Commission Impossible

Is that the logo for "Meerkat Manor"???

CIC The lone tree in Carmel.

Larry Wahl sure disguises himself well.

Also, according to #1, the RDA has no more free funding means that there's no more money for road improvements?

On my way to work today up at the airport, I noticed they patched up one of the worst sections of the road up the hill, but even the patch was awful, and now I know why. Because there was no more money to afford one of those asphalt flattening thingies.

Trevor,

There is gas tax money, oh wait... that's being spent to pay the road crews instead of to re-build the roads.

Quite a lot of the "allocatd money" money has not been spent. So there will be RDA funded raod impropvements in future. RDA money already allocated could also be shifted to other public works, but now that it's all been ear-marked other factors come into play.

For example, shifting $17 million in RDA funds away from building a new police station and towards road improvements would be opposed by police department. Another example might be the open-space at Comanche Creek, where selling the property might be opposed by neighbors and environmental groups. A third example is the CANA (neighborhood group near Enloe) RDA allocation, taking that money from them would probably not be appreciated. But money not yet spent could be re-allocated.

In all likelyhood if we see shifts in RDA money from existing projects it will be away from roads. Keep an eye on the Cohasset Road widening and bridge improvement project.

Lon

Will do. Seein' as I drive it 5 days a week. They seem to have halted progress on it for the time being, but they managed to shift the line poles over a good 20-30 feet, and clear off part of the side of the road, and i think repave a little.. but apart from that, all the really bad stuff hasn't been touched yet. Like the section of road that I dam near drive off onto the dirt just to avoid. Bad for the alignment.

Lon, welcome back yourself. I'm glad someone finally had the guts to comment on the Larry Wahl/Madam Ruby have-you-ever-seen-them-both-in-the-same-room issue (even though I had to look up FUBAR).

Wahl is not Madam Ruby he's simply on spin cycle. If you were in the audience on 12/18 you heard Jennifer Hennessy report that most of damage was done prior to 2002- which means under the conservative watch.
Interestingly Wahl and Bertagna are the only holdovers from those Councils. In 2003-2004 Gruendl
replaced Keene to give Progressives a 4-3 majority
for the first time since 1994.

dude, I tried spin cycle once, and somehow I ended up blacked out downtown outside of the Crazy Horse picking a fight with the coors beer can dude.
I subsequently woke up 3 hours later lying in front of Northern Star Mills with someone's bike and a coupon for a free ice cream from Cold Stone.

Miguel,

That's pretty good spin you've got going yourself. Jennifer Hennessy in the half-dozen times I've heard her speek has never once stated that either conservatives or liberals were the cause of the budget problem.

She has said PERS re-negotiations subsequent to the post 2000 downturn in the stock market was one component of funding problems. Other factors were increased state government takes from local government, and a reduction of sales tax income.

From that time until now the entire council has supported city budgets. However last November our current Mayor, Andy Holcombe, downplayed the budget problem in this CNR editorial...

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=234495

Shortly after the election, which the local liberals won, Wahl took the opportunity at the State of the City address to question current spending practices. He took some heat for not being nice. In hindsight I think he was correct to question spending. Considering the data coming out of the Finance Department I'm surprised all Councilors were not concerned about spending.

You and others may feel that spending an average of $193K for a fire captain is a vast right wing conspiracy. I think it's an example of misuse of taxpayer money. Handing out 25% raises in 2007 wasn't a great idea either.

Lon

Trevor,

That's right, it is the logo for the Meerkat Manor. I'm still sheaken up over Flower's demise.

Lon

Never meant to imply that Ms Hennessy ever assigned blame- I assigned it based on history. She only said that the "structural deficit" was in place by 2002.The real deficits started in 1994 when Keene & cronies worked to minimize Developer Fees and back filled the deficit with General Fund and RDA money (Maximus Study circa 2001/2). High salaries to Management is how you keep them quiet and since you don't know who's squeaky everyone gets a raise.
Rank & File raises are different and usually deserved,but in this case it looks like whether deserved or not Firefighters,Police and City Workers will pay for old council mistakes.

Wahl of course has been trying to "pin the tail on the Donkey" ever since he went into the minority.

Holcombe is right in the sense that the deficit isn't that big but it cant be ignored either

Miguel,

I can't comment on particulars of Keene's or other decisions, but I can say that much of what you say doesn't jive with a logical reality.

I'm aware of one recent (December 2003) instance of development impact fees actually being lowered from those proposed, here are the minutes...

A motion was made by Councilmember Nguyen-Tan and seconded by Councilmember Gruendl to accept the Park Fee Nexus Study, adopt the following resolution amending the fee schedule at the lower rates of $2,064 and $1,746 and initiate amendments to the General Plan to maintain consistency between the fee assumptions and plan, as recommended by staff, with the exception of maintaining the ability to acquire the Big Chico Creek greenway west of SHR 32 with funds other than park facility fees.

RESOLUTION NO. 49 03-04 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO
AMENDING THE CITY’S FEE SCHEDULE (AMENDMENT NO. 279 - PARK FACILITY FEES)
AYES: Gruendl, Jarvis, Nguyen-Tan, Kirk
NOES: Bertagna, Herbert, Wahl
ABSENT: None
DISQUAL: None

You'll note which councilors voted to reduce the fees from those proposed in the Nexus study.

Since those fees would have been used to build parks and purchase greenways and open space, and since the liberal council has used the RDA for those purposes, I think your allegation could be applied across the political spectrum in Chico.

Additionally, the current Council has approved of about 3000 units (I'm estimating here) in the last year. They did not opt to increase development impact fees before doing so. That means they are either content with fee levels, or are approving new developments with artificially low fees, something you accused past conservative councils of doing. So are fees still too low? If so, do you still blame a conservative council of the past?

Understanding development impact fees is important to the budget discussion. I believe a slim majority of Chico's population growth in the last decade comes from annexation. Annexation does not contribute fees towards new parks, roads, or public safety, beyond traditional taxation.

New development does create funds for these impacts. Since 85% of our budget is personel it's hard to argue that new development has been more costly than annexation from the point of view of our General Funds.

Suggesting that upper mamangement is receiving "hush money" due to conservative councils of the past is also not a very solid argument. There have been dramatic increases in benefits and pay since 2002 which would indicate that a liberal majority council is continuing to hush them up, assuming your accusation is accurate (I don't think it is).

See this graphic from Richard Ek's breaking the bank showing significant increases in city payroll during a liberal council majority...

http://www.newsreview.com/binary/4daf/cover-3L.gif

It's my opinion that local employee unions at the city have been negotiating a sweet deal for themselves. That's pretty much waht their job is. The council's job is to look out for me and you. Until the CNR (Breaking the Bank, by Ek) and E-R (salary data) ferreted out just how sweet that deal is I think councilors were willing to go along.

I'm not convinced that a conservative majority council would have done much differently with regards to union contracts. I am concerned that renegotiating contracts will not occur and additional taxation will occur with our current council.

One reason I feel that way is that both Councilors Gruendl and Holcombe, as Mayors, were willing to publicly engage Enloe for its "undemocratic" union negotiation tactics.

Now that the city might need to renegotiate with its unions I don't think we have strong advocates supporting the taxpayer. When you combine that with recent a CNR story about the possibility of a tax increase suggested by our Mayor and past Mayor, my concern grows.

I'm not completely against the idea of a tax increase. But the argument seems to be "due to circumstances beyond our control, we pay some of our employees too much, and we need more money to do that."

This budget belongs to this council. Wahl was correct to highlight the problem as early as he did.

Lon