Tag Archives: City of Chico

Letter: Here’s why CARD wants more money

7 Apr

Here’s a letter I sent to the Enterprise Record a full week ago. I don’t know why it took so long for Little to run my letter – I could speculate that he wants the CARD tax to pass. We’ll see when he endorses it in 2014.

My family received the Chico Area Recreation District’s survey regarding their proposed tax hike. We wanted more information, so asked for their 2012-13 budget figures.  

 
CARD says they need a new tax because of falling property tax revenues and a “disappearing RDA.” What they don’t mention is the recent $400,000 “side fund payoff” to the California Public Employees Retirement System. CalPERS has demanded public employers pay more toward their employees’ pension premiums, offering some savings on interest if they pay a certain amount immediately.
 
CARD, employing about 30 people full time, also paid $375,000  in regular pension premiums last year, and $300,000 in healthcare premiums. Salary and benefits totaling about $5 million dollars  eat over half their $7.2 million budget. 
 
They earn about $3.3 million of their annual revenues from their programs and rental of their facilities. The other $3.5 million  comes mostly  from taxpayers –  county taxes ($2,3456,782), homeowner assessments ($162,753), fees on new homes ($23,750), and $924,000 from the RDA credit card. 
 
CARD currently suffers a $420,000 deficit. Their capital projects reserve fund shows a sudden negative balance of $344,500. It appears to me they took money from their capital projects fund to pay their CalPERS “side fund payoff”, and now they want us to replace that money. It seems misleading to offer an aquatic center when what they are really asking for is money to pay for their pensions and benefits. 
 
I’ve posted the budget spreadsheet at chicotaxpayers.wordpress.com
 

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

I know, I said I’d post the budget here – I can’t get it to come up right on this blog, so here’s the link to my other blog:

http://worldofjuanita.com/2013/03/31/card-2012-13-budget/

and here’s the link to the survey:

img003

This survey is completely loaded – essentially, they tell you, if you don’t pay this tax, your kids will end up on dope. Read it yourself.  They also promise “this measure would include strong fiscal safeguards and oversight, including that less than 5% of the proceeds would be used for administration.” 

CUSD stupe Kelly Staley said that about the school bond voters just extended. Chico Unified said they’d form some kind of citizens’ committee  to “vet” a list of projects, but the administration has already announced projects that have never been vetted in any way. And don’t forget, when the school district originally floated that bond about ten years ago, they said the money would be used exclusively to build a third high school. Then they changed their mind, and we’ve never been shown an actual accounting of how much they’ve raked in over the years or where any of that money has gone. 

In this case, you can see that CARD has taken money out of their capital projects fund and used it to pay their CalPERS obligation. When Steve Visconti sent me that budget,  I could tell from his attached letter he really didn’t expect me to read the budget, or thought I was too stupid to figure it out. I had asked him about revenues. 

“Our funding sources come to us a few different ways. One is a small portion of property taxes from each homeowner in our District. The other main revenue source is from programming fees. Those are also shown on page 6 of the attached budget.”

But the budget says otherwise. Like I said above – they get over half their revenues from property taxes and assessments – including $924,000 in RDA money. That RDA money is about to disappear, that’s just another reason they want this tax. Besides the $400,000 they stole to pay their own pensions.

You can print that survey from that link, fill it out, and send it to Visconti at the CARD center – 545 Vallombrosa Ave, Chico, 95926. You can e-mail him for more information at svisconti@chicorec.com

And here’s the funny thing – guess who’s on the CARD board – Tom Lando, the same guy who’s been proposing a city sales tax increase.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

April is Taxpayer Appreciation Month – thank you Sue Hubbard and Harold Ey!

3 Apr

As I sit down today to make out the last of my property tax payments, I want to thank Sue Hubbard for writing and submitting the following:

Proclamation

 

WHEREAS, The approximate 47% of Americans who pay no income tax are supported by the 53% of those who do

WHEREAS, Five percent of Americans are paying 60% of all income tax

WHEREAS, America’s top tax rate is the second highest in the world

WHEREAS, Taxpayer’s money is used to fund government services

WHEREAS, Taxpayer’s money is used to pay salary and benefits to government workers

WHEREAS, Taxpayers are the ones who are paying for all the entitlements so generously given out in this country

WHEREAS, Taxpayers pay America’s bills

NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Chico Taxpayer’s Association hereby recognizes April as Taxpayer Appreciation Month.

This was supposed to be an official proclamation, Sue had asked the city clerk for the proper format etc, and sent it off for approval from a proclamation happy council – Mary Goloff turned it down. Oh well, one woman’s trash is the entire town’s treasure.  We don’t need those dummies to run our town – so be it, April is Taxpayer Appreciation Month. It’s just too good an idea to pass up.

Our first activity will be the usual First Sunday meeting at the library, or as I prefer to call it, The First Church of Democracy.

Harold Ey is not one of our standing members, but he’s our kinda guy. Harold has always lit up the letters page with his pokey wit, he tells it like it is. Here’s a letter of his I found in the ER this morning:

Letter: Taxes won’t solve homeless problem

Chico Enterprise-Record
Posted:   04/03/2013 12:05:04 AM PDT

 

One of the more off-the-wall suggestions we heard at last week’s 90-minute gabfest between Mary Goloff and Ann Schwab was the idea of taxing liquor sales. Schwab thought this could be a solution that might possibly reduce the number of down-and-out downtown drunks. Leave it to a liberal to attack private business with more taxation because; isn’t greedy capitalism the root cause of the homeless problem? However, as Schwab was rambling on, she brought up another point about how to deal with the perplexing problem of bicyclists riding on the sidewalks (there’s a cause of homelessness).However, you know her tax idea might actually work here. First, City Council puts a hefty tax on bicycle shops in the downtown area. After all, the sale started the problem to begin with, right? Then we require the shop owner to register each bicycle sold (another government fee) and keep a database for an undetermined number of years.

Then when a police officer stops someone riding on the sidewalk and runs the registration number, the shop selling the bicycle gets fined as well as the operator of the bike, and we double up the fine when a plastic bag is involved also. Makes sense, doesn’t it? The bicycle shop contributed to the scofflaw’s actions by selling the bicycle to begin with. Makes about as much sense as the first 90 minutes of last week’s “study session.” Yes, Mayor Goloff, the public is very upset.

— Harold Ey, Chico

I have to add here, this liquor tax is not Mary Goloff or Ann Schwab’s idea. It came to us from Chico PD, when Mike Maloney was chief, and now Kirk Trostle has picked it up. It’s called the ACE initiative, “Alcohol Compliance and Education,” and it’s to be administered, and I believe collected, by Chico PD. They tried to get us interested in it before the 2012 election, but they saw all those other tax increase proposals on the ballot, and they backed off, planning to bring it back around in 2014.

This is a fee collected from “alcohol related” businesses. It is at the discretion of Chico PD WHO pays,  and HOW MUCH they pay.  Here’s the slick pamphlet they’ve been handing out:

http://www.butteyouthnow.org/public/uploads/City%20of%20Chico%20ACE%20Issue%20Brief%20%232(1).pdf

Now take a look at the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control website:

http://www.abc.ca.gov/programs/grant.html

As you can see, the ABC is fully funded from fees collected from alcohol related businesses. Chico PD seeks to place additional fees on the industry in order to duplicate the actions of the ABC. I don’t see the sense in this. The police are supposed to be out there enforcing the laws, preventing and solving actual crimes – providing special consulting services to one industry in town does not seem appropriate to me.

Chief Trostle and his management staff spend a lot of their high dollar time yakking, I’ll say that. I just attended the Police Advisory Board meeting last week and tomorrow I’m headed to a Chamber of Commerce “luncheon with the Chief.” This guy is paid over $160,000 a year to run the cop shop, but he seems to be some sort of Public Relations expert. Same for Linda Dye and  Jennifer Gonzales – both paid around $100,000 a year to give reports at meetings. I know, they put on their vest and gun and go out for the photo ops – in fact, Dye was carrying her riot stick, which she handled absentmindedly, while she spoke at  the Police Advisory Board meeting. 

The cops are management heavy. They also DON’T PAY ANY OF THEIR OWN BENEFITS OR PENSION PREMIUMS. This is why I have said we need to reorganize the cop shop, but yeah, last night, Mark Sorensen and Sean Morgan voted along with the rest of the fist puppets to renew the cop contract as is, with all the perks and benies. Sorry Harold, I think that booze tax is a done deal too.

Tags: , , , ,

Letter: Chico Council has allowed salary spike

1 Apr

I wanted to get back to posting people’s letters to the papers, keeps them circulating, gives us a chance to talk about  them. This letter from Stephanie Taber ran about a week ago in the Enterprise Record.  

Chico Enterprise-Record

Posted:   03/26/2013 12:09:27 AM PDT

The city of Chico “has 106 people earning more than $100,000,” according to your Wednesday editorial and your database at www.chicoer.com/salaries.That’s not a surprise if you’ve been paying attention but that takes time and effort, not something a whole lot of people seem to want to do including our long-term City Council members — both present and those who have recently left office.

I’m not sure either of our two newest members, Tami Ritter and Randall Stone, have any inclination to curb the city’s incredibly generous benefit package. But then I don’t sit in on closed-door sessions so I don’t know what direction they have given to our still new city manager. After all, if the council does not bother to give direction, nor ask what the financial impact is of any proposed memorandum of understanding (contract) with any of the unions or contracts made with upper management, or ask where the funds to pay for that and our infrastructure too are, well you can see how personnel costs just kind of get way up there. And the potholes too.

It is the council’s responsibility to lead, to give direction. The city’s fiscal crisis is not the fault of the economic downturn, nor the current city manager, Brian Nakamura. If there is fault it lies with the former city management staff and a council unwilling to tackle hard fiscal issues instead of feel-good issues: nuclear bombs, human slavery, plastic bags and corporate personhood.   You get what you vote for, plain and simple.

— Stephanie Taber, Chico

Tags: , , , , ,

Measure J was just the test run for the sales tax increase

12 Mar

Brian Nakamura forwarded along Jennifer Hennessy’s answers to Stephanie Taber’s questions from last week’s city council meeting.

Stephanie’s questions, below in black, with Hennessy’s responses in blue, and my smart ass observations in green:

1) What/who is the source of information that is now being used to verify the $500 loss (or whatever the current figure is) in revenue due to the defeat of Measure J?  At the offset of the proposal there was no definitive way of separating how much revenue was received based solely of cell phone calls and texting and how much on land line costs.  At least that was my understanding.

Answer:  City staff will be able to determine Measure J’s impact over time, as Telecommunication companies stop collecting the tax on cell phones and voice over internet protocol (VOIP) services.  Future UUT revenue will be compared to revenue collected prior to the notification to the companies to cease collection of this tax. 

Wait, this doesn’t sound right. For one thing, in December, Hennessy reported a loss of $500,000 to the General Fund, and blamed it directly, in so many words, by name, on “the loss of Measure J.” There was no doubt in her mind, our budget had been hit broadside to the tune of $500,000 by the petty taxpayers who defeated that ill-begot scheme. Now she tells us, she won’t know how much, til “over time”?   She’s our budget director, in charge of our financial “IN” and “OUT” boxes, and she doesn’t know where our money comes from? She gets checks all year from the phone companies, but she doesn’t keep track of how much? That answer sounds fishy to me on a number of levels. 

2) Are telephone tax collections a separate revenue line item that can be compared month-to-month and year to date?

Answer:  Yes, revenue collected for Utility Users Tax on telecommunication services is reflected in the City’s General Fund, under account 40492. 

And here she says the opposite – that the revenue collected is kept track of in the budget?  Month to month? I looked in the budget, available under “Finance Dept” on the city website.

Click to access 2012-13CityAnnualFINALBudget_000.pdf

Yes, under the General Fund summary, page FS-1, Fund 001, Utility Tax is separated out – gas, electric, telecom, and water – but only year to year. I wonder if she even read Stephanie’s question all the way through. The fund is there, but we don’t see how much is added and subtracted, just the balance. Like she says for Q #1, we would have to have all the budgets, and compare that number from year to year, and we’d have to know how much money had been taken from that fund in order to figure out how much had come in over any particular year. She knows that stuff, or she should – why she can’t give us a straight answer is beyond me, and it just makes me suspicious of everything they say Downtown.

What they continue to say Downtown, is that Measure J is to blame for all our fiscal difficulties. This even as they sign that new cop contract – raises, especially for lieutenants, fully-paid “employee share,” the whole nine yards. And did you see those new cruisers they bought, just to be “traditional”? They’ve also raised department head salaries about $25 – 30,000 each.  Oh, but $900,000, or uh, is it $600,000 – oh, just $500,000? Really? Well that’s still a TRAGEDY! QUE LASTIMA! You rotten, petty taxpayers! You’re so stingy! 

This is their foot in the door for that sales tax increase, you just watch. 

And don’t forget, Frank Fields said he’d have the UT rebate application on the website “in the next couple of  weeks,” so I’ll keep you posted there.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

So much for “pension reform”!

9 Mar

Yes, the people of Chico WILL pay over half the “employee share” for our new assistant city manager, for his pension and his health benefits.

At this past city council meeting, in answer to the issue of getting employees to pay their own share,  Mark Sorensen was saying that new employees would have to pay their own share!  Unfortunately, Sean Morgan reminded him, only if they come in from outside the California Public Employee Retirement System.

This new guy from Hemet, Mr. Orme, former assistant to our current city manager Brian Nakamura, WILL ONLY PAY 4 PERCENT.

Sorensen explained it to me in an e-mail:

“The California law that passed last year requires that new CalPERS participants go into a lower benefit tier, and prohibits the employer from paying any of the ’employee share.'”

You get that – “new CalPERS participants” – not new employees. This Orme guy, transferring up here from city of Hemet, CALIFORNIA,  is already IN CalPERS. So, according to Sorensen, “Mr. Orme would not fall into that legal requirement that he pay the ’employee share.'” 

Gawd you just have to hand it to these people, they are pretty damned slick! The crap they pull, right in broad daylight. 

But Pollyanna Sorensen still stands behind this whole deal, like the steadfast tin soldier. He claims this new policy regarding, well, some new hires, will provide “some encouragement to move existing employees to pay their own ’employee share’,” promising, “there is a definate [sic] desire to move in that direction.” 

Desire on whose part, I’m asking. Not sure. He offers no further illustration. 

Let me color this in for you, my interpretation, see? There’s a lot of ugly jealousy among the ranks Downtown. First we have this problem of “compaction” between supervising lieutenants and their subordinate sergeants – the lieutenants are jealous because the sergeants use overtime to make almost as much as their lieutenants. Now I’m hearing from Sorensen, existing employees need to see it stuck to the new employees before they will do the right thing, maybe. This is sickening to me. I can’t formulate much of an opinion of our city workers. They seem like a pretty “Me” kinda bunch. 

And then you have our council. Sorensen says they’re working as hard as they can, but “trying to move 9 bargaining units and contract employees into that direction has not been easy.“

Do tell. 

Have you ever noticed that the bad kids get all the attention?

 


				
Tags: , , , , , 
			


	


		

		


	




			
                



	
	
April is “Taxpayer Appreciation Month”

	
		7
		Mar
	

	

	

		
 Sue had a brainstorm the other night – let’s raise awareness of the amount of tax money collected in this country, and show some appreciation for the taxpayers who foot America’s bills.


You know, I tried to find a figure on what Americans pay annually in taxes, and it was very confusing.


First of all, if you have a job or a business, and make any money whatsoever, you pay income tax.  If you work for somebody else, they have the happy job of vivisecting your wages into little piles and sending this here and that there – your “social insurance” and all that crap. If you are a self-employed small business owner, you can either do this yourself, or hire somebody like RUSH Personnel to do it for you. Take it from me – it’s a real pain in the ass.


If you own a house, screw you – you pay “ad valorem” or property taxes. Sheesh, what a scam there! A tax to own your own home, give me a Jesus H. Break. A tax based on roughly ten percent of what the county assessor determines to be the “value” of your house. Based on, well, mostly revenue needs! This tax gets split between the state thugs, the county thugs, and, if you are unlucky enough to be annexed, the city thugs. They say they use it to fix your roads and pay for your schools – what they mean is, pay salaries and benefits.


Listen you smartass renters – where do you think Landlord gets the money to pay his property taxes?!


Then there’s “excise” or sales tax – this is a phrase that will put sixty years on my 17-year-old, who feels this is one of the biggest hokums ever perpetrated on humankind – a tax on spending money you already paid taxes on.


I think “excise” covers “utility” tax, thankyouverymuch.


There’s so many ways they get to you. I know, we beat Measure J, but did you know, California has some of the highest cell phone taxes in the state?


Mooo-oooo!


I realize, taxes pay for stuff I want to have. I like paved roads, I’m glad to have public schools and other institutions. I’d like to be able to depend on cops and fire. I realize taxes are supposed to be the collective way to pay for stuff everybody wants and needs.


But we don’t get the service we pay for. The streets in some of our older neighborhoods are so badly maintained – I’ll never forget the pothole at the corner of Filbert and Downing that “voided” the warranty on my right front tire.   The park looks terrible, the trails are  not maintained, non-native overgrowth prevails and there’s garbage and dog poop laying on the ground. The other day on my way to a morning meeting, I found one of those dog poop bags – you know, the ones on which they spend some $60,000 a year – full and tied to the branch of a small tree alongside the trail. 


Last night on the news I heard them looking for park volunteers. Screw that! We have half dozen rangers who make over $80,000 a year, plus benefits. I see the park ranger truck parked here and there along the road, no ranger in sight. I sure as hell don’t see any ranger out there with a trash bag, picking up anything. I sure don’t see anybody over there at that freeway job writing tickets for fugitive dust or violation of the noise ordinance (regular crews are relegated to a 7am – dusk time limit) or the tree ordinance (9 inch diameter my ass!).  


I’d sure like to see some taxpayer appreciation out of these city workers, who get damned generous salaries, all of them, and don’t pay nearly enough of their own benefits packages.  I’d be happy if they’d do their jobs. 


We must demand of these people.  Next time you see a public worker, ask them, when’s the last time they thanked a taxpayer? Then give them the opportunity. 

				
Tags: , , , 
			


	


		

		


	




			
                



	
	
Nakamura’s response to Stephanie Taber’s question about “compaction” between cop salaries. Or is it “compression” – he can’t make up his mind

	
		2
		Mar
	

	

	

		
Well, Stephanie had to resend her request once, but Brian Nakamura finally responded.  He’s done this to me – he always makes a dumb excuse why he hasn’t responded sooner. He told me he got my e-mail address wrong, and here he tells Stephanie he had a response in his drafts file. I guess he was too busy attending a ceremony for a cop killed 75 years ago, or maybe too busy driving between Chico and his home in Hemet?  Whatever – his response isn’t anything to write home to Mama about, but I’ll share it anyway.  For Stephanie’s request see









Hi Ms. Taber,


 I apologize as the email I was going to send you was still waiting in my draft box, but it was in regards to compression and my interpretation. Essentially, a compression issue occurs when a salary of a subordinate employee within a department creeps within a certain salary range of his/her immediate supervisor. In this particular case, and as you have identified, the incentive to become a manager is lessened when a subordinate’s compensation (with overtime) overlaps that of a supervisor with exempt status or fixed salary. Addressing the compression should not


 In regards to the newly created departments, those directors will be paid a salary commensurate with their span of control and duties. Their contracts will be negotiated in accordance with existing at-will employee contracts which spell out the salary and benefits available and as established in the management pay and benefits resolution(s). Severance is limited to a maximum of three months and that is still an option, not a guarantee.


To make it more clear regarding at will employee contracts I’ve provided you with a copy of a blank one for your review.


 If you have any additional questions Ms. Taber please feel free to contact me and I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.


 All the best,


 Brian


First of all, it’s not “compression,” Brian, it’s “compaction” – please get your Newspeak straight! They make up these words so we don’t understand what they’re talking about, but this guy spins it out so fast he can’t even remember what he made up. 


There he says it though, Stephanie was right. “Compression” or “compaction” – a turd by any other name still stinks. What it means – a boss is not getting paid enough more than their (oooo!) “subordinate,” and that makes the boss just plain jealous. 


In the dictionary, “subordinate” is often substituted with “inferior”.   Is that really what Nakamura thinks of our employees? Well, that’s the problem – we have two police lieutenants making a formal complaint, which is often the precursor to a LAWSUIT, over the fact that their “subordinate” sergeants get overtime, and are therefore able to extend their “subordinate” salaries up to and often well beyond that of their supervising lieutenant. In other words, the “subordinates” aren’t “subordinate” enough!


One solution to this problem, which would also solve some of our financial problems Downtown, would be to take “structured overtime” out of the cop contracts. Cops through the rank of sergeant are guaranteed overtime, which they trade back and forth among themselves in order to as much as  double their salaries. It’s pretty convoluted – they tell you they are actually required to work that 15 hours on regular pay, but they get so much beyond that 15 hours (which can be used to sleep, eat, go to a gym…) that the average officer making a base salary of $65,000 can easily boost his pay to as much as $120,000.  Look at the salary chart in the Enterprise Record and see for yourself. The police budget is over $22 million – our total city budget is about $43 million. 


Instead the cops are demanding and Nakamura is recommending a pay increase for lieutenants. He’s already recommended a $13,000 salary increase for Chief Kirk Trostle (that’s in the “reorganization” report in next week’s agenda).  The new cop contract is full of raises, can you believe that? How is this “reorganization” saving us any money?


I’ve invited Mark Sorensen to discuss this topic at a Chico Taxpayers Association meeting, but I haven’t had any response from him. I’m predicting Sorensen will rubberstamp anything Nakamura puts in front of him. This will prove to be his undoing in 2014. 






				
Tags: , , , , , 
			


	


		

		


	




			
                



	
	
John Salyer: Government progressives like to use studies to scare the public into giving up individual freedoms

	
		1
		Mar
	

	

	

		
John Salyer sent the following letter to the Enterprise Record, printed today. I know this is a hot topic, so I’m posting it here. Thanks John!


From Chico Enterprise Record, March 1, 2013:


Thank you Scott for your letter/opinion: Research not a valid health study 2/15/13! I have the same concerns about this type of study, but oftentimes my concerns are met with “if it will save one life it is very much worth it!” 


Big Government Progressives (like yourself and the majority of the Chico City Council) like to use studies like this to scare the ignorant and/or the extremely busy public into giving up more of their individual freedoms for the (supposed) good of the collective. Plastic bag ban, smoking outdoors in the park, global warming (ooooops excuse me climate change since that actually happens naturally with or without us), the list goes on and on………


I am also concerned about the negative economic consequences of plastic bag bans and plastic bag taxes, both for bag manufacturers and businesses that use the bags. Not to mention that any environmental benefit we’re likely to see from bag bans and bag taxes is speculative at best.


If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg what difference does it make to me? I would say that banning plastic bags picks the pockets of most citizens especially the poor who are least able to adjust to arbitrary price increases. Maybe there is a grant for that so we can financially enslave future generations more than we already have 😦


Here are more links that are discussing this potential safety issue:


http://www.publicceo.com/2013/02/food-borne-danger-of-plastic-bag-bans-studied/


http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/S-F-s-plastic-bag-ban-may-be-unhealthy-4264075.php


I guess we will have to agree to disagree!


John Salyer

				
Tags: , 
			


	


		

		


	




			
                



	
	
Stephanie Taber – Citizen at Large: What is “compaction”?

	
		18
		Feb
	

	

	

		
The city is currently in contract talks with various employee groups, and this week’s council agenda includes a little snatch of the cops’ contract.


6.1. SUNSHINING OF PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT INITIAL NEGOTIATIONS PROPOSAL

Under the terms’ of Council’s request to sunshine employee group proposals, the Council has received

the first proposal from Public Safety Management (PSM) for consideration. The fiscal impact of PSMs

proposal is approximately $10,367 per year in order to rectify an on-going compaction issue. The city’s

proposal consists of administrative changes and has no financial impact.


I’ve been reading these agendas for years now, and I still need to bust out my dictionary and do a lot of research online just to figure out what’s going on. “Fiscal impact” means, the new contract is going to cost us money, I got that much.  But, what’s “compaction?”  Long time council watcher Stephanie Taber wrote this note to staff:


Could you have someone in PSM define the word “compaction” as it is used in the “Fix Compaction for Police Management”.  It’s apparently the salary spread, or lack of it, between a sergeant and a lieutenant pay scale which is normally 5% but because at the lieutenant level they no longer get overtime it is obviously more advantageous to a promotable employee to stay at the sergeant level.  Is that the crux of the argument?


Also, what will be included in the benefit package offered to the newly created department directors.  I am particularly interested in whether they will pay their full share of their pension plan and if they will have a special severance package and if so what that would be.  They appear to be salaried position and increases will be based on merit???  A little more info would help.


Thank you.


st 


I think Stephanie is right – I just saw an episode about this on “The Office.” Dunder-Mifflin has just been bought out by Saber, and Michael and Jim find themselves vying for the office manager position. Then Oscar explains that sales staffers make more money because of commission, so they both change their minds and want to be salesmen.  


Yes, Chico PD and Fire often double their salaries with overtime. They agree to $60,000 salaries and end up taking as much as $120,000.  So,  I can certainly see this “compaction” business to be a problem, especially when you’re dealing with people who routinely put  their own interests ahead of the community. 


You’ll have to follow this link to get the report, and then scroll all the way to the bottom – Debbie Presson and staff purposely load these reports in such a way that they cannot be cut and paste. Even Mark Sorensen has complained about this – I feel it’s Presson’s way of keeping the public out, but you think whatever you want: 


Click to access 2-19-13CityCouncilAgendaPacket.pdf


I will also post any response Stephanie gets from staff, but don’t hold your breath, she usually has to yank their chain a few times, Goddess bless her! 


DISCUSSION:


I’d like to get a discussion going on this subject, so I’ll lead with a few snippets from the report. Now remember, I have to go between two screens and hand-type this stuff, thanks to city clerk Debbie Presson, so pardon me if I tend to get a little beee-chee.


The report leads off:


“Historically the compaction issue for the Police Department was masked by merit pay. Once merit pay was eliminated (2008) it exposed several structural problems.  The first structural issue relates to compaction. The second to internal promotions.”


“The police manager to police supervisor pay ratio immediately experience compaction when two lieutenants were promoted from the sargeant ranks. This compaction was never remedied, and eventually led to a personnel grievance filed by these two lieutenants.” 


(The spelling error there, by the way, belongs to our “quality employees”  – it’s sergeant, not sargeant)


There you have it. Two of our police department employees, lieutenants,  are complaining they don’t get paid enough. That’s the kind of “quality” employees we attract with these salaries. I have a salary sheet from 2010, listing four lieutenants – their salaries range between $108,000 and $126,000/year.  They’re complaining about salaries like that? And on top of that, they pay NOTHING toward their own pensions and benefits. They are eligible to receive 90 percent of their highest year’s pay at age 50. 


One of those Lieutenants listed on that salary sheet is Linda Dye, who recently invited me to get the hell out of the secret meeting I stumbled into one day Downtown.  Here’s something weird, maybe somebody can explain this to me – in addition to her $109,000 salary as Lieutenant, she received $11,557 in “special pay,” $3,619 in “other pay,” and $939 in “overtime.” Well, gee, I thought that was the problem, that Lieutenants don’t receive overtime? 


It says, right in the agenda report, “As a lieutenant, you are not eligible for overtime, are on call, and serve as ‘at will’ employees.”   


I’ll have to ask somebody about that and get back to you. 


UPDATE: Stephanie Taber reports she has had no answer to her e-mail question, nor was she able to get an answer at Tuesday’s meeting. They don’t discuss the cop contracts in front of the public, the item was included because by law they are supposed to show us the contracts before they sign them. Supposed to. They signed Kirk Trostle’s contract without showing it to the public – it was signed on Tuesday, and when I asked for it on the following Friday it still wasn’t available to the public. That just shows you how the city of Chico respects the rules. 

				
Tags: , , , , 
			


	


		

		


	




			
                



	
	
40 people have so far applied for their Measure J refunds – don’t forget, time is limited on these refunds

	
		12
		Feb
	

	

	

		
I wrote to Frank Fields over in the city Finance office and asked him how many people have applied for refunds so far – he says,  40 people.


I want to be happy about that, but when I figure, how many people get AT&T, which is the most popular carrier, and when I think about how many people voted against Measure J, I just figure there ought to be more people applying for this refund.


But, it’s a real pain in the ass to get all your bills together – or, as Jim pointed out – PRINT THEM ONTO PAPER, if you get electronic billing – then, either carry them in during business hours (yes, your work hours), OR, stuff all that tree pulp into an envelope and mail them in, yadda, yadda, yadda. 


So, I wrote back to Frank, and I cc’d Brian Nakamura and Mary Goloff, asking for that electronic application that Jim and Rick came up with at our last meeting:


well great, we must be getting to people. I’ll do everything I can to get the information out there and we’ll see if we can get 100, maybe more. Thousands of people voted against Measure J, and I’m guessing thousands in town get AT&T, which we know to have collected the tax. According to my research, AT&T is the most popular carrier.  There’s been a lot of money collected improperly here over the years, so, I hope the city will go further in noticing this refund and returning as much of this money as possible, it’s really the right thing to do. 


I think we need to allow electronic applications. I have friends who get all their bills electronically, that’s the new fad,  – save the planet, right?  I think a lot of people do it. My friend Jim keeps his billing in a folder on his desktop – he could send this in with an e-mail application, paper-free, no trees harmed in the processing of the application. It does seem silly for people who have used electronic billing to have to print out all those bills to get the refund, or their UT rebate, for that matter. 


 


I think this is how we should do all Utility Tax refund/rebate applications in future, so I’m forwarding this message along to Brian Nakamura and council members. 


 


thanks for your work in this matter Frank, Juanita Sumner




I neglected to ask Frank, what was the average refund amount, but I’ll get back to him later and also ask again how many refund applications. I don’t mean to be a nuisance, but judging from the number of searches I get regarding this refund, I think plenty of other people are interested too.  Here’s that application link again:




				
Tags: , , 
			


	


		

		


	




			
						

			    
← Older Entries

				
Newer Entries →