PROS AND CONS - Measures H, L, K
MEASURE H
QUESTION:
To support vital city services shall an ordinance establishing a 1 percent sales tax, providing approximately $24,000,000 annually until ended by voters, subject to annual audits, with all funds staying local, be adopted? YES or NO
CURRENT SITUATION:
Currently, State and Local sales tax in Chico is 7.25 cents per dollar with the City receiving 0.95%. The remainder goes to the State and the County of Butte.
THE PROPOSAL:
Measure H asks voters to approve an ordinance enacting a one percent (1%) general transactions and use(sales) tax which if enacted would raise the total sales tax rate in Chico from 7.25% to 8.25%. All purchasers of goods including visitors would be subject to the tax. The additional funds (estimated to be around $24,000,000) would be placed in the General Fund and would not be restricted. They could be used for any City general fund purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The Measure would raise approximately $24,000,000 annually, which would be placed in the City of Chico General Fund.
SUPPORTERS SAY:
This additional revenue is needed and would be used for essential services such as road maintenance, addressing homelessness, improving Bidwell Park and neighborhood parks, public safety and other essential services. State mandates, COVID, population growth and the Camp Fire have stressed the City’s resources. Other communities have already taken this step and it is needed in Chico to make residents feel safe and address many needs. The funds would also help leverage grant funding.
OPPONENTS SAY:
Proponents say that the funds would be used for specific purposes, but there is no guarantee since these monies would go into the General Fund with no restrictions on spending. Proponents admit this will not provide enough revenue to meet all the city’s needs, so part of it will be used to secure grants. Grants are also restrictive, competitive, and must be matched, creating more debt.
The 2023 budget is $68,000,000 larger than the previous budget. Chico doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. There is no guarantee this money would be spent on infrastructure or public safety.
MEASURE L
QUESTION:
Shall the City of Chico adopt an ordinance that requires the City of Chico be held to abide by the same public nuisance laws it imposes on private landowners by establishing a right for residents uniquely harmed by a public nuisance to demand the abatement of public nuisances by the City on City-owned property; and requires the City to respond to the demand within 20 days by abating the alleged nuisance or providing the reason for its refusal, limited to prescribed justifications?
CURRENT SITUATION:
The current City of Chico Municipal Code concerning public nuisance conditions applies only to conditions which exist on private property. (Chapter 1.14 of Title 1 of the City Code). This code covers a wide range of health or safety hazards, conditions which are unsightly and cause devaluation of surrounding properties or attractive nuisances which could cause harm to small children or animals.
The City is currently responsible to keep public property up to code and nuisance free and residents can call code enforcement or public works to register complaints
THE PROPOSAL:
Measure L asks voters to approve an ordinance revising Chapter 1.14 of Title 1 of City Municipal Code to hold the City to the same standards as private property owners. The same conditions that currently apply to private property owners would apply to the City. Any resident specially injured by a public nuisance could submit a demand to the City and the City would have 20 days to reply to the resident. The City could agree to abate the nuisance and give a timeframe for said abatement of give a reason for denial.
Possible reason for denial would be :
1) City doesn’t own the property
2) City disagrees that a nuisance exists
3) Resident has not proven special injury
4) City not legally permitted to abate nuisance
5) Not in the City’s best interest to abate nuisance
There is no monetary penalty against the City for denying a resident demand and no appeal process is provided if the demand is denied.
FISCAL EFFECT:
There could be increased work for Public Works and Code Enforcement departments if many demands were received from citizens about perceived nuisances.
SUPPORTERS SAY:
This change would codify the process for citizens to formally request abatement of a public nuisance on City of Chico property and require the City to reply to the demand in a timely manner.
OPPONENTS SAY:
This change is unnecessary as the City is already required to abate public nuisances on their property. It could waste a lot of time for Public Works employees checking out demands that are annoying to a particular citizen but do not meet the criteria of public nuisance.
MEASURE K
QUESTION:
Should the Butte County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program and associated fees be renewed for a ten-year term for purposes of removal and disposal of abandoned and wrecked vehicles?
CURRENT SITUATION:
The program has currently been running for almost 10 years and is due to expire on December 31, 2022. The program is funded by “AVA Fee” which is charged at the rate of $1.00 for every vehicle registered to an owner with an address in Butte County, and an additional $2.00 for certain commercial vehicles registered to an owner with an address in the county. This is charged at time of registration or renewal.
The fees are collected by DMV and then dispersed to the Butte County Abandoned Vehicle Authority. The fees may only be used for the abatement, removal, and disposal of abandoned, wrecked, or nonoperative vehicles, or vehicle parts, located on private or public property within the county. This includes the incorporated cities and the Town of Paradise.
THE PROPOSAL:
The Measure proposes to extend the current fee collection for another 10 years with the same fee structure and all fees used only for abatement purposes. A “YES” vote would continue the program for another 10 years and a “NO” vote would discontinue the program as of December 31, 2022.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Current revenue received is approximately $200,000 per year. The passing of the measure would increase the revenue to approximately $380,000 per year over the next 10 years.
SUPPORTERS SAY:
Abandoned vehicle removal is important to remove environmental risks and safety hazards and to maintain the visual beauty of our community. In the past 10 years over 9,300 vehicles have been removed. Voting “YES” will not create a new fee but will continue the same fee that has been collected since 2003 for another 10 years.
NO ARGUMENT OPPOSING THIS MEASURE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED:
