Tag Archives: Chico Measure H

Is this purchase really necessary?

4 Sep

Wow it’s Christmas in August for me. Yesterday my husband and I were driving down Notre Dame Blvd and he spotted a discarded push mower leaned up against a dumpster at an apartment house. I have been wanting one for my tenants’ yards, just for those little patches of crab grass that spring up around shady trees. I found two on Craigslist – one in Napa for $35, the other in Redwood City for about same. Too far. Home Depot has one for $89 – too expensive for my budget. But I knew I’d find one if I just kept looking. Then BAM! We’re driving down the street one day, and there’s one just leaned up against a dumpster next to a very shabby mattress and box spring. Hello Dolly!

And it’s dandy – in good shape, working order. Fresh cut grass stuck to the blades. And oh gee – Made in the USA! Looks like they only discarded it because they had moved into an apartment building. Boy howdy I jumped out of the truck and loaded that fellow right in the back, waved Thank You! at the windows of the building, and drove away feeling like a lady who saved eighty-nine bucks. Always good to keep something out of the landfill too.

My husband and I are practicing attrition, a $64 word for cutting our spending. Partly because we’re tight right now, having spent a bunch of money doing repairs and replacing old fixtures at the rentals, and partly because, we want to support American manufacturing and the new trade deals the president is seeking. Unless it’s a necessity – like a new toilet seat – if we can’t find American-made, we don’t buy it.

Yeah, we had to buy a China-made toilet seat for the new American-made toilet we bought for the rental, which I find ironic, but here’s the reality – we didn’t find any seats that were made in the USA in the price range we are in. Life is full of compromise.

But compromise is a two-way street – when we went to buy the toilet seat we found the mower. Get out!

I love that about our town – when somebody has something they don’t need that’s still perfectly good, they put it at the end of their driveway with a ‘FREE’ sign. Just the day before we found the mower, we were driving along Vallombrosa and there it was – the wheelbarrow I’ve been wanting. A nice old metal barrow with good wooden handles. Obviously used, but here’s the thing – the tire was still good, newish even. We use our wheelbarrows for various chores until the arms or the tire rot off, and then they are used for flower beds. They’re so expensive, we haven’t replaced the last one. Until the other day, when, there it was, alongside the road, with a carboard box saying ‘FREE’. Inside the box there was the perfectly good tire and all the parts to put it back on.

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, you just have to believe.

Tags: , , , ,

Good Will Hunting: skating rink on the agenda for next week’s Finance Committee meeting – should it stay, or should it go? Should Brendan Ottoboni pay for it out of his new $184,000+ salary?

24 Jun

I got good news in my email box – Finance Committee meeting scheduled for next Wednesday – June 28 – to decide whether or not to fund the ice skating rink at City Plaza for next year. And here’s something interesting I found in their report – they lost a lot more in 2021 and 22 than staff had previously reported. Read further.

If this was Major League Baseball, Somebody would be getting fired right now. Here’s Somebody’s report.

https://chico.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6.28.23_fc_agenda_packet.pdf?1687390810

Over the years, City staff have evaluated and considered ways to enhance the downtown experience for our community, as well as an attraction for outside tourism. The plaza was an underutilized asset in the winter time and therefore, we narrowed in on the concept of the Downtown Chico Ice Skating Rink to further enhance the holiday festivities in our downtown. As a family-friendly event, this provided a means to provide an experience that people of all ages can enjoy. By having a cost-effective event for families downtown, there are other intrinsic values that it brings to get more people downtown. The Downtown Chico Ice Skating Rink was initiated and started in 2021. The original intent was to transfer management and full operating/rental costs to another group, such as the Downtown Chico Business Association (DCBA) or the Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) after the first year of operation. Therefore, the first year (2021), City staff managed the operations with support from DCBA and the second year (2022), DCBA fully managed the operations of the program with City staff still managing the setup of the rink.

Ways to enhance the downtown experience? Well, how about getting rid of the panhandlers, perverts and pedophiles? The people who break into our cars while we’re eating a super-spendy dinner or perusing overpriced crap stores? The people who shit on the entry ways of businesses and vandalize anything that can’t run away. Stop treating these people like privileged visitors and start treating the rest of us with some respect and maybe we’ll decide to come out of our homes and spend some money.

The fact that neither CARD nor DCBA came rushing forward to run this dud should tell us even more. CARD is a recreation district starving for revenues – if they thought this thing would pan they would have jumped on it. As for sponsorships – in 2021, local businesses came forward with $116,100 in donations. For 2022 only $65,196 in sponsorships. Sounds like city staff and council were the only ones who didn’t notice the rink was not only a failure but it made the public really mad. The city of Chico needs to stop doctoring their own Kool Aid.

Ottonboni also claims, “The plaza was an underutilized asset in the winter time“…? No, say what you really mean Kid – it was used as a homeless shelter, illegal campers ignored by Chico PD and city management. Downtown business owners/tenants and the general public were getting really mad. It sat there for years, got so bad, there was a flea infestation. They closed the plaza for over a month for cleaning and fumigation, and then they just let the campers take it right back.

In order to get the bums to stay out of their skating rink, the city fenced the plaza off to EVERYBODY. The first year they actually fenced off the parking places directly surrounding the plaza, eliminating how many parking spaces? So, the plaza became even more unusable to shoppers and others who pay taxes to enjoy a lively and thriving central core.

Their plans were a miserable failure – a financial loss equating to more than the salary of the staffer who picked up the idea from that consultant and pitched it further to the city – Brendan Ottoboni. Ottoboni actually left the city a couple of years ago only to come back to a new department head position and a $40,000 raise.

New hires with new higher salaries, and council wants to raise builder fees (i.e. – the price of your house…) to pay for it. This is how the city of Chico makes housing more UNaffordable.
Why did we hire this person back?

Ottoboni asks the committee and council “for direction”. I sure would like to give him a direction – my husband says “go to Hwy 99 and head south….” I’d like to tell him he’s a department head now and he needs to buck up and make a suggestion, like the suggestion he made that got us into this mess in the first place. If you really want a good shock read the rest of the report. Here’s a good one – to date, the city has laid out almost $500,000, out of the General Fund, for “starter costs“.

I love the passive-aggressive terminology – “negative project cost” – just say LOSS you little weasel! “The first two years resulted in losses of funding directly linked to program costs and revenues. In 2021, the program had a negative project cost of $142,557.76, and in 2022, a negative project cost of $188,779.43.” Those are not the figures I was previously given by staff. In 2021 they reported a $29,000 loss to the news media, and finance staff just gave me a figure of about $176,000. And that includes “$70,053.64 of net revenue from the DCBA.” They seem to be digging themselves deeper every time we hear about it.

“The estimated amount of funds anticipated for the startup costs this year are approximately $200,000. This will be our initial capital outlay and staffing time, with net revenues from the operations to cover a portion, if not all of this initial outlay.“

Yes, they spend OVER $200,000 on salaries for this thing. For one year.

But get a load of this – Ottoboni still wants to continue funding this train wreck – boy I just want to kick this guys ass – “While the direct revenues did not cover the startup and operational costs in each of the first two years, City Council, staff and the community have concerns on the ability of this event to be fiscally sustainable. However, there are other intrinsic values that this brings to one of our community features, Historic Downtown Chico… “

And then this – “anecdotally we have heard that businesses generally performed better
during the period of the Downtown Chico Ice Rink operation…” It’s the end of June, why don’t we have the actual figures in this report? Mr. $184,000+/yr can hand us “anecdotes”?

So, every time they mention funding this dud again, I will mention the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, coming to the 2024 ballot. I’m not sure I need protecting, but I’d like some accountability.

Tags: , , ,

Harvey Holland: “Undergirding the homeless movement is an entitlement mentality, one that avails itself to the benefits of a free society, yet does not obey the laws that safeguard those rights.”

28 May

I don’t subscribe to the Enterprise Record but every now and then I read the letters section online – I find that the most interesting section of the paper, which has gone to mostly ads and propaganda. Most times I am able to read it before the wall comes up, today all I got was the following, with a quick glimpse at the name of the author – Harvey Holland. I didn’t get to read the whole letter, but I liked the opening quote.

“Undergirding the homeless movement is an entitlement mentality, one that avails itself to the benefits of a free society, yet does not obey the laws that safeguard those rights.”

That really nails it for me – I can’t stand people who scream for their rights without accepting any responsibility for their actions. I’ve dealt with friends and family members who’ve adopted that philosophy – I call it, “The Me, Myself and Irene” syndrome. “Irene” representing methamphetamine, heroin, and/or waaaaay too much alcohol.

Yep, that’s the reality of Chico these days, entitled drug addicts and criminals. They know they won’t be held responsible for taking stuff out of your yard, taking your daughter’s bike or your 11 year old’s BMX from the garage. That used to be called “stealing”, but these days it’s just a fact of life – if you don’t lock your stuff up – even that curious looking doodad hanging from your porch eaves – they will take it and nobody’s going to do anything about it.

Even locking stuff up isn’t always the answer. Car thefts are just a fact of life, and if your car is older and worth less than $10,000 they’re not even going to attempt to find it, much less get it back. My friend Dave’s locked car was stolen from the parking lot at his apartment complex. When he finally got it back, there was over 1,000 new miles on it, it had been stripped of valuable parts like the catalytic converter, was full of garbage including chits from casinos and used syringes, and was in the possession of a woman with warrants on her. That’s the only reason he got it back – she had to abandon it when the cops arrested her, and the tow truck got it before the transients got ahold of it again. I don’t believe anyone was ever charged, they acted as though Dave should be lucky to get his car back at all, completely destroyed and nothing but trash.

The cops and Mike Ramsey saw Dave’s car as an old junker, but Dave knew it as a car he had copiously maintained for years and his only source of transportation. This is life in Chico – watch your ass.

Or, demand more from your local police force. The police department gets over half the budget to tell us they can’t do anything about crime – tell your city rep the cops need to pay more of their own pensions, that’s getting down to their bottom line. Demand more from your DA – write a letter to the editor asking who will run against Ramsey and offer your support. And demand more from your city representative – my rep, Kasey Reynolds, tells me they need to offer these crazy $100,000+ salaries to “attract good people”. Let your rep know, that’s now working for us, and tell them you’re ready to fund and vote for anybody wo runs against them. I supported Morgan Kennedy in the last race, and you know what – she made a pretty good showing, and if she ran again she’d probably do better. I know she had Kasey worried – Reynolds’ PAC, “Citizens for Safe Chico” set a new funding record for the city council race.

The real problem is, it’s not just the transients and criminals who have a stake here – our ruling class is really entitled, they don’t care about our experience, they’re looking out for the One Percent. Look at Mark Sorensen’s little stucco compound over on Manzanita – you think he’s really worried about what you’re experiencing? Stand up and say something, or YOU have become the problem.

Tags: , ,

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: ,

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: ,

NO on H: BC and Bob respond to Measure H proponents

12 Oct

The following is a comment BC made on my last post.

An editorial was recently submitted to the Chico News and Review by a local politician in support of the Measure H tax increase. it is responded to here, point by point.

Want better roads? Better parks? Better public safety? Better housing solutions? A vote for Measure H is a vote for a better Chico.

Response: Of course, voters want better roads, a cleaner park, and a safer environment. But there is nothing in Measure H that mandates the funds be spent on any of those items. The additional funding will be spent where existing funding goes: salaries, benefits, unfunded pension liability and catch-up provisions, and unfunded post employee benefits

Rapid population growth, the Camp Fire, COVID-19 and increased community needs have stretched our finances. Maintaining roads, preserving Bidwell Park, keeping neighborhoods safe and creating durable housing solutions takes resources the city simply does not have.

Response: There have been more than adequate resources from State and Federal programs to offset COVID-19 and the Camp Fire. The suffering at a personal level is significant and not to be discounted. Many burned out families are still waiting for restitution. But at the City level by some estimates, the Camp fire was a money maker for Chico. Population growth, along with deteriorating roads and parks are all issues that predate COVID and the fire. The reason there is no funding for these issues is city pension liability. There are the pensions, and everything else.

Chico is only one of eight California cities over 50,000 residents without a local sales tax. Of those eight cities, Chico’s general fund budget is the lowest per capita.

Response: This type of comparison is vapid. How are the other 8 cities without a sales tax doing? This line of poor reasoning also shows up in comments like: Chico has less employees than other cities our size, we need more. Our director of “XYZ” makes less that comparable directors, he needs a raise. Every other city of our size sends its employees to the national conference in Hawaii/Las Vegas/Washington, DC, our people should go as well. It all leads to an escalating size of government without any critical thought or analysis. (E.g. Why do employees need a raise when they are well paid, and there is a line out the door of qualified applicants who will take the position?)

The sales tax will add $1 to every $100 spent (groceries, rent and prescription medications aren’t taxed) and will generate $24 million a year to invest in our community.

Response: It would take $2.4 Billion in sales to generate $24 million in revenue @ 1%. Pulling $24 million out of the local economy so it can be redistributed to City employees, benefits and pensions is not an “investment”. If you want to know how any new tax revenue will be spent, look at how the EXISTING money is spent.

Measure H spending decisions will be made locally. We’ll be able to will make improvements to Chico that not only will enhance our daily lives but also create jobs. Chico would be able to support local social service agencies and provide housing assistance.

Response: How are those “locally made” decisions serving you currently? The roads are bad, the park is a run-down and the local agencies are underfunded. Raising taxes does not create jobs, except for the tax collectors and the administration that you have to set up at the city level to monitor the tax.

Measure H has support from across the political spectrum. Seven former Chico mayors endorse Measure H, as do seven of the eight council candidates.

Response: The measure is supported by local politicians who view growth of government as a public good. They have a vested interest. This is the equivalent of going to a Friday-night high school football game, and asking the fans in the grandstands if they like football.

Thanks BC! – I also liked Bob’s response –

These were the people on whose watch the pension and OPEB deficit blew up and who spent our money very unwisely in other areas. They created today’s problems. So now we are supposed to take their advice?

All this tax will do is enable the current local politicians to continue the bad spending of the seven former mayors who caused our problems.

When will people wake up and stop listening to those who got us into this mess? Listening to Schwab discuss a tax increase is like listening to an arsonist lecture you on fire prevention.

Thanks BC and Bob for pointing out the flaws in the H campaign, and why we should vote NO on H.

Tags: ,

Steve Wolfe: City staff have “insinuated” that the Measure H funding will go towards infrastructure and services. This voter will believe that when pigs become aeronautically enabled.

8 Oct

The Butte County clerk has noticed us that she will be mailing ballots with the county voter’s pamphlets on Monday (10/10/22). You can see the pamphlet here, start doing your homework:

https://buttevotes.net/306/Local-Measures

Measures H and L are for city of Chico, click on those measures for the city attorney’s analysis, and for H, the Arguments For and Against.

Measure L doesn’t even get a discussion. The proponents – Kasey Reynolds, Sean Morgan, Rob Berry – didn’t post any Argument For, and I didn’t have time to post an Argument Against. I’m voting No on L, for reasons explained here:

“Quality of life” Measure L is a backhanded attempt to stop lawsuits against the city of Chico and relieve them of any responsibility from damages caused by their bum camps

As for Measure H, you can read proponents’ arguments, and my responses – same arguments we’ve both made in our letters to the editor. I’ll say though, the proponents’ letters have sounded like form letters, weak, insincere, and sometimes using the same words – especially their mantra about the tax not applying to “food, rent or prescription medications…” Wow, as if those are life’s only necessities. None of the yes letters have been from frequent letter writers, so they seem unnatural, as if they’ve been put up to it.

By contrast, I’ve seen some very original and sincere letters coming from folks like Dave Howell, Joe Azzarito, and here’s a good one from longtime letter writer Steve Wolfe, recently posted in the Enterprise Record.

To reiterate an earlier article, this is a poor Measure.  Measure H requires only a simple majority for passage with the money going into the general fund, to be spent at the discretion of the City Council.  In addition, there is no “sunset” clause which would allow the voters an opportunity to audit the measure at a future date.

It is difficult for one to believe that the city is in desperate straits financially when one considers the funding available through sales tax, property tax, vehicle registration fees, utility users tax, etc., all of which must be on the increase considering the city’s burgeoning population.

In addition, consideration must be given to the $200 million in failing infrastructure (roads/sewer) due to years of admitted deferred maintenance while staff funneled amounts into an ever increasing pension deficit; last year $11.5 million, this year $12 million, $18 million by 2025 and on and on. Which doesn’t seem to faze city staff as I read where the PD just received another raise. City staff have “insinuated” that the Measure H funding will go towards infrastructure and services. This voter will believe that when pigs become aeronautically enabled.

I suggest a measure dedicated to city infrastructure. That of course would require a 2/3 majority vote, but at least the voters would know where the money was going. That measure this voter could support.

Steve Wolfe, Chico

I’m glad to see Wolfe has done his homework on the budget, and he’s making rational suggestions, while also entertaining us with his wit! I also believe there are plenty of people out there like Wolfe, who would be glad to contribute if they saw a light at the end of the tunnel – a 2/3’s measure dedicated to infrastructure, specific amounts toward specific projects, and even a sunset date.

My husband and I have also heard from folks around town, people we do business with all the time, longtime local business owners. Whenever we’ve mentioned the tax measure we’ve started a spirited discussion among owners and customers – they’re pissed at the city – they know the money has been coming in, and they want to know why it isn’t being spent on long-needed infrastructure maintenance and repair. They’re mad about the bum camps, and they blame incumbents Coolidge, Morgan and Reynolds, by name. They know about the salaries and the generous benefits. And more than a few of them still remember how badly Chico management treated the Camp Fire refugees, lied about surplus population numbers, and got money that probably should have gone to Paradise and other burn victims. Chico voters are a little better informed than H proponents might realize.

By contrast, 10 years ago when the city put a cell phone tax on the ballot, Measure J, fellow CTA members and I were surprised how few people had even heard about the measure. Folks we spoke to on the street were shocked to find out they’d been taxed for years via their cell phone bills, that it was illegal, and that a lawsuit had forced cities all over California, including Chico, to put it on the ballot for voters. When the Chico Tea Party group held a rally at City Plaza, with information regarding city salaries and benefits, we found out local taxpayers had no idea how generously compensated Chico Staffers were, and still are. And people were outraged, J was beaten pretty soundly. But it took a dedicated group of Chico Taxpayers, Chico Tea Party, and Chico Republican Women to get the word out.

So thanks Dave, Joe, and all the folks who have worked to expose the truth – our city is very well funded, we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

We really can do better – NO on H.

Tags: ,

Many campaign donors look at it like more of an investment – take Measure H donors, please!

6 Oct

It’s always good to see who is behind a campaign and how much money they’ve put into it. Sometimes we find, these donors look at campaign contributions as more of an investment than the rest of us.

Here’s the link to the most recently filed report from Chicoans For The Sales Tax Measure 2022 — aka, Yes on Measure H. It’s a quick read, but very interesting – thanks Dave for the Heads Up.

https://public.netfile.com/pub2/RequestPDF.aspx?id=204866944

The biggest donors on this report are the Chico Police Officers Association and local developers Slater and Son. The CPOA was also the biggest donor behind ill-fated CARD Measure A. The Chico Police Department is also the biggest expense the taxpayers have, taking over half the new budget of $211 million. The salaries lead the pension deficit, so the cops also have the biggest pension deficit. Generous contributions to candidates at election time have kept council members from pressing CPOA members to pay more rational shares of their pensions and benefits.

Meanwhile, developers Howard and son Brandon Slater enjoy their fair share of public housing contracts, most recently receiving the contract for the new Jesus Center and transitional housing on Fair Street. That project is funded by the city of Chico.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not seeing the housing shortage the city (and Measure H proponents) are claiming – read this article, this is what I see whenever I drive around town.

https://krcrtv.com/news/local/nearly-1400-affordable-housing-units-in-chico-proposed-while-camp-fire-survivors-move-out

CHICO, Calif. April 16, 2022 — Construction of affordable housing in Chico is picking up, while tenants are moving out.

Brendan Vieg, the City of Chico’s community development director for planning and housing, released the new development statistics during the Chico Chamber of Commerce’s community development update Thursday.

Affordable housing, historically not comparable to those numbers, is keeping up this year. Vieg says 476 affordable housing units are currently under construction via apartments, duplexes and more. This work can be seen at the 59-unit project located at the old Jesus Center near downtown, the 60-unit project at the intersection of Bruce Road and East 20th Street, 97-unit Laval Ridge project off State Route 32 and east of Bruce Road, the 100-unit Creekside Place project across from Marsh Junior High School and the 106-unit North Creek Crossing project inside Meriam Park.

And a lot of it is being built with public money – “Those affordable housing projects represent solely those that have already broken ground, but something both the in-construction and in-development projects share: where the funding is coming from.

“Vieg says a total of 10 projects are being funded through disaster tax credits and CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds. Chico received over $32 million of this post-Camp Fire due to the influx of around 20,000 people who were displaced and eventually moved there in 2018.“

The Measure H flyer I received today claims that the revenues from H “would support“, among other things, “housing“. So you see, Slater and Son are making an investment, not a donation. They will receive millions in funding out of those revenues. There’s no oversite on jobs like that, when it’s taxpayer money, the sky is the limit. No fiscal responsibility, no competitive nature, the contractor charges what they want once they secure the contract.

Howard Slater used to say something along the lines of “for every dollar you spend in planning, you save $7 in building…” Well I’d say, he’s using the same philosophy in regards to greasing the wheels that turn his business empire – the public trough. For every $30,000 donated, you get how many million in return Howard?

And we must realize, the cops look at it same. Every election the CPOA are the biggest donors.

I’ll add this last “I told you so” – when Paradise was burnt to the ground and people fled for their lives, city of Chico management treated them like a pack of fleas, claiming they were overwhelming services like roads and sewers. Orme cried poormouth while receiving millions in disaster relief. I told you all that was BULLSHIT, and here’s staffer Vieg admitting it.

“Over three years after the blaze, these people are moving out.

“‘Our population swelled to over 112,000,” says Vieg. ‘Based on the Census, they have come in with a number of 101,475. So that’s kind of a big reflection of, again, a greater out-migration in our community.'”

At the time, Orme claimed 120,000. He used that number to file for and receive millions in disaster relief. Council spent the money as they saw fit – doled it out to their buddies in the unions and the developer community.

The most interesting reports come after the election is over, because the smart ones don’t donate until the last quarter. That would be the Service Employees International Union, which is the biggest union Downtown. That’s another time, on This Old Lady.

Tags: ,

Chico Says No: There is no bigger reason for the City’s financial predicament than spiraling pension and other post employment benefits (OPEB) costs.

3 Oct

 Investigating the “Chico Says No” site further, I found this really good essay on Chico’s unfunded pension liability.

https://chicosaysno.weebly.com/unfunded-liabilities.html

Something I’ve tried to remember to include in the pension deficit conversation but often forget, is OPEB – other post employment benefits. Yes, there is also a separate deficit on employee health benefits, for the same reason there is a pension deficit – our city employees expect very nice benefits – health insurance, vision, dental, life insurance, etc – but employees don’t make realistic contributions. Listen, the only reason they discuss the pension deficit AT ALL is that we’ve continued to press them about it for years. As we’ve kept pressing, they’ve raised employee contributions, by very tiny increments. The taxpayers pick up over half the “payroll” share and ALL the “catch-up”, or deficit payments.

And here’s what’s weird, like the author points out below – the catch-up payments get bigger every year, taking more money from the General Fund every year, but the deficit just keeps getting bigger. More about that tomorrow – or you can look at the budget yourself, here:

https://chico.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2022-23_city_annual_final_budget.pdf?1664554257

And now, from the Chico Says No website:

Why are the streets crumbling in Chico?  Why is the rest of the infrastructure in sad shape?  Why have City services declined?  And why has this happened while City revenue continues to rise?  The fact is the City has never had more money to spend and the infrastructure has never been worse.  Why do our local politicians and bureaucrats continually cry out for more money and raise fees and taxes?

There is no bigger reason for the City’s financial predicament than spiraling pension and other post employment benefits (OPEB) costs. These costs are referred to as unfunded accrued liabilities (UAL) meaning there has not been enough money put aside to pay for them.  Despite higher fees and taxes, despite money that is supposed to be dedicated for essentials like street maintenance being siphoned off to meet these costs, they continue to spiral out of control.

The City Council wants tax increases and although no City Council member will tell you the truth, the reason for these tax increases is to deal with the UAL.  It is unconscionable that our local leaders will not level with people like you who have to pay for this.

If you read nothing more on the subject, read this article:

Californians face a wave of local tax hike measures

Although it is over two years old it applies even more today because the problem is even worse today. The article states:

“Local governments and school districts always tout these measures as necessary expenditures to rebuild crumbling schools, maintain overused parks and provide better police services, but don’t be fooled. Every new local tax these days is, essentially, a pension tax. These governments write the ballot summaries and provide ‘voter information,’ so they are able to sway the discussion away from the true causes of their fiscal peril.“

And remember, no city in California has solved its UAL predicament by raising taxes or borrowing more.  All that can do is increase the cost to taxpayers and postpone the day when there will be no choice but to reform these liabilities.

Don’t vote for the politicians’ tax increases.  Don’t let them borrow more.  Instead, demand accountability and demand they reform the out of control unfunded liabilities before they cost taxpayers even more.

Tags: ,

New group comes out against Measure H: Chico Says No

2 Oct

https://chicosaysno.weebly.com

VOTE NO ON MEASURE H

Why Should You Vote No On the Chico City Council’s Measure H Sales Tax Increase?

  • There is No Guarantee How the Money Will Be Spent

The measure contains a long list of possible uses for the money (many vague) but no details, dollar amounts or completion dates are assigned to anything.  Instead of necessities like street maintenance, the money can be spent on unsustainable employee costs, boondoggles and possibly hundreds of millions in new bonds (debt)! Remember, the money from the garbage tax was supposed to be spent for street maintenance but was siphoned off for the pensions. And that is only one example of our money being mismanaged!

  • There is No Citizen Oversight Council

Our city councils have proven over and over they can’t be trusted to spend our money wisely.

  • The Tax is PERMANENT Despite What The City Says

The ballot measure deceitfully says the tax will be in effect until “ended by voters.” Do you think the City will ever put a repeal on the ballot?  Of course NOT!  So it will require professional signature gathers to collect in excess of 12,000 signatures to get a repeal on the ballot and that will cost thousands of dollars.  Who is going to pay for that?  No one!  You will NEVER get a chance to repeal this tax.

  • The Tax is REGRESSIVE

Working people, poor people and those on fixed incomes will pay a disproportionate amount of their incomes and savings for this tax. In 2019 a City consultant said the per capita cost would be about $200 a year and that’s before the worst inflation in forty years.

  • This Is No Time for Another Tax Increase

Inflation at a 40 year high, looming recession, 22.4% of Chicoans living in poverty, record debt, taxes and the cost of living are already too high, etc.  And the City just passed a 67% sewer rate increase! Among other taxes, the City already taxes us 5% on gas, electric, telecom, water and has “franchise fees” of 2% on gas and electric and 10% on garbage. We have enough taxes!

  • The City’s Revenue Has Been Growing for Years

The City has never had more money to spend and the streets and the rest of the City’s infrastructure have never been worse.  The City’s revenue is up 40% FY15-16 through FY20-21 and when the audited financial reports come out for last fiscal year revenue will be up again. (As usual, the City doesn’t publish the audit financials until 6 months after the FY closes!)

  • The City Has a Spending Problem, Not a Revenue Problem

For many years money that should have been spent for essential programs like infrastructure maintenance has been siphoned off for massive unfunded liabilities which continue to grow anyway.  These liabilities are unsustainable. A tax increase will NOT solve this problem but only enables the City to delay taking action resulting in more tax increases later.

Instead of voting for a tax increase, demand the City Council reform these unsustainable liabilities so they are not passed down to your kids and grandkids! Download this flyer here and distribute it to everyone you know! Thank you!

Tags: , ,