Chico Taxpayers Association

City sewer plant accepting wastewater from Camp Fire work camps despite claims that the system is overloaded by evacuees

I was looking over the city website and found this notice:

City of Chico Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)

CAMP FIRE CLEANUP AND LICENSED WASTE HAULER SERVICES

We are accepting gray/domestic wastewater from the responder camps in an effort assist cleanup efforts. Download the permit application and pay the application fee.

Trip tickets, bill of lading or manifest containing the Waste Origin, Volume, Company Name and Truck ID# is required per load discharged at the Plant. Plant property discharge point open Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM-3:30 PM.

Really? Because just this past month Chico Public Works Director Eric Gustafson complained that our sewer system has been overloaded due to Camp Fire evacuees. In February he mentioned a sewer rate increase.

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2019/02/01/city-staff-using-camp-fire-to-justify-sewer-rate-increase/

“‘If those increased flows continue, there will be increased costs, and we will have to go to council for increased funds,’ Gustafson says.

But they have plenty of room for gray water?

Gray water means the water that comes from your shower, washing machine, kitchen sink. In many counties in California, gray water can be set up on a different drainage system from your toilet, and used to irrigate your lawn. When you go to a campground, your dish and shower water go directly on the ground. But city of Chico residents are expected to pay a sewer increase for responder camps?

Please note, there’s an application fee for this discharge. The city is double-ending on this deal!

Write to council at debbie.presson@chicoca.gov and tell them you’re not paying a sewer or a tax increase for this kind of gross mismanagement.

Tags: Chico sewer rates, Chico wastewater control plant, city sewer tax increase, Eric Gustafson city of Chico

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Uncategorized

CA Senate rejects Newsom’s “water tax” proposal, but it’s far from “dead”

19 May

I don’t know how many people are aware of Gavin Newsom’s proposal to add a 95 cent tax to our monthly water bill. He says the state would use the money to “help communities clean contaminated water systems.”

Communities? In most towns here, Cal Water owns the water systems. In fact, they’ve just recently raised our rates citing various projects they need to do, most of them necessitated by new subdivisions. Developers have already or should have paid fees. Why is the general ratepayer expected to pick up the tab for the for-profit, publicly traded utility provider? Shouldn’t infrastructure be what you are already paying for?

I was happy to hear that the California Senate rejected the idea.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article230438084.html

“A Senate budget subcommittee rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s water tax plan on Wednesday, instead recommending finding $150 million elsewhere to finance a safe and affordable drinking water fund….”

The Senate instead proposed that the money “be found” somewhere in the state’s projected $22 Billion surplus. That’s $22,000,000,000.

But, it’s not just a one-time $150 million fix, they want to establish a permanent fund, meaning, they will have to find a permanent funding source. They have ways of getting around the voters. “’It’s been a big stumbling block when it’s called a tax,’ said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who worked with water tax backers. ‘That’s the beauty of this. It’ll be in every budget.‘”

Again, why aren’t the water districts, particularly the for-profits, being made to maintain their infrastructure within the boundaries of their ever-increasing rates? They want to raise our rates AND put an additional tax on us.

The proposal still has to be heard in the Assembly. Contact Assemblyman James Gallagher at james@gallagherforassembly.com or by phone at (530) 420-5066 and tell him to reject this scheme. Legislatures feel this kind of heat, it really affects their behavior if it’s focused on the seat of their pants. “A water fee proposal died in budget compromise talks last year as Democrats worried about asking constituents to pay more.”

You may as well contact Senator Jim Nielsen at his Chico office (2635 Forest Avenue), by phone 879 – 7424, or at his Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/senatorjimnielsen

Tell his staff you’re not happy with the proposal the Senate came up with. Ask them why the district agencies aren’t paying for it.

And, you might join Reform California’s campaign to pressure legislators to reject this bill. I signed up for their mailing list and received news of this tax proposal in February, and I believe their actions were successful in getting the Senate to reject the original tax proposal.

https://reformcalifornia.org/12-democrat-legislators-named-targets-of-campaign-to-defeat-the-water-tax/

Reform California is working on a number issues to “make California more affordable”. Check out their website at

https://reformcalifornia.org/news/

Tags: Gavin Newsom water tax

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Cal Water, Reform California, Uncategorized, utility rate increases

Assistant City Manager Chris Constantin lays out his scheme to “shoot (taxpayer) money into the economy at the time the economy is tanking…”

14 May

Just last month Chico City council listened to a consultant’s pitch about placing a revenue measure on the 2020 ballot. They voted to hire the woman, from the same firm that has passed two school bonds, EMC, of Oakland. They also approved a $60,000 budget to run a voter survey and then make a strategy for Staff to use the information gathered to twist sentiment in favor of higher taxes.

I attended an earlier presentation before the Finance Committee and taped it. I was shocked at the statements made – they talk pretty frank at these morning meetings because they know nobody will show up. I was particularly interested in the presentation made by Chico assistant city manager Chris Constantin. Constantin has hatched the same plot described by Sacramento City mayor Darrell Steinberg – a shells and peas scheme called “securitization.” People need to know about this scam scheme, so I wrote a letter to the Enterprise Record.

In 2018 57% of Sacramento voters passed Measure U, a half-cent sales tax increase. Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg had promised voters new revenues would not go to employee pensions, instead toward economic development. However, immediately after the election, Sacramento City Council voted unanimously to place the revenues into the general fund, which pays for salaries and pensions.

Lesson learned – with a simple majority measure, the voters lose control over how the money is spent.

Promising again to keep the money from going to the pension deficit, Steinberg proposes to “securitize” $25,000,000 of annual Measure U revenue to create a capital equity fund. That fund would finance the sale of bonds, to be repaid by Measure U receipts over a 25-year period. So, half the sales tax revenue would go toward creating more debt. And the bond money could be spent at council’s indiscretion.

City of Chico staffers have proposed the same “securitization” plan to our council, who plan to put a revenue measure on the 2020 ballot. Assistant City Manager Chris Constantin has proposed using a sales tax measure to fund bonds. Constantin told the Finance Committee the fund could be used to “shoot money into the economy at the time the economy is tanking…” He would not further explain this scheme to a skeptical committee, but assured Sean Morgan “we’ll contract the type of folks who can do it.”

Subsequently, Council approved up to $60,000 from the general fund to pay a consultant to talk us into this scam. Don’t fall for it.

Tags: Chris Constantin Chico Ca, securitization

Comments 12 Comments
Categories Chico bankruptcy, Chico pension deficit, Chico revenue measure, Chico sales tax increase, Uncategorized

State population “estimates” based on new housing construction, not occupation – but Mark Orme still claims he has “hard numbers” on Camp Fire evacuation

10 May

I’m sorry to sound like a broken record, but again Chico staff is blaming our financial problems on the Camp Fire evacuees, and the Enterprise Record/Mercury Register are providing the spin.

State: Chico’s population grows by more than 19,000

“State: Chico’s population grows by more than 19,000″

“Most growth from Camp Fire survivors”

“Last week, the state Department of Finance released the figures, with Chico having grown by 20.7 percent as of Jan. 1, 2019. The population as of the new year was 112,111, according to the state, up by an estimated 19,250 people from a year earlier.”

Ah, again, there’s that key word, “ estimated”. But, city manager Mark Orme continues to use the words “hard numbers”…

“City Manager Mark Orme told the City Council Tuesday that it was “a huge relief” to actually have hard numbers rather than suppositions or assumptions.“

I don’t know what to call that, is it a lie, or just a fib, or just misleading? I mean, anybody who reads the story will see the word “estimate” repeatedly. Furthermore, below they admit that their “estimate” includes “people moving into Chico for other reasons.“

“The state figure is an estimate, but also includes people moving into Chico for other reasons.”

Reporter Laura Urseny says, “The state came to those figures by gathering data from other government agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, as well as local and county government agencies.”

But if this is true, why do they need to make “estimates“? I had to ask Mark Orme for the actual report – he sent me a press release.

Click to access e-1-2019-press-release-1556737607.pdf

“These population estimates are produced annually by the Department of Finance for use by local
areas to calculate their annual appropriations limit. The State Controller’s Office uses Finance’s
estimates to update their population figures for distribution of state subventions to cities and
counties, and to comply with various state codes. Additionally, estimates are used for research
and planning purposes by federal, state, and local agencies, the academic community, and the
private sector.”

Furthermore, these “estimates” are not based on any poll of human beings, but on the number of houses built. You know the popular adage – if you build it they will come. They actually “estimate” the occupancy of houses built and even the number of people living in each house.

“Changes to the housing stock are used in the preparation of the annual city population estimates.
Estimated occupancy of housing units and the number of persons per household further
determine population levels. Changes in city housing stock result from new construction,
demolitions, housing unit conversions, and annexations. The sub-county population estimates
are then adjusted to be consistent with independently produced county estimates.”

And did you read that – they then “adjust” their estimates to “be consistent” with each other.

So, the whole report is BS, and then Urseny adds her spin, for (BS)(BS)! (BS squared)

So, before you read the ER again, take one of these – still available on Amazon.com

My mom gave me these little pills.

Tags: Mark Orme liar Chico CA

Comments 3 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

Quiz Number 1: Sacramento Measure U

3 May

Our first quiz, based on this article:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article229871849.html

Read the questions below carefully, refer back to the article, and go ahead and use google if you want, I always do. You can also comment below, and yeah, you can be anonymous. You can even use a fake e-mail, I wouldn’t know the difference.

If we get enough people to participate, I may award prizes. Next time I’ll do it in a poll, so there’s no cheating. This is just a fun run.

Sacramento City Measure U passed with what percentage?

2/3’s voter approval
100 percent
57 percent
it failed

What did Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg promise Sacramento voters if they passed Measure U?

the new revenue would not go to employee pensions
that he would “invest new city resources in economic development, disadvantaged neighborhoods, the creative economy and real pathways for young people.”
told voters the majority of the revenue generated by U would go toward a series of projects to uplift the city’s disadvantaged neighborhoods and to increase the city tax base
all of the above

What did Sacramento City Council vote unanimously to do after the measure was passed?

directed budget officials to place new Measure U revenue into the general fund, which pays for most basic city services, salaries and pensions
asked the city treasurer to come back in the coming weeks with a plan to securitize $25 million of new Measure U revenue per year to create a capital equity fund. That fund could raise about $400 million upfront through the sale of bonds that would be repaid by Measure U receipts
proposed the second pot of roughly $25 million in new Measure U revenue per year be set aside for achieving economic equity.
all of the above

What issue splits the council?

getting out of CalPERS
securitization of Measure U funds
firing their city manager
paying the pension deficit

What does “securitization” mean?

making sure to lock the doors at city hall every night
describes the process by which groups of such illiquid assets (usually debts) are packaged, bought, securitized and sold to investors.
placing revenues in secured funds and limiting them to specified uses determined by the voters
all of the above

What does “illiquid mean”?

solid
nothing it’s a typo
Illiquid refers to the state of a stock, bond, or other assets that cannot easily be sold or exchanged for cash without a substantial loss in value {a company may be illiquid if it is unable to obtain the cash necessary to meet debt obligations)
incontinent

ANSWERS: (backwards) 3, 2, 2, 1, 4, 3

Scoring:

6 of 6 – write a letter to Chico City Council

5 of 6 – write a letter to Chico City Council

4 of 6 – write a letter to Chico City Council

3 of 6 – hang in there, and keep reading

2 of 6 – hang in there, and keep reading

1 of 6 – really? You’re not trying. I made this thing easy enough for a high school kid to figure out, read the articles again!

Comments 6 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

Let’s have some fun learning about tax measures!

3 May

Let’s have some fun people – I’ve learned so much crazy stuff about “revenue measures” the last few years, I want to share! In future posts I want to share what I’ve read about the different kinds of tax measures and how they’re passed, but today I’d like to jump ahead with these two stories from the Sacramento Bee.

I’d call this lesson, “Stuff you should learn from your neighbors”.

Learn it, know it, live it. There will be a quiz.

Sacramento mayor promised tax money for your neighborhood. Will millions go to pensions instead?

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article229871849.html

Sacramento’s business community issues strong rebuke for Measure U tax money projection

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article229876304.html

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories CARD revenue measure, Chico pension deficit, Chico revenue measure, Chico sales tax increase

Too many managers leads to gross mismanagement of Bidwell Park – but watch Staff use it as an excuse for a revenue measure

1 May

A few weeks ago we were all so outraged over the cutting of 31 healthy oak trees near Chico Creek Nature Center. The chicken feathers hit the fan. I was glad to see some outrage over a long-time pattern of neglect and mismanagement of Bidwell Park. But, here again, city staff is using this as another pitch for a revenue measure.

This week city public works director Eric Gustafson admitted he didn’t make a work plan for that job – how would the crews know what to cut? Furthermore, he didn’t properly mark the trees. In fact, the city had no standardized system for marking trees, even though an arborist has been on staff for a couple of years now. And the staffer who was supposed to be supervising the crews “had been called away…” Called away to what? Lunch? The bathroom? What other “emergency” would prompt a supervisor to leave a crew with no work plan and no standardized tree markings? Cutting trees over a foot in diameter? This is incompetence.

This incident is just another example of how badly the city manages Bidwell Park. And Chico Area Recreation District took over the Nature Center several years ago – all these managers, but no management?

Gustafson has the nerve, again, to cry about his “staff shortage“. Didn’t he read this post I made at the time?

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2019/03/31/keep-rattling-your-chains-write-letters-to-both-papers-tell-them-we-know-where-the-money-is-going/

Gustafson continues to repeat The Big Lie – staff shortage. But he admitted to the Park Commission ” there were ‘a lot of assumptions made,’ and gaps in communications became obvious.” Assumptions? Gaps in communication? That’s not caused by a staff shortage, it’s caused by a lack of attention to your job. In fact, early reports of the incident said that Gustafson was notified of the cutting at about 11am but did not come out to the job site – less than 5 miles from his office – until about 2 in the afternoon. I think that’s dereliction of duty.

The Big Truth – they’ve deferred maintenance and cut the working staff in the park because they’ve been siphoning money out of the park fund to pay their pensions. Looking at the 2018-19 budget, under “expenditures” on line 996, I found $287,396 in “indirect cost allocation”. As explained by city assistant manager Chris Constantin, that’s money taken from the park fund to pay salaries and benefits of non-park department employees.

Constantin explained it one day in a meeting – as we sat discussing a certain issue, all the employees in the room, from the council members on the board to the city manager to the finance director to the clerk, and including any staffers who came in to give a report, or just because they might be asked a question, were being paid out of the pertinent fund. So when the Finance Committee takes up the subject of putting a revenue measure on the ballots for “road maintenance,” the road fund is billed for the time of every employee in that room, their salaries, benefits and pensions are taken out of that fund. That includes a percentage for the “Pension Stabilization Trust,” out of which is paid the “Unfunded Accrued Liability” (Pension Deficit).

So don’t buy this story about “staff shortage” – tell the truth. It’s time to trim management, in fact, get rid of “classic” employees who are only required to pay 11 percent of their benefits. New hires are required to pay 50 percent. Get rid of the bloated bureaucrats who refuse to do any work, and hire some young people with better attitudes who are willing to pay their own freight.

Tags: Bidwell Park, Chico Creek Nature Center, Eric Gustafson Chico Dept. of Public Works, Oaks Massacre Bidwell Park Chico CA

Comments 2 Comments
Categories CARD revenue measure, Chico pension deficit, Chico revenue measure, Chico sales tax increase, Uncategorized

“This is how democracy fails…”

30 Apr

I notice a lot of people are writing letters to the editor these days – so many, apparently, Enterprise Record staffers can’t keep up! You’d think they’d run more letters per day, maybe expand the letters page. Instead they wait until they have an enormous backlog and folks are complaining and then they barf a bunch of letters all at once, like they did this morning.

The result being, at least two letters about the Orange Street “low barrier” shelter that would have been pertinent a week ago but are now moot because the Jesus Center announced yesterday they will not be pursuing that idea. And, in a pile like they printed this morning, important letters can be overlooked. Here’s a letter that warrants a good read:

Don’t Fall for the City Council’s Tax Increase Lies

In FY 2017-18 city revenues grew at 7.4%. Director Dowell told the City Council revenue growth is expected to continue. Yet Director Orme said the city has a revenue problem that requires tax increases. Despite increased revenue the City continues to let our infrastructure crumble.

Mayor Stone tells us city employee compensation costs will double in less than ten years and CalPERs will be devouring 25% of the City’s budget by 2023. (That assumes an unrealistic CalPERS 7% return rate.) Stone admits this is unsustainable.

The obvious answer: pension reform.

Instead the City Council is giving tens of thousands of your tax dollars to a PR firm to sell you a tax increase. Their pitch will be that the money is needed to fund infrastructure and public safety. That’s a lie. It’s needed because for years the City has put unrealistic pension promises ahead of everything else and the City Council has no intention of changing that.

Other cities in California have taken the same approach. Instead of fixing the problem the result has been demands for even higher taxes.

Initial estimates indicate the City Council’s tax increase would cost a family of four an extra $1200 a year. This in a county with a 21% poverty rate where city bureaucrats have pensions worth millions. It’s unconscionable.

This is how democracy fails. The people need to let the city’s politicians know loudly and clearly that this will not be tolerated. Email debbie.presson@chicoca.gov to voice your disapproval to the entire Council.

Dave Howell, Chico

Dave Howell is right – democracy can’t work when the voters are willfully misinformed by their elected and appointed officials. City staffers talk out of both sides of their mouths. If you listen to the propaganda blitz in the local media, you hear we are nearly broke and need a tax measure, but attend a meeting, or read a report, and you see that city revenues are constantly growing.

Utility Tax revenues, for example, are projected to increase almost a million dollars a year. Every time PG&E and Cal Water rates go up the city cash registers are ringing. The flurry of home sales and now new construction are bloating city coffers with higher property taxes and new home fees. And new housing will provide more utility tax, it’s just an endless cycle.

But even with a healthy revenue stream our self-serving staff can’t pay their outrageous pensions without gutting services all over town? But they manage to come up with $8 million a year – siphoned out of even “dedicated funds” – to pay down the pension deficit? Pensions eat 18% of our budget.

Council tells us they’ve achieved pension reform – they asked staff to pay another 3 percent, making employee share a BFD figure of 11 percent. We, the taxpayers, are on the hook for the rest. Time to take that hook out of your mouth and demand REAL pension reform – meaning, all employees, not just new hires, must pay their own pensions. Or they need to hit the road.

Employees, including city mismanager Mark Orme and his wrecking crew, must go before council every year to have their contracts renewed. Why do we allow them to keep renewing these contracts without demanding that they pay their own pensions?

Like Howell says, ask your council members about that.

Comments 4 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

Yuba County Measure K: supervisors finally admit they have a pension deficit, and it’s a whopper!

23 Apr

I got the following report from the “No on Measure K” folks in Marysville, Yuba County.

Currently the county is in litigation with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and two local residents over sales tax increase measure K that passed in November. Plaintiffs are charging the measure was a special tax and should have been required to have 2/3’s approval from the voters, but was run as a general tax and barely passed with a simple majority.

Throughout the campaign the county not only used public safety as bait, used taxpayer funds to run their campaign, but also repeatedly denied they had a pension deficit.

Get aload of one supervisor’s response to a citizen’s evidence of pension deficit – “I know that you really want the numbers to back up the talking point that Measure K is all about CalPERS increases, but the numbers just don’t support that claim.”

Of course, now that they passed their measure with a questionable margin they not only deny it was a special tax but also admit they have a $147 million UAL (unfunded accrued liability).

This is what we can expect from the city of Chico and Chico Area Recreation District as they pursue their revenue measures. They will bully us, they will lie to us, they will simply refuse us, but we have to keep squeezing out the truth. We have to make sure the propaganda isn’t the only thing the voters hear in the coming year.

From Yuba County No on Measure K:

For many, and many months [Yuba County Supervisor] Robert Bendorf and all five Yuba County Supervisor’s have denied that there is a large CalPERS liability looming. One Yuba County resident worked long and hard to find the truth. He pulled the CalPERS publically published pension numbers, examined the Yuba County budgets and he even had a CPA double check the numbers (They were correct).

All those numbers, pointed to the same thing, Yuba County was in a deep pension hole.

That same concerned resident, ran the numbers by Yuba County Supervisor Gary Bradford for his comment. Gary Bradford publicly stated over and over again: “I know that you really want the numbers to back up the talking point that Measure K is all about CalPERS increases, but the numbers just don’t support that claim.”

All his efforts were met with rude, evasive comments, verbal attacks and lies. Facebook posts during this time ridiculed any notion that there is a problem with CalPERS.

Fast forward a few months……….

The County and Supervisors PROMISED that Measure K (don’t you trust us?) is all for safety – well that was then, now they are claiming in Court (where the Legality of Measure K is coming into question) that it wasn’t about safety.

That is a moving target – was it or wasn’t it a safety measure???

With Measure K, increased revenue estimates are predicted to swell the Yuba County coffers by about $4.5 million annually (that’s another moving target).

Between the Miscellaneous and Safety Budgets, the county owes $147.6 Million to the pension pot ($106.8 Million for the Miscellaneous and $40.7 Million to the Safety Unfunded Accrued Pension Liabilities). They have to make payments to try and catch up.

But, paraphrasing Gary Bradford again “CalPERS isn’t a problem”

It’s bitter sweet to note that all five Yuba County supervisors will be meeting April 23rd 2019, to……

“Conduct a workshop to discuss options for addressing the County’s unfunded employee pension liability”

(see Agenda Topic 23 – Title:
County Administrator: Conduct a workshop to discuss options for addressing the County’s unfunded employee pension liability and provide further direction to staff. (20 minutes estimate)
https://agendasuite.org/iip/yuba/meeting/details/126….

Reading through the public document for the supervisors comments, they state “In recent years, the CalPERS Board made a series of decisions regarding assumptions for future costs of pensions, mostly on life expectancy and assumed investment returns, which have resulted in a significant escalation in the County’s unfunded accrued liability (UAL). Despite the County having made all required payments, over a seven-year period from FY 2010-11 through FY 2016-17 the assumption changes have resulted in an increase of $58.9 million (66.4%) in the UAL.”

A few months ago, the County said there wasn’t a Pension problem, but now they are meeting to discuss options to try and address the Pension Problem.

A few months ago, the County said it’s all about Safety, but now they are claiming in Court that it wasn’t about safety.

What a curious World our Yuba County Supervisors live in:
Where a Problem isn’t a problem, but then is
Where it was all about safety, but then isn’t.

Comments 2 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

A lie will stick unless you call the liar out on it

17 Apr

Al Franken wrote a really funny book years back, before he became a politician, you might want to check it out –

It’s not balanced, or fair, but it’s sooooo true! And it’s not just “the Right,” either. They all lie. Have you heard about the latest attempt to keep voters from knowing the truth about tax measures?

https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary/bond-issue-transparency-still-under-assault/

Dan Walters:

“Two years ago, in a rare display of support for transparency in government finance, the Legislature and then-Gov. Jerry Brown required local governments and school districts to tell voters how proposed bond issues would affect their property taxes.

That would seem to be just common sense and good government, but local officials complained that Assembly Bill 195 would be too difficult to implement. Their real motive, however, was a fear that telling voters that their tax bills would increase might discourage them from voting for the bonds.“

It’s a good thing we have Dan Walters, because our local media have fallen in with city staff and council to run their tax measure campaign, both the tv news and the daily running at least a story a week about how we need a tax measure to fix all the problems brought about by years of poor management and self-service. I finally had to ask ER reporter Laura Urseny where she got the numbers regarding how many Camp Fire evacuees are still residing within the Chico City limits.

I covered that here:

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2019/04/12/orme-estimates-10-15000-refugees-living-in-chico-based-on-nonregistration-couch-living-trailers-parked-on-streets/

I knew they didn’t have any numbers, or I’d have asked, “how many people from the burned areas already drove into Chico five or more days a week to their job, already shopped in Chico regularly, already used Chico roads and services?” I already know the answer – probably more than half the people – more like two thirds – in the affected areas already came to Chico, drove our roads, used our retail sector, our post office, and other services, on a regular basis.

But a lie will stick unless you call the liar out on it. So I wrote the following letter to the ER.

Stories in this newspaper claim the city of Chico “has absorbed many displaced Camp Fire victims.” When I asked one reporter for a specific figure, she paraphrased the city manager as follows.

“He [Mark Orme] said he doesn’t have hard numbers from FEMA because of nonregistration, couch-living, trailers parked on streets etc. He said the city is still using the 10,000-15,000 estimate.”

A FEMA map shows a great many of the roughly 20,000 evacuees have spread out around Butte County, California and the US, with no figures for Chico. Staff is simply using numbers that suit their purpose. To date, Staff has used their “estimate” to excuse poor road conditions, crime problems, housing shortage and cost, and now a “$5-6,000,000” roundabout.

Staff admits they have deferred road maintenance in Chico since long before the Camp Fire. The city’s welcome mat for transients is the source of our crime problems. The short-lived boom in the Chico housing market immediately following the Camp Fire has been over for some time – there are 247 listings on Trulia. The proposal to place FEMA housing near the Eaton Road interchange has been abandoned.

Staff is pressing for a tax measure using Camp Fire evacuees as bait. Dan Walters points out “the underlying real reasons, such as to cover rapidly increasing employee pension and health care costs.” Chico’s pension deficit is over $130,000,000. The Wall Street Journal reports, “despite bull market, pension plans in miserable shape…”

Staff needs to fess up, and pay their own pensions.

Comments 14 Comments
Categories Chico bankruptcy, Chico media is a disappointment, Chico pension deficit, Chico revenue measure, Chico sales tax increase, revenue measures Chico CA, Uncategorized

← Older Entries

Newer Entries →

Search