Oh No! The city of Chico faces fiscal insolvency? Time for an INTERVENTION!

17 May

Stand back and hold your breath while I enjoy a chorus of “I told you so!” 

I looked over the agenda for next week’s council meeting, and omigod! It’s an intervention!

Sheesh, what does it take to get through to people? I’ve been saying for years – me, a local property tax payer – that the city was spending out of control, that they were taking us on the road to Perdition – but did anybody listen? I wanted to cut up their RDA credit card long before Jerry Brown took it away, but did they listen? No, they just went about making these contracts that promised a perpetual six-figure salary, well beyond retirement, all paid for by the taxpayers, paying those crazy salaries and benefits and pensions out of the RDA. 

New city finance director Chris Constantin is all up there about the overspending, but he doesn’t say on what. He’s going to allow people to go on damning The Spirit Flags and The Hands. But that’s chump change. In reality, it’s Constantin’s contract, along with the other management contracts, as well as the public safety contracts. These people get the highest salaries, but pay little to nothing for their pensions – 70 – 90 percent of their highest year’s salary available at age 50. 

Management employees – and the department heads just got nearly $30,000 each in pay raises –  pay less than half their employee share, four percent of their total premium. The police and fire department employees pay nothing. The taxpayers pick up the balance of their shares – this is called, “employer paid member contribution.”  

On Tuesday’s agenda, “$taff” recommends renewal of the management contracts, the public safety contracts having been approved already, with the empc intact. 

And at the same meeting Constantin will foist his report – “City of Chico Up Shit Creek Without a Paddle.” He says we are in deep trouble, can’t make our payroll, and need to borrow money. And, here’s the catch – they’re going to have to raise fees and cut services. 

I will agree that they have been giving away the store. Developer fees have been out of whack for some years. For example, I just sat in on a conversation with a property owner who was hooking up to sewer – a very average  case – $24,000. But, a developer pays less than $10,000. 

But, I’m sick of hearing about more cuts in service. We spend over 90 percent of our budget on salaries and benefits. We pay more than 100 people more than $100,000 a year.  In 2012 we spent $1.9 million dollars paying “the employee’s share” of pension premiums. We just gave these guys a $30,000 each raise to tell us we don’t have enough money to pay our frigging bills. 

I predict we the people will be paying more for everything almost immediately. Right now, for example, the city and the county are in talks with the two big garbage haulers about dividing the county and city up into franchise zones, each company taking an equal guaranteed territory. Customers will lose choice. The city will get a franchise fee from each company. That fee will be added to our bills. That sounds like price fixing to me, but I’m no lawyer. 

We may have defeated Measure J, but the city will get our money by hook or by crook.

When I made predictions of bankruptcy on my old Ad Hoc blog, a current city council member came around to snipe about my use of the word, “malfeasance.” He laughed at my predictions. Well, now he’s sitting in a pants full, and he can just clean himself up as far as I’m concerned.

Tags: , ,

CARD consultant says bond is a No Go, so Lando suggests CARD pursue a sales tax increase!

17 May

Despite the weird experience I had Monday at the CARD finance committee meeting, my husband and I rode our bike down to last night’s regular board meeting to see what CARD’s consultant had to say about the survey run a couple of months ago.  

CARD was testing the waters for a bond or property assessment, insinuating they would build a new aquatic center and gymnasium when what they really need is a bailout to pay their pension premiums. CARD employees get the same CalPERS deal as the rest of the public sector, and they pay NOTHING toward their own benefits. We the taxpayers pick up their entire “employee share”. Of course, that’s for the management who have benefits and pension – most of the people who actually do the work to keep your parks open and somewhat clean are part time workers with neither benefits nor pensions.

At Monday’s meeting, board member Jan Sneed loudly ranted at me that I was accusing CARD of being dishonest – yes, I am. Read the survey for yourselves – where does it mention the $397,000+ CalPERS side fund payoff, over $350,000 of which came out of the now-empty capital projects fund?  They try to tell us they’re going to build an $8 million aquatic center off of a $20 – $52 assessment?  Maybe Sneed would like to explain why the pension fund pay-off is left out of the survey paperwork?

I guess that’s because these survey people like to, as the consultant from SCI Consulting Group  put it, go at it “blind.” Meaning, they make no attempts to educate the survey respondents, they just ask them leading questions. When I’ve studied the consultants that do these surveys, I’ve found, it’s not set up to find out what people really want or think, it’s set up to lead people into wanting or thinking what the client wants them to want  or think. Got that? It’s part of the consultant’s job, not to gauge a community’s willingness to pay more taxes, but to make them think they’re willing to pay more taxes.

From their website, http://www.sci-cg.com/index.html

“SCI is proud of our industry leading success rate with new ballot measure for funding public agency capital improvements and services.“

Part of their service includes “implementing a comprehensive strategy for clearly communicating the issue to the public.”

So, I wish I’d thought to ask this consultant (actually, a very nice woman name of Melanie Lee), “why did you throw up all that stuff about an aquatic center and gymnasium instead of being honest about wanting the money for pensions?” I would think that question kind of answers itself, but Ms. Lee is a professional analyst and very honest and forthcoming – I think her answer would have been interesting.

I did hear what I wanted to hear – she reported that the results of the survey were disappointing. For one thing, they sent out 10,000 surveys and only got about 1800 back. I’d call that a wash, but I remember past surveys that have run with less than 500 respondents, so I won’t discount this one. I just kind of wonder what CARD spent on it, is all – just to send a giant wad of tree pulp to the land fill. 

But for another thing, the surveys that were returned indicated there’s little support for any kind of leech on our property taxes, whether it be a parcel tax, or an assessment. Both came back with less than the recommended amount of support to pursue a ballot measure. 

Ms. Lee also summarized the remarks people made at the end of their surveys – bad economy; recent passage of Measure E, prop 30, and other tax increases; and “government spending”.  

And before she left, she offered the board some great advice –  spend the next couple of years “maintaining and improving the park district”. In the meantime, open up a dialog with large property owners and apartment dwellers – the groups who least supported the idea of a tax.   Above all, she reminded them, “a good campaign starts years ahead.” 

With that Ms. Lee gathered her stuff and headed out the door. Before she was even out of the building, Tom Lando moved that the board consider having the CARD attorney “look into” a “sales tax measure.”  It was as if he missed the consultant’s last words – “the economy, other tax increases, and government spending.” Is he deaf? Dumb? Or really, really smart? 

He brought up the survey he’d run over a year ago, when he wanted the city council to put a sales tax increase measure on the local ballot. He said at last night’s meeting, he’d got over 60 percent approval.  And I guess that sounds accurate – the idiot majority passed Prop 30.

I’m assuming Lando was afraid to run his sales tax increase on the same ballot with Prop 30 – so he thinks waiting two years is going to do any good? Prop 30 raised sales tax to 7.5 – now what, 7.75? 8? 

I know, that doesn’t sound like much. So I have to remind you again what it pays for – for example, the general manager of CARD makes over $112,000 in salary, and we still pay his entire “employee share.” They bottomed out the coffers, of our tax dollars, to pay their pensions. To me, that’s stealing. They’ve stolen from the funds that were supposed to pay for the upkeep and replacement of public facilities to enrich themselves. 

I know my comments weigh heavily on the staff down at CARD, I’m sorry, they think I’m just a bitch. Well, I’d be an idiot to put up with what they’re doing. Steve Visconti, in his closing remarks, wanted to make sure everybody knew, the results of that survey “in no way reflect the way people feel about CARD…just bad timing…”

Then he went on to laud “staff”, meaning himself, I believe, for a recent award from some award givers regarding their website and the transparency of their agency. I must admit, Visconti and finance director Dowell have given me answers to my questions and also documents I’ve asked for. But never once in these “public” conversations has the true reason behind this tax grab come up – they keep talking about needing money to “fund this” or “fund that.”  And when I’ve brought it up in letters to the papers, I’ve gotten attacked. That’s not transparency, that’s a cloud of suspicion, as far as I’m concerned. 

As the meeting was ending up, Lando made one last forceful pitch, even a motion to have his sales tax measure idea brought to agenda, or at least agendized for a committee. I’ll keep you posted – their next meeting is June 5. 

Tags: , , ,

Jan Sneed attacked me at today’s CARD finance meeting – this woman is out of control, and isn’t suitable for public office

13 May

I tried to attend the CARD finance meeting today, I had an appointment that ran long, and came in just as the meeting was getting over (wow, less than 25 minutes!)

 As I was apologizing and asking Finance Director Scott Dowell how I could get a paper copy of the finance report that he’d given at the meeting, longtime CARD board member Jan Sneed walked by me and whispered at me, “oh, the woman who’s harassing Maria Rock!” or something to that effect. In shock I turned and said, “Excuse me?” And she just launched at me with a verbal attack, her face got red, she raised her voice and she started poking at me with one finger, actually touching me at one point.
 
I kept telling her to back off, my husband stepped between us and told her to back off – she start pushing and poking him.
 
I kept telling her, if she wanted to  talk to me, she needed to write a letter to the paper. She kept saying, “I AM talking to YOU!” and kept advancing on me.
 
I turned to Dowell and frantically asked him again about the report. I was very polite to all staffers. Dowell held me off for a few moments, he said he wanted to hear what Sneed had to say!  I asked him, why are you holding us here to be attacked by that woman?” but he wouldn’t answer.  
 
She was ranting and raving about my letters, saying I’d accused them (CARD) of “being dishonest.”  I just kept telling her she needed to write a letter to the newspaper.
 
She also mentioned several times that I am “harassing Maria Rock.”  
 
We went to the office and she followed us down the hall, despite my husband telling her to stop following us. At this point I was near tears, shaking, and about ready to throw up – I’m sorry, but I work for a living, I’m tired, I make a lot of arrangements to attend these  meetings, and this crew of publicly paid people allow this woman to verbally attack me when I ask for public records. They all just stood there listening to her as though she was speaking for all of them. 
 
We told desk staff that if she came into the office while we were waiting for Dowell to get the records, we wanted them to call the police. Hearing this she turned and walked the other way down the hall. 
 
Staff never once apologized. Dowell gave us the report and told us it was the report he’d given at the meeting today.  The desk staffed offered to staple the pages together for us, but we politely declined.  We thanked Dowell and Visconti personally for their politeness, we thanked staff, and left with the report. 
 
When we attended the last regular board meeting, she made a similar move leaving the meeting – came up close to me and whispered something at me, but I didn’t make the mistake of saying, “Excuse me, ” so I didn’t get attacked. 
 
This isn’t appropriate behavior for a public official. All I did was tell the public what I’d heard at the last meeting. None of them denied any of the stuff I said in my letters to the papers, it’s all true. They just don’t seem to want people talking about their CalPERS payoff. 
 

Any advice would be  welcome – but what I’d really like, is some other people to attend the meeting Thursday night. 

I sent this above to county supervisor Larry Wahl, David Little over at the Enterprise Record, and some other folks in my mailbox.  Sneed’s behavior is outrageous. I wondered what happened to former director Mary Cahill – now I get it! 

From the Chico News and Review, Sept 15 2005:

Mary Cahill, who was terminated Sept. 6 as general manager of the Chico Area Recreation District, took issue with CARD board and media characterizations of her parting.

While a press release issued by CARD attorney Jeff Carter stated Cahill was “terminated … without cause,” Cahill said she left by “mutual agreement” after much discussion over a period of time. She was given $100,000 in severance pay as required by her contract.

“I was not fired,” Cahill said. “It was a discussion and it was definitely both-sided. … It makes it look like I did something wrong when I didn’t,” she added.

Jan Sneed is the longest running member of the CARD board, having been there since before any of the other standing board members, and before Steve Visconti was promoted to the rank of General Manager. I wonder how much her personality problems had to do with Mary Cahill’s “mutual agreement” to leave CARD, taking $100,000, just in severance.

I’ve long wondered what’s wrong at CARD, and now I’m figuring it out.

UPDATE:  This morning I came in from a few hours of weed pulling and raking to sit down with a cup of coffee and watch a quick episode of “Leave It To Beaver.” 

It seems Wally’s big friend Lumpy has been picking on Beaver. Beaver asks his dad for advice, and Ward tells him a comical story of a prank he himself had pulled on the neighborhood bully when he was a boy. Beaver pulls a similar stunt to get back at Lumpy, but instead, Lumpy’s dad ends up getting into it, and gets really mad. This creates a sticky situation for Ward – Lumpy’s dad Fred is not only his long time friend but a partner in his business. Of course Ward straightens the whole thing out and the boys apologize, and Fred forgives them, admitting that not only Lumpy but he himself had pulled some stunts too.

But the best part of every episode is the private chat between Ward and the boys.   Ward explains to Beaver, there will always be people who bully “to get their way, and you can’t always do anything about it. You just have to learn to live with people like that.” 

Hmmmm – how do you “live with” people like Sneed, without being taken advantage of?

Sneed complained loudly that I had insinuated the board was being dishonest. Well, yes, I am. I still have that survey, posted here:

img003

Look that over and show me where they mention their nearly $400,000 CalPERS side fund payoff, or their nearly million dollar budget overrun. Instead they make promises they can’t keep – “In order to construct and maintain a new aquatics facility…” AND  “to construct and maintain a new gymnasium…” These are totally unrealistic goals – during the RDA discussion about building an aquatic center, the figure they produced was EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS. Just for construction. And what does a new gymnasium cost? The survey insinuated that an assessment of $130 would pay for that,  adding  suggestions like  “Well maintained and accessible sports fields for sports programs help keep kids off drugs and out of gangs.” 

Right now the capital projects fund that would pay for all that bling is TAPPED OUT. That fund was cleaned out of over $350,000 to make that side fund payoff. 

Yes Jan, I’m accusing you, point blank, of  being dishonest with the public in asking for a bond or assessment to pay for an aquatic center or new gymnasium. Like I said at the meeting, you can answer me in your letter to the editor. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A response to Gruendl and Sorensen – somebody has to say something

12 May

Below is a letter I’ve sent to the Chico News and Review in response to the letters down further. Emily Alma had written a letter and sent it to both the paper and the council. While I don’t agree with Alma on everything  – in fact, I rarely agree with Mulhullond toadies on anything –  I do agree, there’s something fishy going on Downtown. Because of e-mails I’ve received and read from Mark Sorensen, I’m absolutely positive he knows more than he and Gruendl are admitting to in the letter below. 

So, here’s my letter, I wish the  rest of you would start asking questions too:

A letter writer accuses city council of losing control of staff and two council members respond in a joint letter, insinuating “a subversive whisper campaign emanating from City Hall” against their newly hired city manager Brian Nakamura. But they want us to think everything Downtown is just copacetic. 

Councillors Scott Gruendl and Mark Sorensen claim Nakamura has the support of “a council supermajority.” But not the “unanimous council” that hired the guy? 

Gruendl and Sorensen claim “reorganization has not resulted in layoffs,” – what about the wrongful termination suit that was filed against the city on February 1?   

I wonder if the hostile atmosphere Downtown could be one explanation for the $10 million missing from the development fund, or the $50 million “structural deficit” attributed to “unfunded pension liabilities.” 

And how does raising department head salaries save money? Gruendl admitted at a council meeting that we would not see the savings from this reorganization “for years.” How many years?  

Gruendl and Sorensen insist that ” far higher levels of transparency and communication are being demanded and achieved,” but, at a morning meeting I attended, Nakamura actually used the Brown Act to keep citizens from discussing the true motives behind “surplussing” a Downtown parking lot – possible transfer to a developer.

Alma is right to be asking questions, more people should.

Alma’s letter, which appeared in the N&R April 25:

Is the council losing control?

Re “Money man: Chico’s new finance director takes his seat” (Newslines, by Tom Gascoyne, April 18):

Since Brian Nakamura’s appointment as Chico’s city manager, it seems that control of the city is slipping away from our elected City Council. We have two instances of long time, beloved employees leaving their posts without explanation, the loss of Jennifer Hennessy as finance director, major restructuring of departments, city employees nervous about losing their jobs, and Councilwoman Ann Schwab expressing disapproval at how the shakeup has been handled.

I understand that changes are needed for the city to be managed more efficiently, but the way this is coming down feels like an aggressive attack rather than a thoughtful approach to reorganization.

Now the hiring of another person from outside the area at another inflated salary, someone with a questionable history involving hostile relations with employees, adds another layer of concern. It seems that we have an increasingly toxic environment in the city offices.

I’m disappointed that Ann Schwab’s objections were not discussed at the last council meeting, and urge the remaining council members to take these warning flags seriously.

It is the City Council’s responsibility to oversee the dynamics of this major transition. I’m sure there are ways to reorganize without losing the spirit of warmth and respect that has characterized the city of Chico. I hope it’s not too late.

Emily Alma
Chico

Here’s Gruendl and Sorensen’s response, which followed in the same issue (she’d sent the letter to council as well):

A unanimous council very deliberately appointed Mr. Nakamura as city manager, and a council supermajority continues to support Mr. Nakamura’s new direction for the city.

In contrast to the subversive whisper campaign emanating from City Hall against Mr. Nakamura and Ms. Alma’s unfounded accusations about “control” or a lack of a “thoughtful approach to reorganization” in City Hall, the opposite is true. The path to positive changes has been laid out for nine months, well communicated and methodically executed.

Reorganization has not resulted in layoffs, and department heads know they may be reclassified but remain employed. Salaries correlate to new responsibilities under a leaner administration.

Ms. Alma is mistaken that city management is slipping from the council. Council is exercising its authority by restoring the “public service” focus to the organization and installing the expertise necessary to lead the city out of financial crisis.

The city has been spending more than it receives for many years, and that trend had to stop.

The city employees we speak with support the change in direction, and recognize that challenges remain ahead.

As we work through the process, far higher levels of transparency and communication are being demanded and achieved.

Vice Mayor Scott Gruendl

Councilman Mark Sorensen 
Chico

Tags: , , ,

Sorensen and Gruendl: city spending trend has to stop! Right after we raise management salaries!

8 May

I read a pair of letter in the News and Review, the first from fellow gadfly Emily Alma, and the next a response to Alma from Scott Gruendl and Mark Sorensen.

As you can read below, Alma is basically complaining about Brian Nakamura’s questionable management style. Gruendl and Sorensen, who hired him, are defending themselves. 

I don’t agree with everything Alma says – what “spirit of warmth and respect” is she talking about? Hah! The City of Chico has always been a snake pit. I’ve been approached by people who wouldn’t give me their name, but told me, in almost these exact words, “I work for the city of Chico, and I want you to keep doing what you’re doing.” I’ve  been handed documents by others who remained nameless, and told me things like, “if anybody asks where you got this, tell them you paid for it!”  I was approached once physically by a city employee and another time called at my private phone number by a county employee, both of whom explained to me the disparity between the lower paid workers and management.  The woman from the city approached me in the breezeway between the administration building and the chambers, looking over her shoulder constantly, whispering, acting in terror for her life. I couldn’t help but notice, she wasn’t dressed half as nice as the staffers I see regularly in meetings.  I call them, “the swishy people“, cause their expensive clothes swish when they walk. 

Not to be confused with “The Swish,” Nick Swisher.

The classified staffers at both the city and county pay their full share. Meanwhile, I don’t know what county management pays, but city management still pay less than half of that 9 percent “share”. And, the “employee share” is less than a third of the total premium, which goes up yearly. Right now it’s around 26 percent of the total cost of the pension, it’s going up to 31 percent next year. The total cost of each pension being 70 – 90 percent of that employee’s highest year’s salary. 

Of course, I’m not talking about new hires. Mark Sorensen keeps reminding me, new hires will pay 50 percent share. “New hire” means, you are coming into the California system for the first time. Sorensen knows damned good and well they hire most of these people from other towns in California. Until Mealy Mouth Sorensen and the rest of the fist puppets on council stand up on their hind legs and make ALL of the current employees pay their full share, we will be headed toward bankruptcy. Instead, Brian Nakamura directs staff in looking  for new sources of revenue. 

Did you know, the city is  in the process of eminent domaining a family over near Hwy 99, in order to get a grant? Yes, Tom Varga admitted that they need the Douglas family’s property because they can’t get the grants they’re after unless the bike trail is contiguous, meaning, they have to take it right across the Douglas’ side yard instead of simply routing it on neighborhood streets, like they did over in my neighborhood. These grants aren’t used on the projects for which they are specified – are you kidding? You think it  costs $100,000 to pave a strip of dirt down the side of the freeway? No, it’s to pay Varga’s salary and benefits, duh.   If you start paying attention to the agendas for these meetings Downtown, you’ll see all the grant proposals flying out. They are desperate for money. 

NOTE: I have heard from a third party that this eminent domain was denied in closed session, but I don’t have any staff report to that effect. I do however have the e-mail in which Varga admits the action was necessary to secure grants. I’ll keep you posted.

So, why is Nakamura raising department head salaries? In my opinion, given his record of moving from one public entity to another over the last 5 – 10 years, I believe he is just enriching himself and his friends, and will move on to the next entity as soon as he sees the curtains falling on this operation. Go read the Hemet newspaper – what a mess!  

Meanwhile, Team Nakamura Head Cheerleaders Scott Gruendl and Mark Sorensen are still trying to  tell us, this guy is doing us a favor, a $217,000/year plus benefits kind of favor. 

The say, “The city has been spending more than it receives for many years, and that trend had to stop.”   Well, pray tell, when is THAT going to happen? Right after this latest supplemental budget appropriation to pay the newly inflated salaries/benefits? 

You voters realize, Scott and Mark are both in the trough themselves. Gruendl is a health officer over in Glenn County. I’ve read more than once in the minutes of the Glenn County Supes meetings, Gruendl getting reprimanded first by another department head and then more recently by a county supervisor for constantly trying to manipulate other departments into his control and asking for a salary increase for doing so. The department head had planned on retiring, but when Gruendl made a play to take over his department, the man changed his mind and stayed, claiming that Gruendl was just out for more salary. Duh! 

Sorensen meanwhile took a favor from ex-Chico-City Manager Tom Lando, who got Sorensen the city manager position in Biggs. Sorensen makes around $90,000/ year there – hey, anybody ever seen the town of Biggs? I’ve seen the sign, but I look around and all that’s there is orchards! But he gets about $90,000 to manage that. And benefits. In addition to the $21,000/year package we pay for him as city councilor. 

These two are in no position to rock the boat. They’re with Lando – essentially, these people are employees of CalPERS, and what’s good for CalPERS is good for them. It’s true what Emily Alma is saying – council isn’t running our city, Brian Nakamura is running our city. 

We really need to come up with some candidates for council in 2014 that work for us instead of $taff and CalPERS.  Or, how about, we change the charter to dump council and elect the city manager and other management staffers? It’s done in other towns, including Police and Fire chiefs. 

You tell me what we should do. Below are the letters I’ve mentioned above. 

Is the council losing control? – N&R April 25

Re “Money man: Chico’s new finance director takes his seat” (Newslines, by Tom Gascoyne, April 18):

Since Brian Nakamura’s appointment as Chico’s city manager, it seems that control of the city is slipping away from our elected City Council. We have two instances of long time, beloved employees leaving their posts without explanation, the loss of Jennifer Hennessy as finance director, major restructuring of departments, city employees nervous about losing their jobs, and Councilwoman Ann Schwab expressing disapproval at how the shakeup has been handled.

I understand that changes are needed for the city to be managed more efficiently, but the way this is coming down feels like an aggressive attack rather than a thoughtful approach to reorganization.

Now the hiring of another person from outside the area at another inflated salary, someone with a questionable history involving hostile relations with employees, adds another layer of concern. It seems that we have an increasingly toxic environment in the city offices.

I’m disappointed that Ann Schwab’s objections were not discussed at the last council meeting, and urge the remaining council members to take these warning flags seriously.

It is the City Council’s responsibility to oversee the dynamics of this major transition. I’m sure there are ways to reorganize without losing the spirit of warmth and respect that has characterized the city of Chico. I hope it’s not too late.

Emily Alma
Chico

Editor’s note: Ms. Alma sent her letter to the members of the City Council, two of whom chose to respond to it as follows:

A unanimous council very deliberately appointed Mr. Nakamura as city manager, and a council supermajority continues to support Mr. Nakamura’s new direction for the city.

In contrast to the subversive whisper campaign emanating from City Hall against Mr. Nakamura and Ms. Alma’s unfounded accusations about “control” or a lack of a “thoughtful approach to reorganization” in City Hall, the opposite is true. The path to positive changes has been laid out for nine months, well communicated and methodically executed.

Reorganization has not resulted in layoffs, and department heads know they may be reclassified but remain employed. Salaries correlate to new responsibilities under a leaner administration.

Ms. Alma is mistaken that city management is slipping from the council. Council is exercising its authority by restoring the “public service” focus to the organization and installing the expertise necessary to lead the city out of financial crisis.

The city has been spending more than it receives for many years, and that trend had to stop.

The city employees we speak with support the change in direction, and recognize that challenges remain ahead.

As we work through the process, far higher levels of transparency and communication are being demanded and achieved.

Vice Mayor Scott Gruendl

Councilman Mark Sorensen 
Chico

Tags: , , ,

Nakamura “reorganizes” city departments, still no full-time management at the airport

7 May

I didn’t get to the Airport Commission meeting last week. I want to attend these, but the time is bad for me. I missed the meeting where Maria Rock stood up and blamed the loss of 130 planes (with owners who paid to park at the airport) over  the last year on “aging pilots.” And, I missed the conversation over allowing the hanger that used to house the airport’s biggest client, Aero Union, to be leased to a group for a museum, for free.

Aero Union left a few years ago, lured away by MacClellan in Sacramento. And then, as a result of policies they practiced while operating in Chico, they were involved in a huge scandal and subsequently went out of business. But not before relocating to MacClellan. They made the usual excuses that tenants make – we need a bigger place! But from what I heard, they got some kind of sweetheart offer from MacClellan that Chico Airport wastn’ offering.

Apparently, MacClellan, once a huge US Air Force base and giant employer and ginormous chunk of Sacramento’s economy, having been declared a Superfund clean-up site and closed in the 1990’s, is trying to transform itself into a business park.  It’s still an “uncontrolled airfield,” meaning,  n0 control tower, but navigational infrastructure for small aircraft. In order to revitalize an entire part of Sacramento, MacClellan Park is offering all kinds of perks and benies to any business that will locate there. The key words I heard are “build ready.”  This means, the landlord/property owner provides all the infrastructure – streets, sidewalks, sewer hook-ups, electric lines, etc.

The Chico Airport, owned by the city of Chico,  doesn’t do anything for you. Instead they roll out a list of stuff you have to do in order to locate there. As a friend of mine who owns an airport business told me, “they think anybody who wants to start a business must be some kind of Sugar Daddy.”

It doesn’t take much to see that there’s no management at the airport. “Airport Manager” is one of the “hats” left by Dave Burkland to Brian Nakamura. That’s all it is to them – a side job.  And it’s obvious – look at the aerial map of Chico Airport – it screams “BLIGHT!”  Empty lots scattered among the crappy old buildings, never having been cleaned up since the last business – what? burned down? Entire sections of the airport look abandoned.

I had to laugh when I read the conversation with the museum people. They want the hulking old Aero Union building. Now we find out what kind of landlord the city of Chico is – the building is condemnable. Only about two years since Aero Union vacated, and the roof is about ready to fall in. That’s just for starters. The whole building is a mess.  See what you get if you let your residential rentals get into that kind of condition – a tenant can withhold rent over a leaky faucet.  But when the city of Chico rents a building, they walk away – “it’s your baby now!”

The building needs about $200,000 worth of work on the roof, just the roof. Nakamura remarked that they might not have the money to do the roof right now – but at tonight’s council meeting, he’s asking for a supplemental budget allocation of over $500,000 to cover the new salaries approved for his departmental reorganization.

Now we know why Aero Union left, but that’s old history. Another large business tenant that has relocated more recently is Build.com, which was moved to Otterson Drive lock, stock and barrel. They said they wanted a bigger building, having had to use two separate buildings at the airport to accommodate their phone bank. I’m not really sure, but the new building they’re in at 402 Otterson is shared with other businesses, I’m not sure how much more space they’re getting.   Nor could I get any info on how much they’re paying.

Chances are, given the business properties available right now, Build.com is paying more per square foot in their new location. It looks like the average in the real world is about $1/sq ft.  The airport is offering Build.com’s old space for 75 cents a sq ft. I was at a meeting where $taff discussed renting space in the old Municipal building, and I remember, they offered that space below market too.

First of all, I see this as using taxpayer subsidized property to undercut the rental market, and that’s bad. Second, I see what they’re doing. They rent cheap, so they can be slumlords. They don’t do anything for their tenants, even maintain the building. They’re letting a group move into the old Muni building right now at a really cheap rent, giving them carte blanche to remodel. Sure, that seems great, but when they move out, we are stuck with whatever they do.

I don’t think the city should be in the real estate business. I don’t think the city should be in the airport business either. At the very least, we need a full-time manager out there. But, look at Nakamura’s reorganization – the airport is left within the city manager’s department. Just an extra hat?

Tags: , , ,

Rick Clements: The council should manage city operations and finances as duly elected representatives

5 May

As much as I’d like to forget the city’s “plastic bag ban,” it won’t go away. The latest news is, the city has stalled their decision on this ordinance because of a threatened lawsuit by a group called, “The Plastic Bag Coalition.”

No, I do not make this stuff up.

There has been an enormous amount of $taff time wasted on this ordinance. Sometimes I wish they’d just passed it when they first brought it up, years ago, or even better – let the bag ban the state has passed go into effect, and that would be the end of it! Instead, $taff, always looking for ways to beef up their paychecks, have dragged this poor dead horse around the block about 150 times, like some sick palio.

Here’s a letter, below, from Rick Clements, who reminds us, this decision is being made without any real support from the public. Sure, you’ve seen the same tired little mob of less than two dozen make their way to the podium again and again during the discussions, you’ve seen less than a dozen letters to the papers in support of this ban, but when I asked Sustainability Task Force $taffer Linda Herman who requested this discussion, she gave me one name – a woman named Leslie Johnson,  who works for the Butte County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rick also reminds us, this discussion has cost the city an undisclosed amount in $taff time – Linda Herman’s time alone is worth over $100,000 a year. Then there’s the city attorney, at over $200,000 a year. The city clerk, at about $135,000 plus benies.  Etc.

All for politics. The ACLU is basically an arm of the Chico Democrats, Johnson is just another toady. I find it ironic that this woman, who fronts an organization that is supposed to care about the individual’s “rights”, is pushing an ordinance that disproportionately affects the lower income citizen.  Thanks for nothing Leslie!

And thanks for this letter Rick, I hope we can get some good discussion out of it.

Regarding your story “Avoiding a Lawsuit”.

We have all heard the pros and cons of the plastic bag ban. That’s not what’s at issue here. The council members should manage the city operations and finances as duly elected representatives.

The majority did not elect or authorize their political correctness. to impede upon the arenas of “personal freedom” and “the individual’s right to choose”. If five political philosophies restrict the constitutionally protected right to decide at the ballot box; refusing the 70,000+ voters whose lives will be affected to vote for or against a ban that places restrictions on personal freedoms of choice, then that’s communism.

During the 70’s, the liberals below made this same argument. They demanded ballot box democracy against a conservative council’s decisions constantly. Those liberals were clearly correct then; but today’s council; its left wing majority, they are wrong. They are clearly afraid that the ballot box might weaken or nullify their misused powers. That’s why they never offered up the ban decision for a public vote. Talk about a hypocritical slap in the face to people like Jane Dolan, Bob Mulholland, Karl Ory, and Kelly Meager. Their coalitions fought for guaranteeing everyone’s personal right to voice their ballot box opinion on issues that affected everyone. The Green Line and Bidwell Ranch! So whose power hungry now?

Rick Clements

Paradise

Tags: , ,

City Council Tuesday night: Nakamura requests supplemental budget appropriation to cover the increased salaries for the positions he gave to his cronies

4 May

This Tuesday city manager Brian Nakamura will ask for a supplemental budget appropriation to cover the new department reorganization approved by council a few meetings ago.

This might be confusing to those of you who were paying attention when Nakamura told us this reorganization would SAVE the city money, unless you happened to notice the part where the reorganization, again, approved by council, raised the salaries of the remaining department heads by about $30,000, each. Not only did the salary increases eat any saving made by consolidating departments under single leadership and laying people off, but, along with the resulting increase in benefits and pension, they took us over budget. So, we have this request for a supplemental appropriation.

Here’s the link to the report:

http://chico-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=388

2.3.

APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION NO. 12-13 04 FOR NEW DEPARTMENT POSITIONS ADOPTED AS PART OF THE NEW CITY DEPARTMENTAL STRUCTURE – Both the City Council and Successor Agency will be convened for approval of Supplemental Appropriation No. 12-13 04  Approve – The Council is being asked to approve supplemental appropriations related to new department positions adopted as part of new City departmental structure. The Finance Director recommends approval.

Take a good look – for one thing, please note, this appropriation will come out of the RDA, every dollar of which will cost us three, “in the long run”.  Look really good. See where the development fund is in parentheses – that means, IN THE HOLE. The development fund is $9 million IN THE HOLE.  City staff took that money – collected off new housing, and paid, not by their developer friends, but by new home buyers -to pay their salaries and make their side fund pay off to CalPERS.

People, we have a huge problem. City staff is ripping us blind to enrich themselves while our idiot city council – afraid to rock their own pension boats – stand by with the fingers in their noses. Mark Sorensen has told me repeatedly, he has faith in Nakamura’s leadership. Oh yeah, he admits, “it will get ugly,” whatever the hell that means, and he predicts things will come to a boil either later this month or early in June. Whatever that means – as usual, Sorensen is being very close mouthed, just handing out enough titillating details to keep us glued to our seats.

The legal definition of “appropriation”, from Wikipedia,   “from Latin appropriare, ‘to make one’s own’ (later ‘to set aside‘), is the act of setting apart something for its application to a particular usage, to the exclusion of all other uses.”  In other words, to take somebody else’s stuff for yourself –  I think that’s pretty clear here.

It seems outrageously clear that Nakamura is enriching himself and his friends.

UPDATE:   I had to fix the link on this report because it wasn’t working – please try it again, and read the reports!

Tags: , , ,

Chico Taxpayers Association meets tomorrow, Sunday May 5, Chico Library on Sherman Ave, 9am

4 May

I hope we can get a good discussion going on the local efforts to raise taxes, all inspired by CalPERS recent demands for “side fund payoffs” of pension premiums.

What CalPERS is after, is money to keep their pension payments flowing, so people like Tom Lando don’t sue them. And then there’s the CalPERS salaries – about a dozen top execs, making between $350 – 500,000 a year, plus, yeah, FULL BENEFITS!

How stupid are we? Let’s talk about that – tomorrow, Chico branch library, 9am.  The public is welcome.

Tags: , , , , ,

Chula Vistans win cell phone tax lawsuit – $8 million in rebates and refunds, plus legal fees

3 May

I’m sure as hell glad we didn’t have to go this route, but three cheers for the 100 or so Chula Vistans who had the gagnas to take on their corrupt city council. Yes, corrupt. The city knew what they were doing. And our city was smart enough to go with the tide – the city of Chula Vista fought it out til the end, totaling up who knows how much in their own legal fees in addition to the settlement they’ve been ordered to pay. 

Are the Chula Vistans the winners, or the losers? You tell me.  Maybe they should go forward with a lawsuit against the city council members and  city staff management for mismanagement of city finances. 

Here’s the article from the Voice of San Diego, thank you very much reporter Will Carless!

Posted: Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:46 pm | Updated: 4:33 pm, Thu May 2, 2013.

at http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/article_0f3d0c2c-b37a-11e2-b34a-001a4bcf887a.html

The city of Chula Vista just settled a class action lawsuit brought by cell phone users who said they were illegally taxed by the city for years.

Under the settlement, which was approved by a San Diego court, the city must pay $8 million in rebates and refunds to cell phone users who were taxed, plus legal fees.

The city of Chula Vista maintains that the tax is legal.

“We disagree that certain aspects of the tax are unlawful, but, because the issues are complex and continued litigation would be expensive, the city believes it is in the best interest of its citizens to settle the case,” said Anne Steinberger, a spokeswoman for the city.

Residents of Chula Vista have been mailed notifications this week that will tell them how to claim a cash refund from the settlement, said Jeremy Robinson, one of the lawyers who sued the city.

Recipients will have to fill out a claim form to prove they’re eligible for a repayment. If so, they have the choice of a $35 flat rebate; a $50 payment for every year they paid the tax, up to $150, (if they can prove they paid it) or an estimated full refund from the period April 2010 to April 2013.

Claims must be made in the next 90 days. More information about making a claim can be found here.

We’ve been following this issue ever since we wrote a series of stories on Chula Vista back in early 2011. Last year we checked up on the tax after a group of cell phone users brought a suit. Here’s a snippet from that post describing the charges in dispute:

The tax, introduced in 1970, charges a small fee on users of telephones, electricity and other utilities within the South Bay city. As cell phones came into popular use, Chula Vista started allowing phone companies to tax cell phone calls too, and for years it collected and spent that tax money.

The tax on cell phone calls was always on rather shaky ground. It was loosely based on Internal Revenue Service rules governing what can and can’t be taxed. But in the mid-2000s, the IRS lost a number of court cases over whether it could tax cell phone calls and, in 2006, a cell phone carrier wrote to the city of Chula Vista saying it didn’t think it still needed to collect the taxes.

But Chula Vista didn’t stop taking the tax money. The city argues that the tax is legal, though in recent years it’s been carefully stashing away the proceeds from the cell phone taxes in case it loses in court one day.

Steinberger said the city has enough money stashed away to pay the full $8 million if necessary.

Robinson said the amount the city has to pay will depend on the number of claimants.

“Right now, our goal is to get as many people as possible to make claims,” he said.

On top of whatever it has to pay out in claims, the city will also have to pay the attorney’s fees for the case. The full payout won’t be known until after the 90-day claim period has expired.

Will Carless is an investigative reporter at Voice of San Diego currently focused on local education. You can reach him at will.carless@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5670.

Tags: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →