Tag Archives: Chico Taxpayers Association

Last minute meeting reminder – Chico Taxpayers Association meets tomorrow at the Chico library, 9 – 10am

1 Dec

I don’t know what the weather will be like tomorrow morning but I will be over at the library at 9 am, trying to get up a discussion regarding the defeat of Measure J.  We should talk about this past Tuesday’s Finance Committee meeting and comments made by city attorney Laurie Barker regarding contacting the cell phone providers and also the possibility of refunds on revenues already collected.

Hopefully, we can get some letters going to Ann Schwab, the council, and the local newspapers, letting people know what’s going on Downtown, and encouraging them to contact Mayor Ann Schwab and tell her they want this matter handled promptly and correctly. By some fluke I’ve had two letters in the ER over the past week – I hope some other people will write. The letters section seems to be wide open these days. 

If we have time tomorrow morning, we might want to discuss Brian Nakamura’s persistent warnings about “unfunded pension liabilities.” At the Finance Committee meeting, Nakamura kept mentioning UPL’s, but never elaborated. He said he was going to talk about them at next Tuesday’s council meeting, but I see there’s nothing specific in the agenda, just “goal setting meetings. set dates”   I’m guessing Nakamura is trying to give us the bitter pill – he’s going to warn us that Brown wants the cities to pay more of their employees’ pensions.   Nakamura and Lando are going to use this as a reason to pass a sales tax increase, just watch them. We need to be mentally ready to run another NO campaign. 

I know the weather is bad, so if I don’t see you at the meeting, don’t worry, I’ll fill everybody in! 

I booked the library room for every first Sunday through April 2013 – Chico Taxpayers Association is here for the long haul.

19 Nov

I am still waiting, with coffee breath, for the final results of the election. I’ve noticed, more votes have been added at some point since election night, but the result remains the same – Measure J is a good 2,000 votes behind and at least 5% short of the 51% needed to pass. 

I think it was member Casey Aplanalp who said we should be thankful to Tom Lando and Ann Schwab and the other tax hike proponents – they gave us the nudge to create our group, and wow, it sure worked out. 

So, I went ahead and reserved the library meeting room for the next five months, first Sunday of every month, 9am to 10am. I will be there this December 2 to see if anybody can help me draft a letter to the city. I want to ask a  few questions, what happens now that Measure J has been defeated? Which companies are collecting the tax currently, and when will Jennifer Hennessy have a letter drafted to those companies, telling them to stop? 

Etc. 

I hope you can join me, but don’t worry, I’ll be sure to fill you in.

Chico Taxpayer’s Association meeting, Saturday, Chico library, 3pm – come get a sign!

19 Oct

When I got the “No on J” signs yesterday, I immediately reserved the meeting room at the library for 3pm tomorrow. I will be there until about 4pm, with some signs, and some “Vote NO on Measure J!” fliers.

So far I have given away 25 signs, with help from friends, and I’m hoping to get these signs up and around town by the end of this week.

Three things to know about Measure J :

  • Measure J will add a 4.5 percent tax to cellular phone services and every form of electronic communication service existing now, as well as those yet to be introduced to the consumer.
  • Measure J allows the city Finance Director to add new forms of electronic communication to the list of those services taxed, without voter approval.  
  • Measure J revenues will be directed to the General Fund, which means there is no guarantee they will be used to fund public safety as proponents claim, but could be used for any purpose determined by council.

Measure J will add a 4.5 percent tax to “cell phone services, meaning, $4.50 per hundred dollars of your bill.  According to the sample ballot, “‘Telephone communication services’ shall mean and include the transmission, conveyance or routing of voice, data, audio, video, or any other information or signals, to a point, or between or among points, whether or not such information is transmitted through interconnected service with the public switched network , whatever the technology used, whether such transmission, conveyance or routing occurs by wire, cable, fiber-optic, laser, microwave, radio wave (including, but not limited to, cellular service, commercial mobile service, personal communications service (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), and other types of personal wireless service – see 47 USCA 332(c)(7)(C)(i) – regardless of radio spectrum used), switching facilities, satellite or any other technology now existing or developed after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and includes, without limitation, fiber optic, coaxial cable, and wireless. “

You’d think they’ve covered it here.  But wait!  There’s more!

“The term ‘telephone communication services’ includes such transmission, conveyance, or routing in which computer processing applications are used to act on the form, code or protocol of the content for purposes of transmission conveyance or routing without regard to whether such services are referred to as voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services or are classified by the Federal Communications Commission as enhanced or value added, and includes video and/or data services that are functionally integrated with telecommunications services. “

It goes on to include, “but not limited to…the following services regardless of the manner or basis on which such services are calculated or billed: central office and custom calling features (including, but not limited to call waiting, call forwarding, caller identification and three-way calling), local number portability (?), text messaging, ancillary telecommunication service, prepaid and post-paid telecommunications services (including but not limited to prepaid calling cards); mobile telecommunications service; private telecommunication service; paging service; 800 service (or any other toll-free numbers designated by the FCC); and value-added non-voice data service. 

“For purposes of this section, ‘private telecommunication service’ means any dedicated telephone communications service that entitles a user to exclusive or priority use of communications channels.” 

Is that, hmmm,  clear?  Basically, every service that is billed with your cell phone is taxed. If you have a basic basic basic plan like my family of four, you may get away with a tax increase of $4.50 a month. But if you have a bigger family and a social life, or if you have one of those new Smart phones with all the bells and whistles, I think you will probably pay more like $10 more a month.

I don’t even understand all these services, I don’t use them, but Mark Sorensen was saying that small businesses use a lot of “VoIP”. He calculated the cost for a small business to be hundreds of dollars a year, just for this tax. A shake-down, really.  That’s not very employer-friendly, as far as I’m concerned. 

It also includes Skype.  

This whole thing stinks, and we’ve got to move fast if we’re going to stop it. Come down to the library tomorrow and pick up a sign, or watch the blog and we’ll have at least another couple of meetings down there before the election. Or contact us here and we’ll get a sign over to you. 

The signs are in! And they look great!

18 Oct

This sign looks like a winner.

 

It’s official – there is an “organized” opposition to Measure J, the cell phone tax. Now we have some eye-catching signs to get the word out.  Let me know if you want one.  I am arranging to get the meeting room at the library for sometime this Saturday afternoon (October 20). I’ll let you know what time I’ll be there, with fliers and signs. There will be at least one more Saturday meeting, and at least one more Sunday meeting before the election. Or, you can contact me via this blog – look for the comments icon at the bottom left of this post. Leave your contact info, which will be confidential. We’ll get one to you. While supplies last – I only ordered 100, cause I never did this before, and I had no idea what I was up against. I wish I’d ordered more. That doesn’t stop you from copying it onto a pizza box and mounting it on rebar. 

Here’s the kind of butt-kissing that passes for “work” at the city of Chico – Linda Herman gets paid over $85,000 a year plus benies and pension premiums to pass around these back-scratching e-mails

3 Oct

I’m busy this morning, I check my mail, I get the stupidest kind of crap from the city of Chico. Here’s a snatch of a coversation between $85,000 a year plus Sustainability Task Force $taffer Linda Herman and Audrey Taylor of  Chabin Concepts – a consulting firm that bellies up to the bar for city funds.  This is what the city $taffers call “work”, and YOU pay for it. 

<div “”=”” id=”mp0_recip”>To Linda Herman, Shawn Tillman, Ann Schwab, Ruben Martinez, Crystal Torres, Dwight Aitkens, falexander@csuchico.edu, Hannah Hepner, Jill Ortega, juanita sumner, Nichoel Farris, Scott Wolf, Stephanie Taber, Steve Rodowick, Tino Nava, Tom DiGiovanni, Toni Scott

Thanks Linda – Ann had asked me a while back if I could join the task force but we all agreed I might have a conflict of interest since I was contracted with NoRTEC at the time, I should have kept up on it better.

I look forward to any help I can provide and leveraging these opportunities for our businesses – it is all good and I think the time is right for greater collaboration and outreach on all fronts to assist our local businesses.

And thank you, Rubin and Erik for attending the Alternative Fuel & Vehicle meetings – that too is a key part of this which we may want to discuss further of how to leverage.

Audrey

From: Linda Herman [mailto:LHERMAN@ci.chico.ca.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:23 AM
To: Audrey Taylor; Shawn Tillman
Cc: Ann Schwab; Ruben Martinez; Crystal Torres; Dwight Aitkens; falexander@csuchico.edu; Hannah Hepner; Jill Ortega; juanita sumner; Linda Herman; Nichoel Farris; Scott Wolf; Stephanie Taber; Steve Rodowick; Tino Nava; Tom DiGiovanni; Toni Scott
Subject: Re: Great job

Thank you Audrey for your comments for I believe that they are spot on and exactly what the Sustainability Task Force and Ad-Hoc Committee have in mind.  We would love it if every business in Chico were recognized under this program and want to help them achieve this goal.  I also very much  appreciated your help last night.  I didn’t get a chance to say it, but we, too, had thought about possibly the Chamber taking this program on and Ann had approached Jolene Francis about this concept early on in the process.  I also agree that we should join forces with the Economic Development side of this and something we need to pursue. 

Attached is a copy of the Council agenda report with the Sustainable Business program materials.  Please note that due to the length of the staff report I only attached a copy of the Energy resource guide as a sample.  Please let me know if you would like to see the guides for the other five categories as well.  We also welcome any comments or suggestions you may have and it occurred to me last night that we should have solicited your input on this earlier.

Thanks again and I am sure we will be in touch in the future about this program.

Linda

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linda Herman
General Services Administrative Manager
City of Chico
phone:  (530) 896-7241
fax:       (530) 895-4825
email:    lherman@ci.chico.ca.us
web:     www.ci.chico.ca.us
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>> Audrey Taylor <audrey@chabinconcepts.com> 10/3/2012 7:20 AM >>>

Linda

Very good job on the sustainability program..I think it is a good thing and more and more is a great part of economic development which I think is a good thing.   

Certainly understand some of the concerns from business perspective – I certainly hope my comments were taken in the right context – I was not suggesting we move the program to the Chamber (I certainly cannot speak to them) but in many areas I know they are starting to take leadership roles in a collaborative setting to take pressure off of  cities.   

After I thought about it I should have commented that this might be just a positioning opportunity –  this as an assistance program to help those businesses interested in triple bottom line to get there through the guideline and resources available and which the City would recognize those businesses and working with partners would provide technical assistance to reach those goals.or something like that.    I think that is the intent and totally support the effort as it is shared value to everyone.   Know though that a lot of businesses react to “govt” as being received as “regulations” before even investigating…

With this and the PACE program think these are good tools for the Outreach program that Shawn was discussing – possible opportunity to collaborate and leverage the outreach for more impact utilizing the outreach team to deliver messages on tools and then referring interested companies to any of the sustainability team that could help a company.   Shawn’s team has been working on a Chico Business Services guide which would be a leave behind..the last page could be used to promote this assistance program.

Just my thoughts and if I can be of help more than glad too.   I recently had opportunity to work with City of Benicia  on the Sustainability Program and ran into some of the same issues brought up last night…they are fortunate though to have a Valero fund to tap to really assist businesses 

Audrey

 

PS Can you send me copy or link to access the full report/guide – thanks

Audrey Taylor, President & CEO

Chabin Concepts & CR Group

Audrey@chabinconcepts.com

TEL: 530.345.0364 Ext 27

MOBILE: 530.520.2521

2515 Ceanothus Avenue, Suite 100

Chico, CA 95973

www.chabinconcepts.com

twitter.com/AudreyCHABIN

 

Phone tax a GO, sales tax increase in the works – let’s talk about it tomorrow (May 6), Chico library, 11:30am

5 May

Tomorrow we will be discussing both the phone tax that council has already added to the November ballot and the sales tax increase that is slithering in that direction.

We realize 11:30 is not good for everybody, so we’ll also be discussing holding meetings at different times, and more often. We have a list of well-informed guest speakers we’re hoping to coax in as well.

I think we’re okay in our location, don’t you? The library is a great place for public meetings. It’s free, for one thing. And it’s fairly well placed, nearly in the middle of the incorporated  Chico area, easy bicycle OR car access, close to the freeway, and plenty of parking.  Plenty of seating too. So, I think we’ll leave it at the library, but try to have more meetings at various times to accommodate everybody.

Hope to see folks tomorrow, 11:30!

Get ready to make turnip juice! Or get ready to fight.

10 Mar

I bet you are as happy as I am to hear that the Butte Taxpayers Alliance has voiced their opposition to both the proposed sales tax increase and the phone tax coming before the city of Chico. We need to network to get the word out, and Jack Lee and friends are working hard to do just that:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/03/bta-will-oppose-new-taxes.html

These folks are doing serious work, reviewing the city budget, going to committee meetings, asking the questions that need to be asked, and getting the answers out to the public. Their website:

http://www.buttetaxpayers.org/

I’m sorry, I attended neither the Finance Committee Meeting nor the Economic Development Committee meetings this past week. I didn’t even attend any Sustainability Task Force meetings lately. Sometimes I need to stay away from the bullshit factory, it starts to be a drain.

But, I don’t think I need to go to committee meetings to know the city is planning to sucker us out of almost $12,000,000 a year in additional taxes, and I’m not going to just stand here and take it. This council has ruined the housing market, lost large manufacturers and chased others away, and now they will ruin the retail sector? We can’t have that. Tell your friends, get ready, we’re all about to be squeezed. If you aren’t a turnip, you better say something.

Lando releases survey

5 Mar

Here is Tom Lando’s sales tax survey, apparently conducted at some point within the last couple of weeks:

Chico Sales Tax Survey

(1/18/2012 Version 7)

 Methods:

 Field Dates: • January, 2012

Sample Size: • 400 completed interviews within the City of Chico

Sampling Error: • Less than +/- 5.0%

Unit of Analysis: • Voter Households

Population: • All parties

Propensity • + 40

Questionnaire • 40 data points, plus sample demographics

Interview Length • 12 minutes

Sample Vendor • Political Data Inc.

Field Vendor • SSI

 

Hello, this is _____ of _____, a public opinion research company. We are . . .

 • Right Track – Wrong •

 1. Would you say that city government in Chico is on the right track, or is the city going in the wrong direction?

 01) Right track

02) Wrong direction

03) Undecided / Neither {VOLUNTEERED}

99) Refusal

 • 1st Ballot •

 2. Business leaders and other members of the Chico community are considering placing a locally controlled one-cent sales tax measure on the ballot. The sales tax would last for 20 years and then sunset. The sales tax would fund a variety of community improvements in areas such as public safety, high school sports, community facilities, libraries and local traffic improvements. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the locally controlled one-cent sales tax measure?

 01) For {GOTO 4}

02) Against {GOTO 3b}

03) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED} {GOTO 3b}

99) Refused

• Follow-UP Ballot •

 3b. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against a locally controlled three-fourths-cent sales tax measure?

 01) For {GOTO 5}

02) Against {GOTO 3c}

03) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED} {GOTO 3c}

99) Refused

 3c. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against a locally controlled one-half-cent sales tax measure?

 01) For

02) Against

03) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED}

99) Refused

 • Name Identification & Impression •

 4. Let me read you some names of people who are active in the community. For each one, please tell me if you have heard of that person. Then, if so, please tell me if you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of them..

 CATEGORIES FOR CODING:

01) Heard/Favorable

02) Heard/Unfavorable

03) Heard/No Opinion

04) Not heard

99) Refusal

 {RANDOMIZE ORDER}

 4a. Councilman Bob Evans

4b. Councilwoman Mary Flynn

4c. Councilman Scott Gruendl

4d. Councilman Andy Holcombe

4e. Mayor Ann Schwab {MAYOR}

4f. Councilman Mark Sorensen

4g. Vice Mayor Jim Walker {VICE MAYOR}

Item Block •

 5. Now let me read you a list of items that could be partially funded by a locally controlled sales tax measure. For each item please tell me if including that item on the list would make you much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to vote for the measure.

 01) Much more likely

02) Somewhat more likely

03) Somewhat less likely

04) Much less likely

05) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED}

99) Refused

 {ROTATE ORDER}

5a. Up to 25 new police officers and fire fighters.

5b. A new community and recreation center

5c. A new high school football stadium

5d. Restoring high school sports, theater, music, and industrial arts programs

5e. Chico Library operations.

5f. Bidwell Mansion operations

5g. Bidwell Park Maintenance.

5h. Repairing roads and filling potholes.

5i. Supporting local non-profit organizations.

 5j. A new competitive-level community pool.

• Endorsement Block •

 6. Now let me read you a list of organizations that might endorse such a sales tax increase. For each organization please tell if their endorsement would make you much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to vote for a sales tax increase.

 01) Much more likely

02) Somewhat more likely

03) Somewhat less likely

04) Much less likely

05) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED}

99) Refused

 {RANDOMIZE ORDER}

6a. The Chico Chamber of Commerce

6b. Chico Democratic Club

6c. The League of Women Voters

6d. Friends of Bidwell Park

6e. Chico Esplanade League

6f. Former Supervisor Jane Dolan

6g. Supervisor Larry Wahl

6h. Supervisor Maureen Kirk

6i. Sierra Nevada Brewery Owner, Ken Grossman

6j. Former Mayor Michael McGinnis

6k. former City manager Tom Lando

6l. Bidwell Presbyterian Church Pastor Steve Schibstead

6m. Chico Police Officers Association

• Opposition Block •

 7. Now I’m going to read you a list of organizations that might oppose such a sales tax increase. For each organization please tell if their opposition would make you much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to vote for a sales tax increase.

 01) Much more likely

02) Somewhat more likely

03) Somewhat less likely

04) Much less likely

05) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED}

99) Refused

 {RANDOMIZE ORDER}

7a. Butte County Republican Party

7b. Butte County Tea Party

7c. Butte County Taxpayers Association

 • Push Block •

 8. For the next couple of minutes please listen to some arguments that have been made for and against the measure. For each argument please tell me if it makes you much more, more, less, or much less likely to vote for the measure. If the argument makes no difference either way just say so.

 01) Much more

02) More

03) Less

04) Much less

05) No difference / undecided

99) Refused

 {RANDOMIZE ORDER}

8a. Supporters argue that government works best and is more accountable to taxpayers when decisions are made locally. Funds generated from a locally controlled sales tax would receive local independent citizen oversight.

8b. Supporters argue that budget cuts have weakened local police and fire staffing and services. Funds generated from a locally controlled sales tax would allow Chico to hire up to 25 new police officers and firefighters to protect our streets and provide essential emergency services to our community.

8c. Supporters argue that years of budget cuts to our schools have led to the elimination of important school programs like art, sports, theater and shop. Funds generated from a locally controlled sales tax will restore and protect many of these important programs for our kids.

8d. Supporters argue that there is no end in sight to future budget cuts. A locally controlled sales tax would generate local funding to protect many of Chico’s most important priorities, including public safety, libraries, and youth and high school programs.

8e. Opponents argue that even local governments have a poor record of providing accountability. We don’t really have any guarantees that revenues from this tax increase will be well spent.

8f. Opponents argue that Public safety and emergency services are essential, but during tough times we need to find more funding for our police with money from non-essential programs. Just like a family living on a budget, we need to move money from non-essential programs to those most critical.

8g. Opponents argue that funding for school programs like art, sports and theater need to come from parents in times like these and should not shouldered by someone without any school-age children who could already be on a fixed income. A sales tax hike will cost everyone more, and while we’d like to replace lost funding, we just can’t afford it.

8h. Opponents argue that Taxpayers are taxed enough already. The taxpayers simply can’t endure more taxes, at least not until the economy improves. For the moment government needs to tighten its belt along with taxpayers.

 • 2nd Ballot •

 9a. Having heard this information, would you vote for or against the one-cent sales tax measure?

 01) For {GOTO 11a}

02) Against {GOTO 10b}

03) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED} {GOTO 10b}

99) Refused

 10b. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the three-fourths-cent sales tax measure?

 01) For {GOTO 11a}

02) Against {GOTO10c}

03) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED} {GOTO 10c}

99) Refused

 10c. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the one-half-cent sales tax measure?

 01) For

02) Against

03) Undecided {VOLUNTEERED}

99) Refused

• Demographics •

 Just a few more questions for statistical purposes . . .

 11a. Do you consider yourself {ROTATE ORDER}liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-of-the-road, somewhat conservative, or conservative?

 01) Liberal

02) Somewhat liberal

03) Middle-of-the-road

04) Somewhat conservative

05) Conservative

99) Refusal

 11b. Thinking about how you vote, do you usually vote {ROTATE} mainly Republican, mainly Democrat, or about the same for each party?

 01) Mainly Republican

02) About same for each

03) Mainly Democrat

99) Refusal

 11c. Please stop me when I read the age group that contains your age…

 01) 18-34

02) 35-44

03) 45-54

04) 55-64

05) 65-74

06) 75+

99) Refused

 11d. How long have you lived in Chico: less than 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, or more than 20 years?

 01) Less than 5

02) 5-10

03) 11-20

99) 20+

 11e. Do you own or rent your home or apartment?

 01) Own

02) Rent

99) Refusal

 11f. Do you have any children that attend Chico public schools?

 01) Yes

02) No

99) Refusal

This has been a confidential interview conducted by… Thank you very much for your time and have a good evening.

 11g. Sex {BY OBSERVATION}

 01) Male

02) Female

 11h. Vote propensity {FROM SAMPLE}

 11i. VBM – poll voter {FROM SAMPLE}

 11j. Median neighborhood household income {FROM SAMPLE}

 11k. Cell phone – land line {FROM SAMPLE}

How we got into this financial mess

25 Feb

Looking for information about Chico sales tax revenues, I came across a 13 year old article from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy – “a leading resource for key issues concerning the use, regulation, and taxation of land.”

Using Chico as one of his illustrative models,  Arizona professor Jeffrey L. Chapman discusses “the effects of fiscal stress on local governments in California as they attempt to maintain their autonomy…”  In other words, how cities finance their operations without being taken over by the state.  It’s interesting to read this little prelude to our current predicament.

You can read the whole thing here:  http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/property-valuation-and-taxation-library/dl/chapman_2.pdf

In his opening notes Chapman acknowledges the input and cooperation of then city manager Tom Lando.

In 1999, new housing development was in full swing in Chico.  Hammers were swinging, people were moving to Chico to take advantage of the relatively cheap housing, and construction workers were enjoying a newfound wealth.  The economy was on the way up, and the mule was the construction boom. So, an enterprising Lando decided to milk it for what he could get – he talked council into raising developer fees dramatically.

According to Chapman, “Over time, fees on new development have moved from basically non-existent to now very high. ”

By “very high”, Chapman meant, “Prior to the increases, they were about $2,000 per dwelling unit (for sewer connections) to now about $18,000 per dwelling unit.” This might sound like alot, until you consider “they cover everything from streets, parks police facilities, and bike paths.”

Some people pointed out at the time that this essentially added $16,000 to the price of a new house – I  have to laugh now – that’s chump change compared to the amount houses went up – a house just east of mine sold for $90,000 in 1998. In 2005, a  house just the other side of mine, with one more bedroom and bath, but  on the same size lot, went for over $500,000.

The housing binge provided another revenue opportunity for the city of Chico – increased property taxes.  The housing inventory was increasing as the price was going through the roof. The city was swimming in developer fees and property taxes, not to mention a surging increase in the utility and sales taxes. “If you build it, they will come…” … people were flocking to Chico. Meanwhile, the city was annexing “county pockets” all around the core, dragging in more property taxes, utility taxes and  sales taxes.

At some point in the late 1990’s, Lando had swung a deal to annex Courtesy Motors. Just Courtesy Motors. They wanted an expansion, and a  sewer hook-up, Lando told them they’d have to agree to annex. I’ll never forget the way he grinned as he talked about the sales tax revenues the city would be taking at a Finance Committee meeting. As an added bonus, this annexation created a county pocket of the neighborhood just to the west of Courtesy, which was annexed despite the protests of many of the residents a few years later.

So, if that was the picture in 1999, you might ask, what the hell happened by 2007 that led Lando’s protege and immediate successor Greg Jones to declare we were teetering on the brink of bankrupcty? Where in the heck did all that money go?

It’s funny, already in 1999, Chapman says, “services are increasing, but not in proportion to the population growth, so therefore, slight deterioration.” Meaning, services weren’t keeping up with the burgeoning population.

But why not? Chapman reported, having got his information from Lando,  that development was paying for itself – “Processing fees for new development utilize full cost accounting and include indirect costs. Enterprise funds are fully self-supporting and also include indirect costs. Thus, the fees set by the funds for homeowners are including these indirect costs.” Meaning, the cost of extra cops, street sweepers, more employees Downtown?

No, apparently not. Chapman lists “the police department no longer investigates traffic accidents if there are no injuries…” among other  city policies changes, such as, “The City used to trim trees every 7-10 years; now it will be trimming trees every 27-30 years.”

What can account for a city cutting services just as it is enjoying a boom in revenues? In 2003, the city of Chico, at the direction of City Manager Tom Lando, signed a memo of understanding with it’s employee unions that attached city salaries to revenue increases but NOT decreases.  Is that starting to make sense to everybody yet? Lando’s own salary went from the $90,000 range to over $180,000.  They took huge raises, 14, 19, 22 percent, raising the upper level salaries so quickly that they even created a pretty sizeable disparity between management and workforce. Soon, over 100 employees Downtown  made over $100,000 a year, but the folks that kept the records, tended the public, mowed the ballfields, repaired the sidewalks, paved the streets and collected the parking meter money were still in the $22 – 35,000 range.

Now, at this time, would you believe, we only owed about $120,000,000 on the RDA. I know, “only,” isn’t that a hoot? But now that we how hundreds and hundreds of millions, $120 million seems almost reasonable.

“The first redevelopment project,” reports Chapman, ” started in 1980. Today used quite a bit as is important source of funds. Together, the redevelopment money, the fees and charges from enterprise funds, and the capital funds take a $20 million General Fund budget and turn it into a $50 million city budget.”

Gee, sounds rosy – but get a load of this – “over time, the City Manager predicts that redevelopment may have become less important, since much of the service provision burden is being shifted to new development.”

There’s a glitch. What happened to Lando’s prediction that development was going to “pay for itself”?

Yes, that would be the little matter of the MOU attaching city salaries to revenue increases but not revenue decreases.

Now we find, not only did Lando NOT stop relying so heavily on the RDA as he said he would, but  he started at some point after 2000 paying salaries and benefits out of the RDA.

To me, this article, with the information provided by Lando himself, chronicles Lando’s gutting of our city finances to pay the huge salaries, including his own. I’d call that embezzlement – “the fraudulent appropriation of funds or property entrusted to your care but actually owned by someone else.” Wouldn’t you?

But now this character, with help from at least a few of our city council and, who else but $taff, is trying to shove a sales tax increase up our butts. For what purpose? To pay off the millions in pension promises he made to his $taff – to stave off the Pension Bomb. Cause see, when the Pension Bomb goes off, Lando and all his friends will just stop getting checks. They will have to get lawyers and sue a turnip for their paychecks. I think that’s going to happen anyway, but Lando is trying to hold it off as long as he can, because as former city manager, his name will be on on the poop end of  a few of those lawsuits.

Let’s not forget where the money went:

Name Employer Warrant Amount Annual
ALEXANDER, THOMAS E CHICO $8,947.23 $107,366.76
BAPTISTE, ANTOINE G CHICO $10,409.65 $124,915.80
BEARDSLEY, DENNIS D CHICO $8,510.23 $102,122.76
BROWN, JOHN S CHICO $17,210.38 $206,524.56
CARRILLO, JOHN A CHICO $10,398.98 $124,787.76
DAVIS, FRED CHICO $12,467.78 $149,613.36
DUNLAP, PATRICIA CHICO $10,632.10 $127,585.20
FELL, JOHN G CHICO $9,209.35 $110,512.20
FRANK, DAVID R CHICO $14,830.05 $177,960.60
GARRISON, FRANK W CHICO $8,933.56 $107,202.72
JACK, JAMES F CHICO $9,095.09 $109,141.08
KOCH, ROBERT E CHICO $9,983.23 $119,798.76
LANDO, THOMAS J CHICO $11,236.48 $134,837.76
MCENESPY, BARBARA L CHICO $12,573.40 $150,880.80
PIERCE, CYNTHIA CHICO $9,390.30 $112,683.60
ROSS, EARNEST C CHICO $9,496.60 $113,959.20
SCHOLAR, GARY P CHICO $8,755.69 $105,068.28
SELLERS, CLIFFORD R CHICO $9,511.11 $114,133.32
VONDERHAAR, JOHN F CHICO $8,488.07 $101,856.84
VORIS, TIMOTHY M CHICO $8,433.90 $101,206.80
WEBER, MICHAEL C CHICO $11,321.93 $135,863.16
Please write to Chico City Council and ask them to agendize a discussion of how a tax increase can get on the city ballot.
And don’t forget – Chico Taxpayer’s Association meeting, Sunday March 4 at 11:30, Chico branch of the Butte County library. 

Tell them you won’t pay for their greed and incompetence

3 Feb

I’m looking forward to seeing like-minded people at the library this weekend – that’s Sunday Feb. 5th at 11:30 am, Chico public library at the corner of First and Sherman Avenues.   I’ll have a sheet of contact information and hopefully we can come up with some ideas that will wither this tax on the vine.

But don’t wait to make those contacts, write early and write often.

https://chicotaxpayers.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/please-contact-your-council-with-your-opposition-to-the-proposed-tax-increase/

Ex-city manager and tax increase proponent Tom Lando said to me in a recent e-mail, “I believe that the funds could truly help our community.”

According to Enterprise Record reporter Katy Sweeny, “Lando and (Jim) Stevens of Northstar Engineering have met with dozens of people in the community. They have talked about using the money for 15 additional police officers, a police station, a fire station, filling potholes, aiding the Chico library, Bidwell Mansion, the Veterans Hall, high school sports, theater arts and industrial arts, an aquatic center, a baseball  or football stadium with meeting facilities, local non-profits, Bidwell Park maintenance, and maintenance for some of the facilities.”

I’m sorry, but this wish list does not seem to have the slightest foundation in reality. It’s just a bunch of promises to get what they want. Lando has said he hopes this tax increase will raise $12 million a year. The police station alone was projected at about $40 million, but that was 10 years ago. Now they say it will run closer to $65 million, and that figure’s already got dust on it.

“A” fire station? You mean, one? Where? After the building binge this city permitted, you’d think we needed a few new stations, but given the price tag on the new cop shop I’m afraid to ask what a fancy new station house like the spectacle on Manzanita is going to cost. This town can’t build something practical, within it’s means – they have to go Taj Majal on everything.

These are the kind of projects that put us in trouble. When $taff  decided to pay off  the bonds for the old “new” parking lot on Second Street so they could pursue new money for the upcoming remodel, they bottomed out the entire Downtown traffic fund, every last frigging penny. They’re paying for the Downtown remodel with some grants and with RDA money they were able to squeeze out before that little gravy train ran off the tracks. Oh yeah, don’t forget – YOU PAY $3 FOR EVERY $RDA YOU GET.

Did you know, we’re still paying for the “new” city hall? As well as the remodel of the perfectly good “old” building that had been deserted in favor of the “new” building. You will pay for that city hall building for the rest of your natural life. Your grandkids will pay for it. How often do you find yourself in that big fancy building with all the huge  windows and artwork? Everything all swishy and new, the HVAC running 40 hours a week, damn the financial torpedoes!

Well, guess what, there’s 76 less employees in that building lately, and counting down. They’ve just let go or early retired 76 employees, including cop positions they have left empty, and Lando is telling us he will hire 15 new cops and provide them with a spiffy new building. It just doesn’t make sense.

Lando is certainly aware how expensive a cop is – salary starting around $50,000 and ranging up to $120,000, plus benefits and retirement. Overtime is written into the contracts so many cops double their agreed-upon salary and use this overtime to spike their  retirement. See,  cops retire at 90 percent their biggest year of salary they made over the last few years before retirement, so the older ones just start spiking their ass off.

And, Jennifer Hennessey says, the cops collect too much workman’s comp, putting us over budget on that fund year after year after year.

This brings us to the point: why is our city in trouble? Well, I’ll tell you what, it ain’t because you and me are not paying enough taxes.

We’ve got over 100 employees making regular salaries over $100,000 a year. We pay their benefits and their pensions.  Where does this leave us?

http://www.fixpensionsfirst.com/calpers-database/?first_name=&last_name=&employer=CHICO

I have the worst suspicions, this tax increase money will not go to some Pollyanna scheme to save the library or high school sports.

Please write those e-mails now, let them know, save Lando some time, trouble and money.  We will not be taxed more to save them from their own greed and incompetence.