Wow – $978,000 for seven “parklets”

9 Nov

Well, as of the early returns, it looks might Measure H has squeaked by. If that’s the truth, then we have our work cut out for us – making sure they spend the revenues wisely. Like Mr. Jones says, you got to learn to take an ass-whooping, so you can live to fight another day. And like Big Worm says, when you mess with my money, you toyin’ with my emotions.

That’s why I attend the day meetings Downtown, that’s where all the action is. Monday the Internal Affairs Committee revisited “parklets”, or “streetlets” – which is apparently a legal distinction. More on that later. I take a lot of notes at these meetings, and when I read back over them, I’m often re-shocked at what these people say, how laissez-faire and let them eat cake they are in regards to the problems of everyday taxpayers.

Council and staff had set aside $300,000 in American Rescue Plan Funding, having received over $20 million for instituting the COVID shut-down. I’ll remind you – Chico is still under a state of emergency, until December 1, having finally cancelled the emergency order at a recent meeting.

Let’s harken back to those early dark days of the COVID shutdown. Let’s remember what this forced shut-down did to Chico. In the early days, city manager Mark Orme and his side-kick Chris Constantin reported that they and other members of staff had tasked themselves with driving around town following our cell phones, and investigating any congregations of parked cars outside of businesses. They were forcibly shutting down businesses, some of which did not recover.

But the economy started tanking so quickly they started declaring certain businesses “essential”. Of course Ann Schwab’s bike store was “essential”. And every restaurant and bar in town suddenly became “essential” as well. Take out dining was encouraged. Almost immediately the city approved “off-site” sales of liquor – drinks, brought to your car in keg cups, along with your dinner. Parklets soon followed – tables were flopped out in parking places, across sidewalks, and the city public works crews installed “K-rails” – those cement buttresses – to keep drivers from trying to park their car in the former parking spaces.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is parklets-one.jpg
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is parklets-two.jpg

Above you see wooden picnic tables behind K-rails, on both sides of the corner. They’re turned on their side to discourage use by non-patrons when the bar is closed. I can’t tell how many spaces are in use here, but so far Staff reports 42 parking spaces have been eliminated in favor of “outdoor dining”. Which, let’s face it, really meant, outdoor consumption of alcohol, and smoking tobacco and pot in areas once prohibited by the Downtown smoking ordinance.

And who wouldn’t have seen this coming – within the first months of the shutdown, alcohol use went through the roof. Chico city staffers reported a corresponding increase in alcohol and sales tax revenues, while the Behavioral Health Department saw a spike in drinking related mental health issues.

Alcoholism, mental health issues likely to spike during coronavirus pandemic

While many retail businesses remained closed or under heavy restrictions, the bar and restaurant industry enjoyed a spike in sales, including, “off-site” sales – usually illegal, but allowed in “temporary parklets” under ABC rules. Under COVID, parklets allowed bars and restaurants to enlarge their seating space and “off site sales” because they were under orders to leave tables open, to create space between customers. They made it sound as though the economy was going to collapse without relaxing the rules.

But, as spacing restrictions have been eased and eventually dropped, the parklets have remained and off-site sales have continued, allowing these businesses to actually enlarge their seating capacity instead of just mediating the loss of seats due to spacing requirements.

Council has finally lifted the COVID state of emergency, but Staff and four Downtown businesses have asked that the parklets be allowed to remain. One business owner complained that his building was small and poorly ventilated, and his customers needed fresh air. Another business owner complained that his clientele was older and more susceptible to COVID. Other businesses have chimed in to say they don’t mind the concept but the current parklets are “unattractive” and need to be made “attractive”.

Staff and some members of council thought that could be done with American Rescue Money, so last year they allocated $300,000 toward design and construction of permanent parklets. So far, they’ve spent $25,000 on the design phase, but staff indicated “$300,000 does not begin to cover this…” At a subsequent council meeting, the assistant city manager requested another $1.1 – 1.5 million. At Monday’s Internal Affairs Committee meeting she reported that seven parklets – parking spaces – would cost over $978,000.

She also reported that only four businesses had come forward with “serious” proposals for parklets. We don’t know how many each business requested, but it looks like there are three or four parklets pictured above just for one bar – that’s what, $450-500,000?

Council, staff, and the business owners are aware that not everybody feels this is a good use of American Rescue Plan funding. One business owner declared, “we need to do this ourselves, no more gifts from government…” Others were frankly anxious about using taxpayer money because it might incur prevailing wage. But Kasey Reynolds and staff had a solution – Option 2.

Let’s pick this up tomorrow, on This Old Lady Flew Over the Parklet

Tags:

Democracy needs you! Get your ballots turned in at one of these secure locations, and then check your ballot status with the Secretary of State’s website

6 Nov

Election in two days – I’ve heard people are holding on to their ballots, with less than 20% already returned in Butte County. I’ve seen some chatter on social media, people who are distrustful of the post office, planning to turn them in by hand. I think, at this point, if you haven’t mailed your ballot, you might want to go to a drop-off location. I mailed mine just a couple of days after I received it. A few weeks later, I checked the secretary of state’s website and saw it had been received and accepted.

Here’s that link – thanks Dave –

https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/

I’m glad I voted early, but if you didn’t, you should probably head for one of these convenient drop-off locations in Chico. These secure drop-off boxes are available 24 hours a day as of October 10, until election day. I had previously posted that “polls” close at 5pm – I think that means the county clerk’s office is closed, but the boxes should be available until 8pm.

Butte County Library – Chico, 1108 Sherman Avenue
Chapman Elementary School, 1071 16th Street
Chico City Hall, 411 Main Street
Chico State BMU, W. 2nd & Chestnut Street
Department of Employment & Social Services (DESS), 765 East Avenue

Please vote. I care what you think, and Democracy is depending on you.

Chico Internal Affairs Committee to revisit parklets – new meeting time, 1pm

4 Nov

Yesterday I was telling you the real work continues after the election – have you ever considered attending a daytime committee meeting? That’s where things really happen Downtown, by the time it gets to council, it’s usually a done deal. But last week I saw council actually reject a plan approved by the Internal Affairs Committee. It seems not everybody was on board with the suggestion to use American Rescue Plan Funding for a complete remodel of Downtown.

Last year, Chico City Council approved the use of $300,000 in American Rescue Plan funding for the development of parklets at Downtown bars and restaurants. Downtowners raved about the trendy new fad – repurposing public parking places into dining islands restricted to the use of paying customers – meaning, expanding the size of their business without paying more in property taxes. And for some reason, staff suggested that the city pick up the cost of design and construction instead of charging the usual fees to business owners – with money intended to help the entire town recover from the effects of the COVID shutdown. In other words, handing public property over to a private owner without any vote of the taxpayers, and then using taxpayer money to improve said property. Giving away our communal goods seems to have become a habit with these people over the last few years.

Fortunately, not everybody was happy with the Asst Manager’s estimate of the total cost of the project – $1.1 – 1.5 million. Just for Downtown. Council balked at the plan, because of public scrutiny – that’s YOU! – voting to terminate the use of parklets on December 1, the date they also FINALLY decided to “end” the COVID “emergency”.

So far only $25,000 of the original $300,000 allocation has been spent. But, due to demands from bar and restaurant owners, as well as some people who think it’s okay to consume alcoholic beverages out on the street, staff has brought the subject back to next Monday’s Internal Affairs Committee meeting.

Yes, they decided to change the time of the meeting to 1pm, I don’t know why, but it seems more convenient to me than the old late afternoon meeting. I hope more people – including committee members Tandon and O’Brien – as well as a few candidates – will show up.

And maybe some of us would like to see this kind of money being spent on the street in front of our house – you still have time to contact committee members Reynolds (chair), O’Brien and Tandon to let them know what you think –  kasey.reynolds@chicoca.gov ; mike.obrien@chicoca.gov ; deepika.tandon@chicoca.gov

The report is available here:

https://chico.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/11-07-22_internal_affairs_agenda_packet.pdf?1667501630

Some highlights:

At the October 18, 2022 City Council Meeting, Council voted for businesses to terminate the use of Temporary Parklets on December 1, 2022 when the COVID-19 Executive Orders expire. Council redirected the topic of Developing a Parklet Program to Internal Affairs Committee.

Recommendation: The City Manager recommends the Internal Affairs Committee determine whether to study expanding the Outdoor Cafe program, and provide a recommendation to the full Council to either:

Maintain the current Outdoor Cafe program as is which includes Sidewalk Cafes and Permanent Cafes. Cancel RGA contract and redirect the remaining ARP funding (approximately $275,000) which was approved for Parklets to the Parking fund or another fund.

Analyze downtown Parking needs and make a recommendation on whether to expand the Outdoor Cafe program to include Parklets. Authorize the use of the remaining ARP funding allocated for Parklets to update the City’s parking study and potentially develop a Parklets program.

FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council allocated $300,000 of one-time American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds toward the design, construction, and implementation of temporary parklets in the downtown area. $39,000 of the ARP funding has been encumbered for a consultant agreement and $25,000 of the contract has been expended. During the estimating process, it was determined that the cost to build new Temporary Parklets would be $1.1 to $1.5M not including soft costs and program development; therefore, the $300,000 ARP funding was not adequate for its intended purpose. With Council voting to terminate the use of temporary Parklets on December 1, 2022, the ARP funding could be used to prepare an updated parking demand and update the Outdoor Cafe program to minimize the
impact to parking and potentially include Parklets.

Tags: ,

I hate to mention it, but you realize, the real work begins AFTER the election…

3 Nov

I can’t wait for this election to be over and I’m expecting people to take down their campaign signs. I think this was a new high for illegally posted signs, with Tom Lando Jr coming in first – his little signs are flapping along sidewalks, road medians, parks, and other public spaces. No, no, no Tom, you were supposed to get your supporters to post them in front yards. Jessica Gianola comes in at a close second, with signs at commercial centers and along public sidewalks. Same for all of those candidates who posted at Bruce and 32 – that’s illegal, and it’s not a good sign of your character. It looks like a trash truck blew up there, thanks for caring!

Same with the flyers – I know they’re legal, but I don’t think they’re very nice. First there’s the content – which is absurd, blaming the challengers when it’s been Vice Mayor Kasey Reynolds and the rest of the so-called “conservative” council who’ve been making all the bad decisions. Reynolds and her pac – Citizens for Safe Chico – has been loading my mailbox full, addressing their little shitbirds to both me and my husband. Reynolds has robo-called my son in Oregon – I don’t get that, he’s never even been registered to vote in Chico. They are pulling out all the stops, spending all that union money – guess why – they’re worried.

And they should be. Let them know why they should be worried. Tell them exactly why you’re unhappy and what they need to do about it. This is the only time they’re listening, or even pretending to listen.

What we also need to remember, is that this election is not the end of anything. No matter who gets elected or what passes, we’ll all wake up the next day to the same problems – our parks and public areas full of transient tents and trash, our roads still crumbling, and the ticker continuing upward on the pension deficit.

I like to ride my old bike around town, and that’s when I really get it – skinny tires pick up every bump in the road. You can hear the pavement jangling loose, it’s like riding on broken crockery. And if you watched me from behind you might think I been hitting the bottle – it’s a 70 year old bike, I try to avoid the big potholes, and that can be a challenge. Yesterday I jogged over to avoid a pothole about the size of a toaster oven – you could see dirt in the bottom. I also realized I need a better bra.

As I rode toward Upper Bidwell Park recently, I noticed a section of South Park Drive has been falling into the creek for years now, still falling. And you must ask yourself – are those houses along the south side of the park on septic or sewer? We went to a park in Sacramento years back where they’d allowed septic tanks from houses on either side to pollute the little creek running through the park, and had finally got the GRANT FUNDING to fix it. You could smell shit, and the water looked awful. They’d let it go all those years, waiting for the state to pick up the tab, while they spent those people’s property taxes on, oh, probably their own salaries and pensions.

And there’s those pensions – the herd of elephants that are crapping all over our living room rug. Here’s what you need to remember – they pay more every year, at the expense of our infrastructure and services, but the pensions deficit does not go away – it actually increases.

And here’s one reason why – besides the fact that employees pay unrealistic shares – in the past two years, city management has added three new positions (that I know of) at over $100,000/year. Council has also approved raises for both the fire and police departments, as well as the management unit, without asking them to pay more toward their own pensions. Employees pay less than 20% of their payroll costs and NOTHING toward the deficit created by those unrealistic shares.

So remember this – when I started this blog in 2012, most employees paid nothing toward their benefits. Former city manager Tom Lando, for example, PAID NOTHING toward one of the biggest pensions currently carried by the city of Chico. They only started paying when we discovered their scam, and only in tiny increments. We’ve had to beat their asses for every dime since then. They expect us to pay them twice – once for actually doing their job, and then another 70 – 90% in retirement. So the $100,000 salary we see really costs hundreds of thousands more in pension, benefits, perks like life insurance, burial insurance, and the interest accrued on the debt.

So, we have a lot of work ahead of us in 2023.

Tags: , , , ,

Standing between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea – I took my jump, and I have no regrets

31 Oct

I’ll never forget Election 2016 – Hilary the Horrible vs The Donald. For one thing, I couldn’t believe Trump was actually serious about running for President of the United States, that just seemed like too big of a commitment for the guy. My husband and I had also seen pictures of Trump and Bill Clinton, yukking it up on the golf course. My husband had a theory – only half kidding – that Don and Bill had made a friendly bet.

Don: Bill, I bet I could beat the crap out of your wife... for president, that is.

Bill: I’m listening…

Don: I’ll bet you the royalties from your latest book that I could register Republican and they’d nominate me.

Bill: You’re on.

All kidding aside, I actually thought it was Trump’s way of getting Hillary elected. His campaign was so outrageous, I figured, he’s just trying to scare the Republicans out of voting and piss off the Democrats, make them vote for sure. I thought Hillary was a shoo-in. And that bugged me, cause the bitch is evil, she’s just evil, and the thought of her as president was worse than the thought of Trump yelling “You’re fired!” at a conga line of cabinet members.

I don’t remember when I’ve had such a big surprise as Election Night 2016 – my husband woke me at midnight, yelling gleefully – “Hillary conceded!” I remember thinking I must be dreaming.

So, I’m ready for anything in this next election. Go to bed under a conservative regime, wake up under a liberal regime – it’s happened before. I think the conservatives are worried too, judging from the mailboxes full of ugly attack flyers I’ve been getting from Citizens for Safe Chico, the folks who are running the conservative candidates. CSC seems to be very worried that Morgan Kennedy and Addison Winslow are giving Reynolds and Nava a run for their money.

The social media is running ugly back and forth, how to decide? Well, here’s what we know – Reynolds and Bennett have been on council, we can look at their record. Reynolds has signed the Shelter Crisis Designation twice. They’ve both approved the creation of new positions at over $100,000/year. They’ve both approved raises without asking employees to pay more of their pension and benefits costs. They both voted to hire a new city manager at an unprecedented salary of $211,000/year. They both voted to raise the budget by about $65,000,000, to a new high of over $200,000,000. Yet they both support Measure H, saying we don’t have enough money to fix and maintain our infrastructure?

Having got us into the Shelter Crisis Designation finger-trap, Reynolds and friends proceeded to laugh us into a lawsuit – you know they thought they were being very clever putting the shelter site out on the baking hot tarmac at the airport. And, having got us into that lawsuit, Reynolds had the gall to tell the judge, after she had voted to accept the settlement, that she didn’t understand it, and wanted a do-over.

I’ve made it very clear I’m disappointed in my Dist 2 councilwoman Kasey Reynolds. I’ve told her for four years that the salaries are overgenerous and unsustainable, and employees don’t pay enough toward CalPERS expenses. I’ve got nothing but excuses in return, her favorite refrain being, “we need to offer competitive salaries to get good people…” Boy, does she have that backwards. She hasn’t kept any of the promises she made in her first campaign – she said she’d clear the camps from our parks, then turned around and signed the SCD, twice. And here she is, making the same tired promises – did she just run the same flyers?

Her handlers over at Citizens for a Safe Chico have actually had the nerve to portray the challengers as being responsible for the condition of our parks and waterways, when it’s been Reynolds and the other “conservative” incumbents that have been making all the dumb decisions.

Well, I wouldn’t take this kind of shit from a man – why would I take it from a woman? Four years and nothing but empty promises – grounds for a divorce. So, when I got my ballot in the mail I put my ink pen where my mouth is, and I voted for Morgan Kennedy. Believe me, I’m not too thrilled with Kennedy, but, frankly, I really don’t think she could fuck things up anymore than Reynolds already has.

Joe Azzarito: will the city be borrowing annually the $24,000,000 using realizable tax receipts, along with other general fund monies, to pay for the borrowed funds, both principle and interest? We need to know this!

27 Oct

Regular contributor Joe Azzarito had some thoughts that wouldn’t conform to the Enterprise Record’s format:

Chico citizens are being asked to approve our city council’s decision to increase the rate of sales tax charged on numerous goods and services in this coming November’s election. Known as Proposition H, an add on local sales tax of 1% will, if passed, become law, unless repealed by citizens effective January 1, 2023. This will restate Chico’s sales tax rate and raise the combined tax rate to 8.25% from its current 7.25%.

Proponents of this increase have publicly, through mailers, as well as articles in this paper, argued that the increase is necessary, but more importantly, the only way our streets will be repaved, our citizens’ safety will be ensured and, lastly, housing for both the un-housed and those of limited means will be provided for.

To justify this increase, to remain locally and not shared with the rest of the state, they have released such information that on the surface would seem to justify this increase. They have told us that only a handful of cities, the size of Chico do not have a local sales tax. They have told us that Chico’s General Fund budget is one of the lowest in the state on a per capita basis. They have further told us, that without more revenue, not much can be done with the money it has. They have appealed to our decency, with a promise, but not a commitment, to address these stated needs.

Have they been totally honest with us? By authoring a simple majority proposition, with no sunset clause, they have not. Oh, of course, it is said, by repealing this rate increase in a future election, it can, by defacto, contain a sunset clause. Have you ever known of a tax increase to be temporary?

These are just the tip of the iceberg facts surrounding this proposed increase. There are many more facts, that proponents have conveniently refused to present, in an honest and forthright manner, so that we voters can make a discernible decision. To speak bluntly, proponents have not been entirely transparent. Why? Because, with all the facts, the proposition would be rejected handily. For those old enough to remember radio personality Paul Harvey and his news broadcast, he would end his show with ”the rest of the story” This is precisely what we need – the rest of the story.

Here are some, maybe not all, of the “rest of the story” voters need to hear and understand to be able to make a truly informed decision on this proposal. Without these facts, all we are doing is blindly, unquestioning, agreeing to tax ourselves more without so much as a whimper.

One of these unstated facts is the revenue expected to be received – the additional $24,000,000 each year. Mathematically, it will take $2,400,000,000 (2.4 billion in annual sales) to achieve the above $24 million in extra revenue. Proponents offer a few of the items not taxed as proof of its fairness. Have they told us which items will be taxed? No, they have not! Can it be shown that our city spends $2.4 billion in taxable sales each and every year? I thought our average or median income was near, if not under, $50,000 per year! Even if higher income families are included, can we reach this plateau? Ask yourself!

The next fact that has not been discussed, with honesty, do proponents expect such revenues to come about by encumbering debt with realizable tax receipts as collateral. In other words, will the city be borrowing annually the $24,000,000 using realizable tax receipts, along with other general fund monies to pay for the borrowed funds, both principle and interest. We need to know this!

Another fact to be factored into our collective vote – the reliability, since a promise is not contractual, that infrastructure, safety and housing will in fact be where this fictitious money will be spent . The quietly not discussed “elephant in the room” – the extremely large and growing UAL, known as the unfunded actuarial liability or pensions and other perks of staff could very well siphon off all of any tax receipts. It’s a fact that each year, the city disburses to CALPERS millions of dollars, both in current contributions, as well as catch up ones, for a bloated pension obligation. City staffs pay some, but not nearly enough of their “golden parachute” pension costs. Why should so few, a mere 2-3 thousand, at best, reap fantastic benefits at our expense. It’s truly Robin Hood in Reverse (take from the poor to give to the rich) I have many times brought the issue of “The California Rule” section found in the State’s constitution, wherein it is supposed to state that no benefit accorded state employees be taken away without replacing it with an equal valued one. That seems to be the major stumbling block from abrogating our pension contracts and replacing them with a more reasonable one given current circumstances. This topic, asked by me and others, never gets an honest evaluation. Why is that? If private employers can abrogate their pension obligations, in bad times, why can’t public employers do the same? It’s as if government says, the public be damned, we’ll take care of our own at your expense.

The editor of the local daily asks readers to vote yes on H, because it’s the only viable alternative. I say, NO, it’s not! So much more could be done to release funds for the three stated Third Rail items mentioned above, if only they wanted to. Council is not being entirely honest and forthcoming with us in not presenting ALL OF THE FACTS. LET me end with this pithy statement: NEVER HAS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE BEEN AGAINST RAISING TAXES, AS THAT IS THE SOURCE OF THEIRS, NOT YOUR, INCOME. We need to play hard ball with this government, demand they own up to current, but more importantly past bad decisions, find every possible area in government inappropriate changeable spending and reduce it, abrogate salary contracts to restructure employee contributions, stop raiding every department’s funds to support the UAL, admit to their culpability in deceiving us of real funding sources and ultimately cancel the Proposition H, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Short of that we, the citizens of Chico must rise to the occasion, educate ourselves, demand true accountability, throw off the yokes of complicity and VOTE NO with our ballots on H. We can do better, if we demand government do better!

Joe Azzarito, Concerned long time resident of Chico, CA

Tags: ,

This is not a solution, it’s a problem.

26 Oct
There used to be grass beyond this sidewalk, a peaceful creek side setting where a family might picnic, some friends might toss a Frisbee.
Who is paying for the trash bins?

We used to know a few people who lived in the neighborhoods along Humboldt Road, but now we hear from folks who are looking to move out of this neighborhood. They complain about the crime, the filthy condition of the park and creek, and the general atmosphere of mental illness.

As we drove past taking these pictures, we saw California State Police officers in their unmarked vehicles engaging some of the campers, I have no idea what they were talking about. I’d guess, since it’s a waterway? the state might have some jurisdiction.

We didn’t see porta potties, as much as I hate to pay for services for these people, I have to wonder – where do they go to the bathroom? And I’m not too sure we could ever provide enough trash bins to accommodate folks who just seem to create waste.

This isn’t a solution – chasing them from public area to public area, from neighborhood to neighborhood. This is just one camp – it spreads around town like a bad rash. Council signed the Shelter Crisis Declaration, and they need to repeal it. How can we talk about the rights of the “unhoused” without talking about the rights of those of us who thought if we worked hard and obeyed the laws we’d be protected from predators? These people have been allowed to invade and conquer public spaces that belong to all of us – but let’s not forget what happened to three ladies who tried to attend a public meeting during a fascist shutdown.

A yes vote for Measure H is a vote for more money down the Homeless Industrial Complex rabbit hole. Please vote No on H.

Pro vs Con: Is Measure H right for Chico?

24 Oct

Juanita says: For those of you who don’t subscribe to the Enterprise Record, I wanted to provide yesterday’s (10/23/22) “Pro vs Con” segment – “Is Measure H right for Chico?” Mike Wolcott agreed to give me 400 words and promised to line up a proponent for, well, not exactly a “debate”. It’s more like a blind shooting match. You don’t know what you’re opponent is going to say, so you just put up your best argument. Slater obviously didn’t know what I was going to say, so he argued points that someone had made to him.

A couple of things I’d like to point out: 1) no, the city hasn’t “spent” $300,000 designing parklets, but they’ve “allocated it” to RGA (Gallaway), and the asst manager was asking for much more to build them. Slater forgets that it’s not the city’s money, it’s American Rescue Plan funding. A commenter also informed us that the city had intended to use that money in lieu of the fees that should have been paid by the bars and restaurants. 2) Slater insinuates that “one set of opponents” opposes all taxes, but offers no solutions. Well, you know that wasn’t us – I think we’ve made it clear that we wanted a restricted tax, dedicated to infrastructure. We also suggested the city offer more rational salaries and benefits. Slater seems uncomfortable with our solutions.

Read it for yourself and let me know what you think –

Pro/Brandon Slater

Chico has the lowest per capita general fund budget in the entire state, and it shows: overdue maintenance is piling up and public safety is decreased; and we can’t even begin to plan for a secure future. Bottom line, our town needs more resources in order to continue to be the community we love.

It has been a while since I‘ve seen a city issue galvanize support across ideologies the way Measure H has. It’s supported by our current mayor as well as seven former mayors, seven of the eight current council candidates, both local newspapers, prominent businesses, and community leaders from both sides of the aisle.

There has been a lot of misinformation thrown around. So, let’s start by getting the facts straight:

Accusation: The city spent $300,000 on the ice rink.

False: The net cost was $28,992.

Claim: The city spent $300,000 designing downtown parklets.

False: To date they’ve spent $24,515.

Claim: Measure H will cost an individual $800/year.

Response: Perhaps … for those making over $200k/year; average resident impact is drastically less.

Claim: Our city manager is the highest paid in the state

Response: Actually our city manager’s pay ranks 321st in the state.

Claim: Other cities have a much lower percentage of budget allocated to cops.

Response: Budget line items are assigned differently, so you need to know how to read a budget. If Chico’s budget included schools, recreation, transportation, and social services—like NYC (the example given)—Chico’s police percentage would be significantly less. NYC spends $12,052/citizen on cops, Chico spends $275. NYC has 4 cops/1000; Chico has one cop/1,000 citizens.

One set of Measure H opposition opposes all taxes, but haven’t offered any actual solutions for their complaints. Another group supports this tax, but just don’t want the current council to get the credit. At the end of the day, it comes down to setting aside our grievances in order to meet the needs of our community.

Think about all the great things we have: Bidwell Park, Chico State, homegrown businesses, designation as one of the top 100 art cities; and Enloe Medical Center, one of the top 250 best hospitals in the country. The list goes on and on. Just look around. So much great stuff in Chico worth our investment.

Vote Yes on Measure H.

YesOnHChico.org.

ER Intro: Brandon Slater is organizer of Yes on H campaign committee, President of D.H. Slater and Son, Inc., and Chairman-elect of the Chico Chamber of Commerce. 

CON / Juanita Sumner

Measure H proponents claim Chico doesn’t have adequate funding for infrastructure, but council approved a 2022 budget increase from $142 million to $211 million. The new budget included creation of three new positions – public information officer, assistant public works director, and homeless solutions coordinator, each over $100,000/year. Council hired a new police chief at more than the retired chief, a new city manager at an unprecedented salary over $211,000, and approved raises for management and the fire and police departments, without asking them to pay more of their pension costs.

Don’t believe promises, look at the budget. The police department gets 49%, fire department 28% – meanwhile parks get 3% and public works 1%. $25 million to pensions, while only $1.2 million to all capital projects. While surveys by both City of Chico and CARD indicated residents value public safety, respondents put an equal value on streets and parks, which is not reflected in the budget.

Proponents have admitted CalPERS is a major concern. In 2021-22, Chico paid $13 million in payroll contributions and another $12.2 million in “catch-up” payments on the pension deficit. Depending on group, employees pay 9.75 – 15% of the payroll contribution, while taxpayers pay 10 – 19%. That’s a total of 19 – 33% of total cost, leaving the rest to ride the stock market. With CalPERS returns at less than 7%, the taxpayers are on the hook for the resulting deficit.

A Human Resources staffer told me, “City of Chico employees are paying, or are nearly paying, HALF of the CalPERS pension costs.” [sic]. That’s not correct – employees only pay a payroll contribution, they don’t pay toward the pension deficit, which is at least half the cost. Last year staff reported that even with increasing “catch-up” payments made at the cost of infrastructure and services, the pension debt had gone up 43% in the last five years.

While it’s not mentioned in the measure, one proponent announced the city will use new tax revenues to secure bonds to ensure H money doesn’t go to the pensions. Bonds are debt. In 2021 a consultant reported that a bond for $180 million at 3.5% would cost over $73 million in interest. There are also brokerage fees to various middleman agencies. That amounts to nearly half the borrowed money going to bank costs instead of infrastructure.

Chico doesn’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We can do better. No on H.

Juanita Sumner is a member of the Chico Taxpayers Association.

Tags: ,

Letter to the Editor: Matt Gallaway is worried about his bottom line, not yours.

18 Oct

The Enterprise Record posted a letter from Measure H proponent Matt Gallaway, a guy who expects to benefit directly from Measure H revenues. Gallaway is the local architect who received $300,000 in American Rescue Plan money, and expects to receive more, to design parklets for Downtown bars and restaurants. Like BC, I’ve responded to each paragraph.

Though conservatives typically are not in favor of taxes, there comes a point where we must recognize the limitations of what the state provides our municipality. California may have a huge surplus, our city does not.

The first line insinuates that people simply oppose tax increase because they “typically are not in favor of taxes.” I take exception to that – I pay my taxes on time, and I pay plenty. Between property taxes, utility bills (which are subject to franchise taxes and utility users tax), gas tax, car registration tax, and sales or “use tax”, the city of Chico is well funded, look at the budget.

And yes, the city of Chico has enjoyed a financial surplus, receiving over $20 million in American Rescue Plan money over the last year, another $12,2 million just two months ago. Directly on the heels of millions in sales tax surplus from the Camp Fire refugees, who also afforded the city millions more in disaster funding. Hey, that is still going on – people in Paradise are still building homes, with materials from stores in Chico.

Gallaway should know – $300,000 of that American Rescue Plan money has gone into his pocket to furnish designs for the parklets the city plans to install Downtown. Tomorrow night Staff is asking council to approve more funding for their Downtown remodel – Ass City Manager Jennifer McCarthy says, “$300,000 does not begin to cover this…” How much goes to Gallaway for more designs?

A sales tax seems to be the most appropriate method to generate funds to help our community.  It would come from those who visit and use our infrastructure as well as from our residents. It is NOT assessed on a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. It is not added to rent checks. The truth of the matter is that when we froze property taxes with Prop 13 back in the late 1970s, our funding started to slip — we live the reality of that today.   Most other communities in the state have recognized the need for a sales tax and have passed them long ago, leaving Chico behind.

Paragraph Two is where he goes into the same pitch we’ve heard from Brandon Slater, Ann Schwab and other proponents, almost word for word. So much for Mike Wolcott’s rule about “no form letters.” Gallaway repeats the mantra about visitors paying their fair share – they already pay bed tax – and then the la-la about the tax not applying to “a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread...” No, but it applies to soap, underwear, shoes, gas not only to get us to the store but to get the truckloads of supplies to the store. No, it doesn’t apply to rent, but it drives up costs for landlords.

Then he take a new tack – he blames our problems on Prop 13. Did this guy call himself a “conservative” in Paragraph 1? Cause I think he’s one of those RINO’s – Republican in Name Only. This guy is telling us Prop 13 is bad, when he should know, the city takes in over $24 million a year in property tax, regardless of Prop 13. And right now there is an unprecedented building spree going on in Chico – all those new homes/apartments will generate millions more in property tax, not to mention building fees.

Chico hasn’t fallen behind in revenues, it’s fallen behind in infrastructure because they’ve been siphoning the money into the pensions.

And Gallaway admits that in his next paragraph. He finally tells the rest of us what’s been talked about in off-the-record meetings for over a year now – they want to use the sales tax revenues to secure bonds, to assure us that it won’t go to CalPERS by way of the General Fund.

The good news is that there are methods to help make sure this tax is not spent on CALPers and the city’s unfunded pension liability.  I trust our city staff and council to secure the vast majority of the proposed tax for our parks and roadways in the form of long-term bonds. Most jurisdictions find this to be a good method to span political cycles.

First of all, that just shows what a lie they’re floating on the ballot, where they promise $24 million/year off a 1-cent sales tax. Second, they never mentioned the bonds in front of the public, the last reference to purchasing bonds was during COVID at a closed meeting. Bonds are permanent debt, and they ride the market. You’ve seen the market lately?

Gallaway closes with another lame pitch –

“H” is for help and we all need to do our parts to help insure our city maintains it’s character and charm.

Matt Gallaway, Chico CA

Gallaway says “we”, but what he’s really concerned about is himself. This man works for the public sector almost exclusively, he knows this tax is part of his bottom line, and he doesn’t care about yours.

NO on Measure H.

Tags: ,

No on H: I’m putting my ballot in the mail today

15 Oct

I got my ballot yesterday (Friday 10/14) and I couldn’t resist opening it as my husband and I enjoyed our tailgate lunch of chicken tenders from Raley’s. I managed to wipe off the ketchup and ranch dressing and then I got out my ink pen and voted NO on Measure H.

Ooops, missed some ketchup there.

That first line is a whopper – notice they list fairly specific uses but no dollar amounts. They are not allowed to make these promises because they put a simple measure on the ballot. They put a simple measure on the ballot because they didn’t want to be held to any specific promises, see how that works? The use they very pointedly don’t mention is the growing amount they are spending annually – $12.2 million last year, over $13 million projected this year – on the employee pension deficit.

It’s the reason why our parks and our streets look like crap, the unfunded actuarial liability. It’s ruining our credit rating and draining our city funds. You’d have to be pretty naive, like fresh off the turnip truck, to think they will not use this money to make bigger payments toward the pension deficit. They aren’t doing anything about the spiraling cost of the pensions, they keep offering unsustainable salaries and allowing employees to get away without making reasonable contributions toward pension cost, expecting the taxpayers to throw more and more money every year down a bottomless pit. This tax is not the only solution, as the proponents would have us believe.

The other whopper on this ballot is that the tax will generate $24 million annually. In order to generate $24 million in sales tax revenue on a one cent sales tax, we’d need $2.4 billion – BILLION! – in taxable sales, per year. Sheesh, what is that, everybody has to buy a new car every year? I don’t know if this town has enough taxable crap to generate $2.4 billion a year in taxable sales, we don’t even have Macy’s for cripesake. Sheesh, I had to go online today to buy an overflow plate for my bathtub, I couldn’t find one anywhere in town. After having driven tire-torturing streets, waiting in traffic, I had to come home and order one online – it’s frustrating dealing with a mismanaged town.

In their Argument For in the ballot pamphlet, proponents mention the use of some of the money to secure grants to do piecemeal work on infrastructure – but grants are specific, you can’t just use them to resurface roads. The grant the city received to fund the 20th Street bike bridge will cost the taxpayers over $300,000 in interest, for the matching funds they didn’t have when they secured the grant.

And then projects overrun cost, and the city just “allocates” more money from the General Fund. Last month council approved the allocation of another $100,000 for the tiny stretch of bike trail running between Little Chico Creek and 20th Street Park – less than a mile of bike trail. Their promises to do the real work needed – resurfacing our neighborhood streets, replacements like the disabled bridge on Guynn Avenue, the long-needed widening of Bruce Road – that’s never going to happen. Meanwhile they are eliminating parking requirements for developers and narrowing streets in new subdivisions.

The only thing certain to happen should this measure pass, is that they will put another measure on the ballot in four years, and another measure after that. They will let infrastructure lapse until we are pulling our hair out just getting across town, and then tell us that they don’t have enough money to do the needed work. Meanwhile, the salaries continue to go up, the fire department is getting raises next Tuesday, the cops just got raises a couple of months ago.

That’s just more gas on the pension fire!

So I’ll be putting my ballot in the mail today, and I hope you will do same, and I hope you’ll vote No on H.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →