Tag Archives: Mark Sorensen Chico City Manager

I was wrong – the skating rink lost $176,000*, not $113,000, like I thought. Council is trying to decide whether or not to budget the rink for next year – HARD NO!

17 Jun

* As of staff report dated 6/28/23, that’s $188,779.43…

In April I attended a Finance Committee meeting but the discussion seemed weirdly clipped – at one point, I swear to Gawd, both Staff and committee members lowered their voices as if they didn’t want anybody to hear what they were saying.

The subject was the skating rink. A finance department staffer told the committee that the skating rink had an operational loss of …. what? Her voice was so thin, I couldn’t hear the figure, but I definitely heard her saying there was a loss and council would “have to make a decision...” At one point committee chair and current mayor Andrew Coolidge slumped down in his chair, folded his arms across his chest, his comments almost inaudible, but I could hear him clearly say, “well…it’s good will… “

Somebody always has to pay for good will, and in this case, it’s the taxpayers.

In the old days, when I went to these meetings, I would just wait until the person was done talking, and, if I didn’t hear something clearly or didn’t understand, I’d hold up my hand to ask for clarification. I try to be businesslike at these meetings, I read any reports that are provided ahead of time, and I write stuff down. I keep it short, no chitter-chatter. That was how the old meetings used to be, there was a good rapport between the public and staff, and many staffers were very glad to answer questions. I’ll never forget when the consultant at the garbage tax meeting who beamed at me and said “Good question!” Chico was a smaller town then.

Well, not anymore. Mark Sorensen, our newish city manager, has put an end to “back and forth” conversations at meetings. You have to fill out a card and wait your turn to “speak”. And, they are no longer as willing to answer questions. In fact, Sorensen has instructed staff that all questions from the public must be posed as a formal “Public Information Act Request”.

So, when I emailed staff after the meeting to ask some questions,

“Hi – Reading the budget report presented at the last Fin Comm meeting, I have several questions – 1) how much money did the skating rink make this 2022-23 season? I see a figure of ($113,835) on the “City Recreation” Fund and I wonder, is that the loss from the rink? 2) What other recreation does the city sponsor out of that fund?  3) Also, where did the original $277,000 fund balance come from?  Thank you, at your convenience, for either answering my questions or forwarding them to someone who can – Juanita Sumner”

I received a friendly palm of the hand in my face.

Hi there Juanita, You will need to fill out a PRA request form from the City Clerk’s office for the information that you are requesting. It’s easy though!  Just follow the instructions located here:

https://cityofchicoca.nextrequest.com/

Have a lovely day!

Yes, very sweet and polite, but a new hurdle to “sunshine”. You have to create an account, password, sign in, blah blah blah. Just a hurdle, not a roadblock. I Jackie Joyner-Kersee’d it and waited for a response, about 10 days later I received it.

Was there a loss on the rink? The answer – “Ice Rink made over $237,375 in revenue, and expenses were $413,738. As of 5/31, City Recreation Fund expenses over revenues (come on, just say L-O-S-S) is $176,363. See income summary being released.” The income summary was attached, more on that later.

I had also asked what other activities were included in the City Rec Fund, because the city used to have what could be considered recreational expenses, for example, they used to pay the lifeguards at One Mile. But it looks as if that’s a new fund, created for the rink. “Currently, City Recreation Fund activity only relates to Ice Rink.”

Last, I had asked where the money had come from to fund the rink in the first place. I had seen a figure of $277,000 in the “revenues” column, I thought that was their seed money, and I assumed it had included any generous donations from Downtown businesses or the DCBA or maybe Tonya Harding. I guess I should have given a page number – they didn’t recognize the figure. But it didn’t matter, the answer I wanted was where they got it.

“Staff is not clear on $277,000 fund balance number from question. Fund started fiscal year with $157,442, which was what was remaining from original $300,000 transfer from the General Fund in fiscal year 2021-22.“

They lost $29,000 on the 2021-22 ice rink, that was on the news. I posted it here:

Despite the jubilant headlines, the city’s ice rink lost $29,000 in 2021 – how much did it lose in 2022?

So they had $300,000 to start, they lost $29,000, but had $157,442 left over. I’d had to look at the budget again, it’s all there. But there are pages and pages of crap in the budget, it will make you blind looking at that shit, needle in a haystack. So I thought I was allowed to ask staff when stuff just didn’t make sense to me. Nope, asking staff just started to cost money.

“The City doesn’t have a duty to engage in questions/answers under the Public Records Act process, however the City is making an exception as a courtesy. The City will only provide records in response to future requests.“

You have to pay per page for documents, and they don’t have to explain anything, you just get a pile of figures, like this:

https://cityofchicoca.nextrequest.com/documents/21179066?token=dd1bff21c8bfba75dfdfddfe49833c9e

The document posted there by the city attorney/staff in response to my questions is interesting but it doesn’t specifically answer my questions. In fact there’s stuff that should inspire more questions. But we are no longer allowed to ask questions of staff, at meetings or otherwise. We can only make public information requests and then try to figure out what it all means on our own.

Ironically, I just got the same information from a staffer who shall remain nameless. This email from Mark Sorensen to Council, is part of a discussion about the agenda of this month’s Finance Committee meeting, which will not be made public until June 23rd. I notice he uses exactly the same words I got in the response to my questions.

From: Mark Sorensen <Mark.Sorensen@chicoca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 10:51 AM
To: All City Council <All-City-Council@Chicoca.gov>
Subject: Ice Rink

Mayor and Council:

We’ll be bringing the item to Finance Committee for additional conversation, but please find attached and below some data points regarding the 2nd year of operation of the ice rink.

We’ll be discussing ideas for changes that can be made to improve the economics of the effort.  In the current budget, the ice rink for this calendar year is not funded.

  1. Ice Rink made $237,375 in revenue, and expenses were $413,738.  As of 5/31, City Recreation Fund expenses over revenues is $176,363.
  2. Currently, City Recreation Fund activity only relates to Ice Rink.
  3. The fund started fiscal year with $157,442, which was what was remaining from original $300,000 transfer from the General Fund in fiscal year 2021-22.

Well, that’s interesting – the rink is not included in the current budget. And then this weird aside –

For reasons that we do not yet understand, DCBA forwarded net revenue (for their part of the operation) that was $5,000 less is revenue than their report showed.  However, they sent us back a $30,000 deposit we had given them at the outset of our agreement with them, which offset total costs in the fund.

What “net revenue” is he talking about? What $30,000 deposit? We are not privvy to agreements made between the city of Chico and Downtown Business Association, but that’s interesting. Somebody pays you back money you loaned them, and you look at it as income that offsets your costs? That’s government accounting for you. I don’t believe the rink provides that much benefit to Downtown Businesses, we’re offered no documented proof. If I were a Downtown Business, I’d feel like I was dealing with The Mob.

The city is making a decision as to whether or not to put the skating rink in next year’s budget – I say NO. Chico is not a rich town like Redding, we don’t have millionaire donors, we have to stop living beyond our means. This council that uses our taxes like Monopoly money needs to be told that. Contact council – hey, I think you can use the address Sorensen used – All-City-Council@Chicoca.gov Tell them you are sick of paying for the lifestyles and privileges of the One Percent.

Tags: , ,

Is our city council too dependent on “staff” to make their decisions? Ask your rep if they read the Taxpayer Protection Act and if they understand it (you might want to read it yourself first… )

11 Mar

When I watched last week’s city council meeting on video, I realized, Mark Sorensen is trying to shove his resolution to oppose the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act right through, with as little transparency as possible. The Consent Agenda?

I am shocked. Years ago, when they discussed a sales tax increase with Sorensen as a council member, he and Sean Morgan both opined loudly that it should be a 2/3’s measure, with Morgan mumbling something about wanting the voters to make the decision so he wouldn’t be on the hook for it later. Sorensen stood firm for a 2/3’s measure, but it didn’t materialize on his watch.

And I was also shocked, after he lost his last bid for council, that Sorensen drank the Kool Aid, taking the job as City Manager for Biggs. He sold his interest in his cable satellite company and took that job from his next door neighbor Pete Carr, who was leaving that position for a manager position in Orland.

Then last year, when Council gave Mark Orme the door, Mark Sorensen was waiting right behind it, taking an unprecedented salary of $211,000/yr. He pays only 9% of the cost of his pension, adding to the bottomless pit of CalPERS debt. As a former council member he knows very well the situation with CalPERS, but he doesn’t seem to be too worried about our bottom line anymore, just his.

That’s why he’s freaking out over the TPGAA – he worked hard to shove Measure H past the voters on a 50+1 vote, now it’s “in jeopardy” alright – if the TPGAA passes, Measure H is null and void and has to go back to the ballot for 2/3’s of the vote.

Here’s a question that just popped into my mind – if they start collecting on that tax on April 1, and the TPGAA passes, will they have to give back all the money collected under that tax? Here’s the answer – NO. When we rejected Measure J, they’d been illegally collecting the cell phone tax for over 20 years. The offered a refund, but required hard copies of phone bills, and only for a year back.

It’s obvious to see why Sorensen opposes the TPGAA, and I expected council to roll right in with him, so I was surprised when Kasey Reynolds offered this: “it seems like there’s a lot of conflicting information… it sounds like it could affect our measure H…” She suggested tabling it for discussion at another meeting. She seemed nervous – yeah Kasey, everybody in town knows you voted on the Warren case and then said you didn’t understand it and you wanted a do-over. Good for you.

Sean Morgan commented that information presented by “staff” conflicts with information he received from Assemblyman James Gallagher’s office, but did not elaborate. Is he accusing who of lying? He sulked, “I don’t trust the League of California Cities at all…” The League is a major opponent of the TPGAA, and also supported the legislature in gutting the voter requirements set forth in Prop 13. The city of Chico is a dues paying member. ( The League of California Cities is a publicly funded nonprofit organization, funding provided by dues paying cities like Chico CA ) It was the League who in 2013 issued a report suggesting that cities should start deferring maintenance and make larger payments to CalPERS.

From that report: “City pension costs will dramatically increase to unsustainable levels, (2) Rising pension costs will require cities to nearly double the percentage of their general fund dollars they pay to CalPERS, and (3) Cities have few options to address growing pension liabilities.“

“Change service delivery methods and levels of certain public services: Many cities have already consolidated and cut local services during the Great Recession and have not been able to restore those service levels. Often, revenue growth from the improved economy has been absorbed by pension costs. The next round of service cuts will be even harder.” 

As far as The League is concerned, the taxpayers need to pay down the pension deficit brought about by years of unrealistic employee contributions. As far as The League is concerned, Prop 13 is Enemy No 1. So, while I’m glad Mr. Morgan has a healthy distrust of that quasi-public agency, I’d suggest both he and Reynolds read the text of the actual ballot measure instead of depending on city of Chico or Gallagher’s staffers, all of whom are CalPERS members. Yes, it “threatens our Measure H…” it sure does. Read for yourself:

Click to access 21-0042A1%20(Taxes).pdf

I find it really annoying that city council members depend on staff to tell them about stuff when they could just read about it themselves. Sometimes I wonder if Reynolds is qualified to hold office.

But at least they passed a motion to table it for “another meeting” – approved 7-0. Dummies – none of them read the measure, did they? I’m a landlady, and every time I get a new tenant I ask them if they read the documents I sent them and if they have questions. I use big print and a “lease for dummies”, you know, so I can understand it. I’ll never forget the two guys who ran a local non-profit – when I asked if they’d read it, they both got big eyes, held their hands out for a copy, and walked to opposite sides of the driveway. But they damned sure read it, and I asked them specific questions before we all signed. Maybe we should ask ourselves if our council members are able to read and understand at a high school level before we vote them into office. Can they use a dictionary? How about Google? Dummies – they think running for council is a popularity contest.

Hey, want to have some fun? Read the Taxpayers Protection and Government Accountability Act ballot measure posted above and we’ll have a quiz. You can send same questions to your council rep, see how much they know about the damned thing.

This morning I sent a note to the clerk’s office, asked, when and where will the conversation continue? I’ll keep you posted. In the meantime, I wrote a letter to the editor about this situation,

On the advice of city manager and former Councilman Mark Sorensen, Chico City Council is considering a resolution opposing The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, slated for the 2024 ballot. According to Sorensen, “The [TPGAA] would make it more difficult for voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and projects, and would put initiatives passed by voters after January 2022, such as Measure H passed by Chico voters in November 2022, in jeopardy. “

“make it more difficult for voters”? No, it will make it harder for public agencies to pass taxes without full voter approval. Since when is that a bad thing? And yes, it would jeopardize Measure H, a full cent sales tax that squeaked by with less than 53% of the vote last November.

If the TPGAA passes, it will reinstate the 2/3’s voter threshold to pass taxes, approved overwhelmingly by California voters under Prop 13, stripped later by the legislature without a ballot measure. If you think housing is unaffordable now, imagine a world without Prop 13 – home ownership becomes a privilege of the ultra rich. This measure would also reinstate rules for campaign “transparency”. Why would Sorensen want council to oppose transparency?

Sorensen’s resolution would mean the city would be added to the “No coalition” – does that involve taxpayer money? Staff time has already been used on this resolution.

I’m glad council tabled this discussion for another meeting. Contact your representative and ask them why they’d oppose a law that protects taxpayers.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Tags:

KRCR News: Chico City Council to vote on resolution AGAINST taxpayer protection ballot measure – this measure would overturn Measure H, the Chico sales tax increase

7 Mar

https://krcrtv.com/news/local/chico-city-council-to-vote-on-resolution-against-taxpayer-protection-ballot-measure#

by Muna Sadek Monday, Mar. 6, 2023

CHICO, Calif. — Next November, California voters will have the chance to vote on a ballot measure that aims to make it a little tougher to pass taxes.

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, spearheaded by the California Business Roundtable, would set new rules at both the state and local levels. It would require state legislation that imposes any new taxes or tax increases to be approved first by a majority of California voters. Secondly, proponents say it would close a loophole at the local level by requiring that special taxes only be passed with a two-thirds majority vote.

Chico city officials are set to vote on a resolution against the measure Tuesday. According to a staff report from City Manager Mark Sorensen, the recently-passed Measure H is at stake because the ballot measure is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2022. Measure H was passed with 52% voter support.

Longtime Chico resident and owner of ChicoTaxpayers.com Juanita Sumner says she felt beat down after the passage of Measure H but believes the Taxpayer Protection Act could offer local taxpayers reprieve.

“If you can’t get two-thirds of the people to support a tax, why would you put it out there?” Sumner says. “It just about divides our town between the haves and the have-nots and the have-nots could use a little pick up.”

Meanwhile, Sorensen cautions that the city stands to lose about $24 million that would otherwise be generated by the Measure H sales tax for road repair projects and other infrastructure needs. The tax is set to go into effect April 1.

Tags: