« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 31, 2006
Bertagna VS Kirk - June 6th
 |
| On June 6th many of us have the opportunity
to vote for a 3rd District Supervisor, and the choices are Bertagna,
Kutz, or Kirk. If you can read yard signs, you probably already know
the choice is Bertagna or Kirk. I think people should vote for Bertagna. The Chico ER did a good thing this weekend and endorsed Steve Bertagna for 3rd District Supervisor. In doing so they pointed out some of the methods the Kirk supporters have used to imply shortcomings of Bertagna. One of my favorites has been the "in the pocket of developers" "your money is tainted" accusations against Bertagna. This class-warfare and innuendo seems more appropriate for the national stage. It's exactly the same claim Westly has begun making against Angelides in their slow slide into a bloodbath. I wonder where locals are getting their messages? |
| I should apologize for hacking Bertagna's photo. The big "S" on Superman's photo seemed so appropriate since Bertagna is now a local crime stopper. However I made his neck look like play-dough. But I think it's funny so I'm sticking with it. If the contest were actually Superman VS. Captain Kirk, I'd put my money on the Captain. Scotty would have a kryptonite phase 7 plasmodic disruptor incorporated into the Enterprise sensor array in about 30 minutes. That would be a greenline of condensed energy that would cause some serious electoral damage. |
| The Good: Steve Bertagna recently helped the Chico Police apprehend an alleged hit-and-run driver. This didn't make the headlines as did the "County Seal" ordeal. It should have. Putting yourself at risk as a middle aged City Councilman with a family is not a requirement for 3rd District Supervisor. This shows a depth of character that actually does matter. Bertagna has been up-front on the greenline non-issue. I've heard him say the same thing quoted in the ER to local builders. The basic comment was that small lengths of the greenline don't make a lot of sense and it might be better if it were adjusted to match major terrain features instead of zig-zagging around. When I heard him say this he suggested that the line could even be moved East to match a land feature (like a highway). Supporters of the greenline would applaud this thinking if they bothered to listen. It shows an openness of thought that seems to have been lost to others who have formed rigid conclusions about the greenline. Bertagna has not said he will quit his job if elected. I would rather have a working person as an active County Supervisor. As a retailer Bertagna will come into contact with a greater cross section of the community during his business day. People may think Bertagna and I know each other. That's not the case. The longest conversation I've had with Steve was when I was buying speakers from him at his business. We talked about speakers, Ford cars, disc golf, iPODs, and the downtown park. That's pretty much the conversation I have with everyone. |
| The Bad: Bertagna and Kirk have raised similar amounts of money, and even though Bertagna is the only one who publishes his donor list, I'm not going to assume Kirk is corrupt. The Chico ER correctly chastised Kirk supporters for making these accusations. The endorsement of Kirk by the Butte County Farm Bureau was hailed as a success. The ER has reported that Bertagna has raised ~$22,000 from agricultural interests to Kirk's ~$2,400. I think farmers support Bertagna. So who has been Kirk's main financial donor? The Chico Greenline Coalition to a tune of $~9.700. I'm in agreement with the Chico ER that the greenline is a manufactured issue for this election. And I have no idea who these folks are except that they designed Kirk's web site for her. There is some additional evidence as to who they might be. Mary Anne Houx (Supervisor), Jim Morgan, Tod Kimmelshue(Farm Bureau), and Susan Mason(Friends of Bidwell Park) have all signed letters-to-the-editor in support of the group. Lately there was even a suggestion that Bertagna running for Supervisor conflicts with previous statements that doing so might not be good for his family. I think it's sad when people start making those kinds of pointless connections. |
| The Ugly: Bertagna was not my friend, and I had never donated to a local politician in my 17 years in Chico. When he brought the nasty emails I received from a Park Commissioner to the City Council he took some pretty nasty shots from the other council members and a mean crowd. He did not have to go out on that limb for an unknown member of the public. I appreciate that he did. Kirk didn't read the emails before the Council meeting. That was disappointing. |
Posted by Lon at 09:50 AM | Comments (6)
May 26, 2006
Bar-B-Q Away, But Don't Forget the Soldiers
 |
| This monument stands on Lexington Green where
the "shot heard 'round the world" in 1775 started the American Revolutionary
War. It is the smallest monument there, but to me says the most about being
an
American. Outnumbered 10 to 1 Captain Parker of the Lexington Company told
his 70 men to "Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if
they mean to have
a war let it begin here". A handful of Americans died on Lexington Green standing up for their freedom and the freedom of their neighbors. In conflicts since then over 600,000 Americans, mostly men, gave their lives for this country. It was partly due to those sacrifices that our nation has been so prosperous. That is the heart of Memorial Day. |
As a veteran I find the celebrations, barbeques, and other community events usually scheduled for Memorial Day weekend wholly in keeping with the sacrifices made by those serving in the armed forces. We should always celebrate our prosperity, and recognize that we live in the greatest country on the earth, in the state with the best climate and geography, and in a dynamic yet small community . We have a lot to be happy about. But there are some folks that need to be thanked. Be sure to spend time this weekend letting your children know why we celebrate Memorial Day. Read them a story from American history about the sacrifices service men have made. Tell them why America is great, and why they, as Americans, have a responsibility to also be great. |
For a short movie describing the historic reality of the battle of Lexington Green and the "Shot Heard Round the World" visit this site. If you're my age you probably first heard the story of the American Revolution from "Schoolhouse Rock" on Saturday mornings. This short clip will take you back to those simpler times ("Shot Heard 'Round the World"). You don't have to sacrifice your life to make America a better place to live. But you do have to take up the mantle of citizen responsibility required in a democracy. If you are engaged in local issues then keep it up. If you are not, then get engaged. If you hate America and think we're the root of all evil on the planet, then pull your head out of your rear. We have great opportunity for making good things happen and the kind of wealth and prosperity where individuals can make a huge difference in the rest of the world. Below is the famous minuteman statue representing Captain Parker. It is also located at Lexington Green, MA. It is the idealized American soldier who is required to be both a citizen and a warrior. |
 |
Posted by Lon at 04:11 PM | Comments (4)
May 19, 2006
Is the Chico Greenline Coalition "Astro Turf"?
 |
| Hmmm… where do I go from here? Tovey who signed the Chico Greenline
Coalition endorsement letter posted on the Kirk web site responded to my
previous post. He says he’s local, and the coalition is real. So is it “grass roots” or “astro turf” (fake grass roots)? For now I’m going to have to go with astro turf but I’m still willing to be convinced otherwise. Here's why I came to this decision... |
| 1. The Kirk campaign and the Chico Greenline
Coalition are working together. They’ve used the same images and text in
their mailer/web sites. That doesn’t occur with a grass roots group
that fashions its own identity over time.
Since the coordination is known and acknowledged (by Tovey) the Kirk campaign should have to report the receipt of a nonmonetary contribution for the mailers produced. If they fail to report it they could be in violation of campaign laws. 2. Tovey wrote “The Chico Greenline Coalition is a local, primarily formed recipient committee.” and ”Coordination between committees is allowed, according to my treasurer Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk.” From the Fair Political Practices Commission (www.fppc.ca.gov): A “primarily formed committee” is a committee that supports or opposes a single candidate or a group of candidates all being voted on in the same election but is not controlled by the candidate(s) supported. Since the greenline is not a ballot issue the Chico Greenline Coalition must be in business to support a candidate in the coming election. That would be Kirk. This is a PAC formed to support Kirk, not the greenline. 3. Word on the street is that Tovey interviewed for the job of political consultant for a local PAC a while back (one I am now a member of). The move from "political-expert-about-town" to endorsee of a grass roots Greenline group is a bit much for me to swallow. Not impossible, but very hard. 4. Michael’s point that the Bidwell Ranch decision endangers the greenline is true. Why would you support candidates that take land available for housing out of the inventory, especially when it is far from the greenline? That does nothing but apply greater pressure to grow elsewhere, and most likely along the greenline. On a side note, why support open-space locked to the public in lieu of fully funded parks and more RDA money going to street improvements? 5. The Greenline endorsement letter mentions protecting the greenline and the foothills. The foothills comment pays homage to the environmental groups who want growth constrained there as well. The attempt is to marry farmers and environmental groups so you can have money as well as enthusiasm in your campaigns. Just watch out for any genetically modified foods ballot issues, because then the wheels come off that bus. |
| Summary: The greenline is not on the ballot,
and none of the candidates have suggested “breaking” it”.
All implications along those lines are designed to create a campaign
issue where none was before. You want an issue that really makes people
mad, try high density infill housing. I think this was an attempt to manufacturer a campaign issue in order to help the Kirk campaign. There's nothing wrong with that, but lets be honest about it. I’m willing to learn more about this group. If it is a real grass roots group, and they continue to exist after this election, then I’ll be sure to post an update. For questions about the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) call 1-866-ASK-FPPC. |
| Pre-Vacation Statement: I’m leaving this issue here as I go off to Boston to visit some of the sacred ground of American history. As a one time infantry soldier it makes me proud to have been part of an army that fought so hard for freedom. I’m looking forward to taking in the sites and sounds of that historic place. But not looking forward to the plane ride. |
Posted by Lon at 12:12 AM
May 18, 2006
2006-2008 City Budget Is Online
 |
| The City has posted the proposed budget for 2006-2008 online. Read/print this document if you want to... 1. know what your City is up to and what it's doing with your money 2. have a hard time getting to sleep at night 3. are tired of me posting tables of city funding 4. play "big city accountant" with your kids 5. see how complicated someone can make a balance sheet/PL statement While I can't recommend this as a stunningly good read, even just looking over it for a little while is worth your time. Afterall, it's your money... and the states grant money, and some from the federal agencies, some transient taxes, redevelopment funds, interest on bonds... actually it's a lot of people's money. But you can find out how much they will be spending on streets, and trees, and street trees. |
Posted by Lon at 01:18 PM
May 17, 2006
Who Are The Chico Greenline Coalition?
 |
| Who are the Chico Greenline Coalition? Their material describes them as a group of neighbors that got together to protect the greenline (the fixed agricultural-urban boundary for the City of Chico). But the first thing I noticed was that they didn't list "Commission Impossible" as one of the important local issue blogs on their web site. I had to delve deeper. |
| I looked at their web site, www.chicogreenline.com.
It's a nice site, but it was really familiar. So I looked at Maureen Kirk's
web site (www.maureenkirk.com). After going back and forth between the
two it was pretty clear that they share a lot of the of the same content. Even the Chico Greenline mailer uses the same quotes and images from the Kirk web site. The sites seem to be based on one another. Below I show a couple of examples, there are more. Go look for them, it's pretty fun. But also the name on the endorsement letter was very unique. Who is Tovey Giezentanner? I did a Google of "Tovey Giezentanner Chico" and came up with a web site for a Sacramento based PR company called Wilson Miller Communications. From the web site "At Wilson-Miller Communications, we provide a full range of executive-level consulting and communications strategies, specializing in corporate communications, issues management, crisis management and political campaign management and strategy." The Tovey Giezentanner from Wilson-Miller lives in Davis (from the web site), so he's "kind-of" a neighbor. I don't think the Greenline stretches that far, but what do I know. Maybe the Chico Greenline Coalition is real. I hope it's not some PR firm from Sacramento trying to play us rubes in Chico. That's pretty lame. Whether the Greenline Coalition is valid or not, they are getting pretty close to violating regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission. Political Action Committees (PACs) cannot work in concert with candidates. Sharing content and republishing material from a campaign source is pretty close to doing so. If these are really local folks, then maybe they just made a mistake. They should get a digital camera and quit stealing Maureen's web site images. If it's an out of town PR firm then they should have listed my blog as one of the local sources. Then I would have figured they were good guys and not tried to learn more about them. Then all ya'all kin-folk of mine never woodah gessed that them-all greenliners wernt fer-reel. |
| If you are a PAC here is what can get you in trouble... TITLE 2, DIVISION 6, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS §18225.7. Made at the behest of. (a) "Made at the behest of" means made under the control or at the direction of, in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with, at the request or suggestion of, or with the express, prior consent of. Such arrangement must occur prior to the making of a communication described in Government Code section 82031. (b) Expenditures “made at the behest of” a candidate or committee include expenditures made by a person other than the candidate or committee, to fund a communication relating to one or more candidates or ballot measures “clearly identified” as defined at Title 2, California Code of Regs. section 18225(b)(1), which is created, produced or disseminated, (1) After the candidate or committee has made or participated in making any decision regarding the content, timing, location, mode, intended audience, volume of distribution, or frequency of placement of the communication, or (2) After discussion between the creator, producer or distributor of a communication, or the person paying for that communication, and the candidate or committee, regarding the content, timing, location, mode, intended audience, volume of distribution or frequency of placement of that communication, the result of which is agreement on any of these topics. (c) An expenditure is presumed to be made at the behest of a candidate or committee if it is: (1) Based on information about the candidate's or committee's campaign needs or plans provided to the expending person by the candidate or committee, or (2) Made by or through any agent of the candidate or committee in the course of the agent’s involvement in the current campaign, or (3) For a communication relating to a clearly identified candidate or ballot measure when: (A) The person making the expenditure retains the services of a person who provides either the candidate or the committee supporting or opposing the ballot measure with professional services related to campaign or fundraising strategy for that same election, or (B) The communication replicates, reproduces, republishes or disseminates, in whole or in substantial part, a communication designed, produced, paid for or distributed by the candidate or committee. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by Lon at 12:32 AM | Comments (15)
May 16, 2006
The Gateway to Summer
 |
| Happy Mother's Day to my wife Jen (Becket's mom).
She's shown here at Sycamore Pool (1 -Mile) wearing the handcrafted fine
jewelry Becket made out of beads from Ital Imports. For $8.42 he put together
a
priceless
sting of beads that might be seen next on QVC. For Mother's Day my wife wanted to have pastries at Upper Crust (who catered our wedding 9 years ago)and go for a long bike ride in the park. On top of that Becket and I talked her into going swimming at Sycamore Pool...twice in one day. In addition to being a celebration of how important Moms are, this years Mother's Day was a portal into Chico's summer for our family. |
| I figure that the first time I take a dip in the
creek the summer has begun for me(which is one reason I've never done the
polar bear club thingy). Knowing that the students are leaving
this weekend just serves to make
the
transition
complete. To me Sycamore Pool is very much what Chico's park system is about. There should be community interaction in our parks. I understand the need for quiet solitude in Upper park, as well as the importance of places like Bear Hole to our recently emancipated (from parental observation) college population. You do not see this level of interaction at other parks unless there is a special event or sports activity. I know some people are squeamish about the water quality at Sycamore Pool. But during summer months the Park Department drains and pressure washes Sycamore Pool on Thursday mornings. The dam slats are removed and the incoming creek water is diverted through an underground channel. So it's reputation for bad water quality is more one of the past than a reality of the present, the pool is probably cleaner than other areas of the creek. An inflatable dam is proposed to replace the existing one. In addition, the reconstruction of the concrete pool area is under consideration*. Last summer my son and I noticed that if you lay your belly on the moss at the bottom of the pool it feels warm. We never concluded whether the pool bottom was warm or this was just a "wind-chill" effect of the water rushing over the rest of our bodies. But I invite everyone to try it. Take the time to mix socially with all members of our community at Sycamore Pool. This is one of the last pools of its kind in the nation. And welcome to summer time Chico (yeah, I know it's still Spring, but not for me). *Total $1,600,000; $1,200,000 from Capital Grants/Reimbursements (fund 300) $400,000 from RDA (fund 352). Estimated $200,000 for environmental studies, $45,000 for design, the rest for construction, contingency, and overhead. Source 10-2005 Capital Improvements Program, City of Chico. |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by Lon at 08:42 AM
May 11, 2006
Art-official Intelligence
 |
| In addition to 1% of RDA funds the public art funded
by the City of Chico receives 30% of 30% of the transient occupancy
tax (TOT, income from taxes on hotel stays). That's 9% of the TOT funds.
This year there was an increase in TOT art funding of $27,990. So that
means
more
art projects
right? Not so fast. Apparently someone at the city has decided to figure out a new way to fund administrative costs for public art. The increased administrative costs will now come out of the TOT funds. And it just happens to nearly match this years increase. The additional cost to administer art is $26,760. That kind of symmetry deserves a closer look. |
| Editorial:
I support public funding of art and think it's an important element of
our community. The art does not need to be focused downtown. Some of the
projects
seem ostentatious and more designed to firm up affiliations that to augment
our living space. Public art should receive additional funding, but only if the money doesn't go to administration costs, but instead to local artists in $1,000-$10,000 increments. Just my opinion. |
| The Art Commission is
going to draft a letter to ask when the change in administration funding
occurred, and who made the decision. The Art Projects Coordinator (Mary
Gardner) did not have answers at the 5-10 meeting. This is pretty basic
stuff, any department head, even a part timer, should know their budget.
The Commission should also ask for an itemized list of what administration
costs are being covered, and how they were previously funded. What followed closely after that discussion was what clearly should be called "non-profits on parade". It was people with little business acumen discussing how to negotiate a new contract (in this case asking for more funding from the Council). Some were clearly afraid of asking for much more funding. When negotiating you always ask for more. A few Commissioners championed asking for a 6% increase and voted 4-2 to request 15% of TOT funds in November of this year. This would be about $100,000 more than they currently receive. |
| Beyond funding public art
projects the Art Commission distributes money to various community organizations.
Here's who got money
in 2005-6. 1078 Gallery Inc. $7,232 Chico Art Center $16,620 Friends of Chico Community Ballet $11,200 Blue Room Theatre (Chico Creek Theatre Festival) $16,220 Ensemble Theatre of Chico $12,000 Friends of Arts $2,000 Amaera Bay Laurel $2,000 Chico Children's Choir $6,700 Christine C. Jennings $2,000 Open Arts (CCY) $5,300 Balls Edge $2,800 Janice Horne $500 Carla Resnick $2,000 Total: $86,572 Outside of the TOT art funding public art projects/events are also funded by specific allocations made by the City Council. For example "Artober Fest" was funded by a $50,000 allocation that doesn't appear to be part of the regular art budget. The $250,000 gaming table project in Plaza Park was not funded entirely by the Art Commission (they don't carry that much cash). |
| Then came the survey that the Art Commission
doesn't really want to do, but was prodded by a Commissioner into taking
on. I
attended the first Art Committee meeting on the survey. There were a
lot of accusations, and not a lot of work. Through the rumor mill I heard
the
second meeting had some accusations and profanity, but still not a lot
of work. This meeting the questionnaire proposed seemed pretty benign. Still only one commissioner had done any work on it. One question stood out that I thought was kind of funny. It was something like "I have a lot of respect for the City Staff that makes art decisions", and then you have 5 choices from strongly disagree to strongly agree. But then the oddest thing happened. The commission really focused on the questions that included naming an art project with a dollar amount. They did not want the questionnaire to list the cost of the various projects. The public is not to make a judgment call on whether they like the $130,000 silver plow. Because "art is not about the cost, the two are totally separate" (from a Commissioner). Listen folks, this is public money. I'll bet you could cut your administrative costs if the projects were smaller, and all went to local artists. Instead we pay for $250,000 art game tables. As one bright Art Commissioner stated, "everything we do in life has a value associated with it". That's true and it includes public art. If people don't want high dollar public art the Art Commission might want to know that. Who knows if the survey will ever get done. In case one never makes it to me here is one that can be downloaded and saved in the Art Commission email file. |
 |
Posted by Lon at 08:44 AM | Comments (6)
May 09, 2006
The Mystery of the Missing Checkerbloom
 |
| Sometime last year I walked into a Citizen Advisory
Committee meeting for the Park Master plan. I got word from the Park Director
that some Butte County Checkerbloom had been intentionally removed from
the park. There was an official report and everything. I got the feeling
that I was considered partially responsible for the loss. After all a web
site I run had a posting called "What's a Butte County Chuckaboom?". It
was just an informational post with a picture of the plant. But my lack
of respect for the plant name was enough to put me on the list of "Checkerbloom
Desperados". Three days later accusations hit the front page of the newspaper, a local arteest and manufacturer of the "poles of destruction" received a weird phone message (*.wav file), and the disc golf course was vandalized. We were teetering on the verge of an all out Checkerbloom civil war. Shortly thereafter the city posted a reward for the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the vandalism and the removal of the Butte County Checkerbloom. Luckily I gathered ample evidence at the scene last year, and my connections into the "poles of destruction" industry have allowed the "Case of the Missing Checkerbloom" to be solved. Not even Frank and Joe Hardy could have figured this one out. |
| Last year, after the incidents previously
mentioned I decided to get to the bottom of the BC Checkerbloom removal.
I knew of
most instances of BC Checkerbloom in this area of the park, and was never
able to see any that were obviously vandalized. I couldn't get much information
out of the Park Department on the location of the crime, so eventually
I filed a California Public Records Act request. After a couple of weeks I let them know that the time frame they had to legally respond had elapsed, and I had the report on the missing plants in my in box that afternoon. When I finally saw the location of the removed plants I was a little confused as to the conclusion that the plants had been intentionally removed. |
 |
| Intermission: Butte County Checkerbloom is not
an endangered plant, but it plays one in Chico. The fact that this particular
plant appears
to have been "topped", and has grown back into a healthy, ready-to-bloom,
specimen says a lot about how robust they are. This plant is often treated as if human contact will destroy it. And I'm not talking about cutting it's leaves off with a shovel, I'm talking about walking near it. They grow particularly well along trail and road edges. I've seen some really large ones around Brown's Hole which is regularly trafficked. The BC Checkerbloom was also listed as a "biological resource" in the Horseshoe Lake lead cleanup project. That area of the park is about as heavily used as it gets, and still the plant was found there. There are various opinions about how rare the BC Checkerbloom is. I see it all over the place. In fact it was so common that it's the reason that the homes on the south ridge were moved closer to the cliff edge and are more visible in the Park. One limited botanical study (Stewart Survey) put the estimate at 300 plants. This is way too low, as there are huge tracts of park that haven't been surveyed. The plant is very noticeable at this time of the year. It sends up long stalks as much as 3' in length. These stocks eventually bloom with little pink poppy-like flowers. It can look like a tiny sparsely bloomed gladiola. Special thanks go out to Gregg Payne for pointing out to me what a Butte County Checkerbloom looks like, and for more recently pointing out that the removed plant has magically reappeared. |
| Back to the mystery... There were two holes dug in the ground each about 1-2' diameter and about a 1-2' deep. Within a few feet were piles of dirt and grass packed amongst logs to make a bike jump. This was the same location that weeks earlier had been the subject of a news story about chainsaws in the park. My conclusion at the time was that holes had nothing to do with BC Checkerbloom. The conclusion in the report was that the holes were dug so deep to remove the bulb rooted plant. The report made no mention of the mountain bike jump just a couple of feet away. This jump (or ramp) was being built over a tree that had come down across a trail the winter before. Had the Park Department cleared the trail this whole scenario probably never would have played out(the trail is still obstructed by the tree). It looked to me that even if BC Checkerbloom had been removed it was not by some plant hating, bloom whacking, blossom cracking madman. The plant was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, fast forward to May 2006. A friend of mine called up and said "Hey that Checkerbloom that was removed last year is back". So I went up and saw the plant. It's about 6" from one of the holes. So in my mind at least the mystery of the missing BC Checkerbloom is solved. The plant was never removed. The holes dug, although misguided, had no ill-will intended for the lovely vegetation. The $500 reward for conviction of the BC Checkerbloom Desperados can be removed (it's still posted). And we're coming up on the time when the plants bloom. So get out into your park and enjoy the wildflowers while they last. But don't pick them, as it's against the law. And it might even make the headlines. Note: Picking BC Checkerbloom is not specifically illegal. There are laws against removing natural materials from the park. Picking any flower and taking it home or collecting acorns could all be considered illegal. |
 |
Posted by Lon at 09:07 AM | Comments (23)
May 07, 2006
Dollars and Sense - Part 2
|
| If you had somewhere in the area of $40-$60 million
to spend on Chico what would you do with it? Would you buy more open space
and set it aside for future generations? Would you revamp the airport to
generate more revenue? Would you pour it into the black hole that is annexed
or aging neighborhoods? And since this is redevelopment money (RDA) it comes with strings attached. It can't be spent on maintenance, or emergency services. It is supposed to be used to repair blighted areas. The Finance Committee (Wahl, Gruendl, Holcombe) took the first step in deciding how the money will be spent at the 4-26-06 meeting. |
| The Finance Committee reviewed a report
by RDA Citizen's Committee that prioritized RDA spending based on input
from neighborhood
groups, as well as a review of RDA law and discussion by the Citizen's
Committee itself (I'm on that committee, see the report here under "Resources"). Naturally what floated to the top of our list was the neighborhood infrastructure projects. With Chapmantown being annexed there will be an even greater need for money in the neighborhoods. There was an additional request from our camp that the city spend about $9 million on neighborhood projects and then re-evaluate all other RDA spending. Spending decisions could happen after more public discussion and a closer look at alternative funding methods for parks and police (specifically a Park Bond, Emergency Services Bond, surplus land sales, or a tax increase). The alternative plan, and the result the City Manager and department heads were pulling for, was approval of Tom Lando's 1-18-06 RDA spending recommendations. This plan would allot $46 million to a variety of projects. Larry Wahl didn't see a need to rush the spending decision. Andy Holcombe wanted the city list approved as is. Scott Gruendl seemed to be somewhere in the middle. The end vote approved the "Lando list" to be passed up to the full council with an additional $4 million in neighborhood improvements. Also, $10 million that was available for city staff defined projects was earmarked for neighborhood improvements. Neighborhood groups and the RDA Committee did a good job placing focus on fixing our neighborhoods. The $14 million is a step in the right direction. But I suspect Chico is going to have to do some serious financial planning to get our streets, sidewalks, gutters, and sewers fixed. |
| Note: To put the $4,000,000 dollar bump
in street improvements into perspective, it's about the same amount of
money
the city has spent revamping the downtown plaza park. Or about half of
the amount spent procuring Bidwell Ranch, which is still locked to the
the public. City staff and politicians have tough choices to make on these projects. Some have taken to blaming previous Councils for the problems. The blame may or may not be valid, but the folks in charge today are likely to be the scapegoats of the future if they fail to fix neighborhoods that they're annexing. |
RDA Project Proposed By City Staff |
 |
| The city is annexing areas like
Chapmantown and knows that these neighborhoods will take $100,000,000+
to bring up to appropriate
standards. Redevelopment money should be spent on these neighborhoods. I'm
guessing that down the road an additional bond will be created to pay for
this infrastructure. People that live in these neighborhoods should demand that the RDA focus on fixing their streets, gutters, and sewers. If you're being annexed you should also demand that the city put a neighborhood improvement plan in place at the time of annexation. |
Posted by Lon at 11:04 AM
May 02, 2006
Dollars and Sense - Part 1
|
| I spent the morning of 4-26-06 at the
Finance Committee meeting. As a member of the Citizen's Redevelopment Committee
it was a
pretty fun meeting. We presented a list of redevelopment projects that
were prioritized based on input from various neighborhood groups as well
as our own discussions. I'll be doing an entry to cover some of that
later (follow this link to see how much RDA money is spent, this is money from bonds you didn't vote on). But because I went to the Finance Committee on the 26th I skipped the extra session on the 27th. On the 27th the City Manager presented his proposals for funding of community groups. As a follow up to an earlier post I'm putting that info here. |
| Disclaimer: City of Chico finance image and logo were modified and reproduced without permission. No attempt is being made to represent myself as a Finance Committee member or city staff. If I end up in the "Big House", please break me out. |
| What follows are the recommendations
that the City Manager, Greg Jones, made for funding of various community
groups.
The money comes from the General Fund, Transportation Occupancy Taxes
(TOT), and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money. The City Manager recommended a 3% increase in funding for groups that wanted an increase. Some groups that had failed to attend the 4-13-06 meeting had their proposed funding reduced to zero. Of course these were just recommendations and the Finance Committee probably made adjustments that I'm unaware of. |
|||
| City Manager Greg Jones describes the
spending increase in the Finance Committee agenda as follows... FISCAL IMPACT: As indicated at the 4/13/06 Finance Committee meeting, based on the budget projections at the time of preparation of the agenda, I recommended available program revenue of $738,850, an increase of $93,850 over Fiscal Year 05-06 recommended revenue of $645,000. The increased recommendation represents increases of $20,000 in the General Fund/CDBG category, $51,500 in the TOT - Tourism and Economic Development category, $12,350 in the TOT - Arts category, and the additional $10,000 allocated according to Council policy for one time events. If the Finance Committee recommends funding allocations within the recommended available program revenue, General Fund savings will be realized . |
|||
| The contrast between the community organizations
funding on 4-27 and the RDA capital projects funding on 4-26 is staggering.
The Finance Committee didn't even blink when proposing a 10% increase in
RDA spending ($4million). In fact, I would say that the public discussion over who gets $10K-$20K for their community group seems more detailed than which project gets $1,000,000 - $20,000,000. The end result of both the 4-26 and 4-27 Finance Committee meetings was to forward "lists" to the entire council for discussion and action (approval). There's a June 6th all day budget meeting scheduled to cover much of this ground in detail. The columns below are 2005-6 (what the organizations received last funding cycle), 2006-7 (what they asked for next), and Proposed (what the City Manager proposed for the next funding cycle). | |||
| Organization Arc of Butte County Butte County Behavioral Health Caminar Catalyst Women's Advocates Catholic Ladies Relief Society Chico Area Council on Aging Chico Cat Coalition (PAWS) Chico Community Children's Center Chico Community Shelter Partnership Chico Creek Nature Center Chico Unified School District Community Action Agency Community Legal Information Center Do-It Leisure (Work Training Center) Independent Living Services of NoCal Innovative Health Care Services Innovative Preschool Legal Services of Northern California North Valley Parent Education Network Passages Adult Resource Center Rape Crisis Intervention Sunshine Kids Club VECTORS Barry R Kirshner Wildlife Foundation CARD (4th of July) Chico Chamber of Commerce Chico Chamber of Commerce Chico Economic Planning Corporation Downtown Chico Business Association Far West Heritage(was Chico Museum) Far West Heritage(was Chico Museum) Hispanic Business Association Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Natural History Museum(CSUC Found.) University Public Events(CSUC Found.) |
2005-6 $8520 $0 $7140 $9510 $19000 $20780 $10000 $22669 $12000 $53889 $0 $13906 $2652 $13818 $16150 $30122 $8840 $16616 $11934 $5835 $25603 $3768 $11220 $0 $3115 $118948 $20000 $40000 $38400 $20376 $7000 $5000 $5000 $0 $10000 |
2006-7 $13422 $19998 $7140 $16528 $19000 $21000 $14000 $22669 $12000 $60960 $10970 $16000 $3000 $13818 $16150 $31628 $10000 $20000 $16000 $5835 $25603 $6000 $0 $8300 $3115 $156169 $0 $48000 $47500 $34000 $0 $0 $35000 $20000 $20000 |
Proposed $8776 $0 $7140 $9795 $19000 $21000 $10300 $22660 $12000 $55506 $0 $13906 $2732 $13818 $16150 $31026 $9105 $17114 $12292 $5835 $25603 $3881 $0 $0 $3115 $122516 $0 $41200 $39552 $20987 $0 $0 $0 $5000 $20000 |
Posted by Lon at 08:01 AM