear from some of you.

Noise ordinance causes conflict of tenant rights

20 Oct

Chico Mayor Mark Sorensen agendized a discussion of the noise ordinance at tonight’s council meeting – they want to hold landlords responsible, without a written complaint, and expect to be able to use mail as “proof of service.” 

This is an obvious revenue grab by the cops. When I saw an article about a similar situation in Yuba County, I sent Mayor Sorensen a note – it took me less than 15 minutes to write, send, and post this note on this blog:

Mayor Sorensen,

Regarding the discussion of the noise ordinance provision to fine landlords – please read Yuba County Superior Court judge’s decision below regarding fines on landlord for tenant’s illegal activities.  “Property owners have argued the county’s actions violates their property rights and places them in direct conflict with state law that protects tenant’s rights. They have claimed county code provides for exceptions to the owners responsibility and that is being ignored by the BOS. In his order, Barrier concurred saying there are exceptions to an owners responsibility if the owner did not cause, permit, or otherwise allow the existence of the violation and cannot legally abate said violation…” 

 

 I believe this rings true of noise violations as well. I don’t know what our county or city code says about tenant’s rights but I don’t think it matters in the face of state law.

Holding landlords liable for tenant’s  illegal activities causes a conflict of tenant’s rights.  I am limited in my rights to regulate my tenants’ behavior and can be held legally liable for anything resembling harassment. I have a tenant’s/landlord’s rights attorney – what’s Vince’s specialty? 

Notice of landlords by mail is unacceptable. That’s not “proof”, and USPS turnaround is not adequate to avoid the second offense.  You will have to make an ordinance that says rentals  must be registered with contact information provided. Good luck with that. 

It is very obvious this is just a revenue grab by Chico PD. Please tell them they need to pay their own pensions, or go get a job in the private sector.

Thanks for your ear, Juanita Sumner

From Territorial Dispatch, http://territorialdispatch.biz/2015/oct/Oct14-2015WEB.pdf

The Cost of Justice in Yuba County – Judge Overturns Fine on Property Owners –  By Elden Fowler 

Yuba County Superior Court Judge Stephen W. Barrier has ruled in a lawsuit filed by Jon and Amy Messick against Yuba County and the decision does not bode well for the Board of Supervisors’ (BOS) plan to fund code enforcement by levying fines against property owners where marijuana is being cultivated by renters. The Messicks own a property where a tenant illegally cultivated marijuana. The County claimed administrative costs, abatement costs, and penalties in the amount of $18,774.51. Subsequent to an administrative hearing before the Yuba County Board of Supervisors (BOS), for which property owners are now required to pay $4,118, a lien was placed on their property in the amount of $15,974. While it now costs $4,118 to have an administrative hearing or appeal before the BOS, it also is expensive to proceed to have the matter settled in the courts. The costs associated with the Messick’s legal challenge were approximately $7,500, for a total in excess of $11,600 by today’s standard. If the county decides to appeal, those costs will undoubtedly climb higher. The administrative hearing process is similar to being in court for a trial. However, an administrative hearing involves disputes under the authority of governmental agencies. The courts have held that the hearings must be fair and administrative decision makers must be impartial. It is difficult to believe the decision makers, the BOS, are impartial when it is they that wrote the law that is being challenged, It was estimated the county would need more than $700,000 to fund an enhanced Code Enforcement Department with several new officers being hired. The BOS was counting on marijuana cultivation permit fees, fines, and penalty assessments to provide the funding. Collecting fees from landlords made good sense to this BOS. Barrier’s decision apparently places that program in question. Property owners have argued the county’s actions violates their property rights and places them in direct conflict with state law that protects tenant’s rights. They have claimed county code provides for exceptions to the owners responsibility and that is being ignored by the BOS. In his order, Barrier concurred saying there are exceptions to an owners responsibility “if the owner did not cause, permit, or otherwise allow the existence of the violation and cannot legally abate said violation…” With a host of assessments already approved by the BOS and more being prepared, this will undoubtedly not be the last case to go to court leaving the county with little choice but to change tactics or appeal the decisions in hopes of a more favourable ruling. In the meantime, property owners, without the financial resources to defend themselves against a county that holds them responsible for the actions of their tenants, face continued code enforcement actions and liens. 

March, 2013 – Cal Water requested 38% rate hike, most of it for pensions and benefits

9 Oct

Here is a post from March of 2013 that everybody should read again.

Juanita Sumner's avatarworldofjuanita

I got my water bill today,  and you probably got the same notice – they are applying for that “30 – 40” percent rate hike they warned us about last year.  To be exact, 38 percent.

Yep, your bill will go up by more than a third, you can do the math. This may not mean much to people who spend the majority of their time at work/school/car,  live indoors, using their home as a storage unit, a place to flush, shower and shave.  But if you like to enjoy your yard, particularly if you like to garden, get ready for a kick in the pants. Not only the lush lawns but vegetable gardens and small orchards may become a thing of the past as soon as the cost of water eliminates the economy of home grown food.

Last year I had seen this coming. You may remember, I killed…

View original post 934 more words

CARD pension liability as of June 30, 2014 – $1,700,721

9 Oct

Yes, that’s one million, seven hundred thousand, seven hundred and twenty-one dollars. That is the difference between what CARD owes it’s retirees, and what they have saved to pay them. In other words, CARD is $1,700,721 in the red.  For an average of 30 full-time employees, whose salaries continue to climb and who continue to pay nothing toward the fund they expect to dip into.

I got that information from CARD’s new Business Manager, who hired on at over $100,000/year plus a $30,000 package.  She reminded me that figure for their pension liability is over a year old, she couldn’t give me a newer figure, but use your imagination and whatever math skills you were able to eke out of the public school system.

This is why they want to put a bond on the 2016 ballot, not for an aquatic center, or a skate park, or a pump track – to pay off their pension debt to CalPERS.   The experts have been saying CalPERS will be bankrupt by 2043, because the pension payments are going out a lot faster than they are coming in. At CARD, they keep raising salaries, and that raises pensions, but CARD employees do not contribute anything to their own pensions or health benefits.

If you look at CARD’s budget, available here, you see in 2012, they took about $400,000 to make a pension pay-off to CalPERS. Every year, their salaries and benefits take more of the budget:

http://www.chicorec.com/About-Card/CARD-Resources/Public-Resources/index.html

Here’s how that works – the last director, Steve Visconti, made about $115,000/year salary. He left earlier this year and was replaced by a former underling, Ann Willman, at $124,000/year salary.  She receives about another $24,000 in pension and benefits, for which she pays nothing out of her salary. Out of their $6.9 million budget they pay over $5 million in salaries and benefits, mostly for their 33 full-time employees, and most of that goes to five or six top staffers. Most of the CARD employees who actually get their hands dirty serving the citizens of Chico make less than $20,000/year and get NO BENEFITS. They have to turn to the county when they need medical care. 

CARD actually creates poverty in our town, while the top management get salaries in excess of two times the median income and enjoy “Defined Benefits”.

From   http://www.qdrodesk.com/plans/CALIFORNIA-WATER-SERVICE-CO-PENSION-PLAN-15764.shtml

“CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO PENSION PLAN is a Defined Benefit Plan providing retirees with a predetermined monthly retirement benefit upon reaching a specific age. The retirement benefit paid to a retiree is typically calculated using a formula which often employs years of credited service under the plan and salary information. The retirement benefit is typically payable to the employee upon attainment of their normal retirement age for the remainder of his/her lifetime. “

In the private sector, employees might be offered a “Defined Contribution Plan,” if anything:

http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/financialstatements9.asp

There are various sorts of pension plans, but here we review only a certain type: the defined benefit pension plan. With a defined benefit plan, an employee knows the terms of the benefit that he or she will receive upon retirement. The company is responsible for investing in a fund in order to meet its obligations to the employee, so the company bears the investment risk. On the other hand, in a defined contribution plan, a 401(k), for example, the company probably makes contributions or matching contributions, but does not promise the future benefit to the employee. As such, the employee bears the investment risk.”

The Investopedia article had an interesting perspective – that of the investor. The general gist of this article was this: don’t invest in companies that offer defined benefits, because you will be on the hook for paying people into perpetuity.  Why would something that is considered a bad investment in the private sector be business as usual for the public sector?