Funky Friday

Very foggy greetings, Tazer Faithful! A couple thing to cover today, so let's get crackin'!

First, let's file this one under "Careful what you wish for"...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utility tax recalculation costs city
RICHMOND: Chevron refinery switches to actual usage method; July's payment is $390,000 less than last year's

By John Geluardi
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

The Chevron refinery's new method of calculating its utility tax could cost Richmond $4.6 million in annual revenue.

For 20 years, the refinery has calculated its utility tax payments by using a "cap rate," or flat rate method, which provided the city with reliable monthly installments of about $1.2 million. Utility taxes are typically calculated according to the actual usage of electricity, gas, water and telephone services, which fluctuates from one month to the next.

Two months ago, the refinery switched to the actual method to calculate its payment. The refinery's first installment under the new method, for the month of July, was $390,000 less than last year's.

The city does not know whether the new, reduced payment is accurate because the refinery, which generates more than 50 percent of its own energy, does not release energy production or usage information, said Richmond Finance Director Jim Goins.

"We received their July payment by wire transfer last week, and it was unaccompanied by any documentation," Goins said. "This is a brand-new experience, and I don't want to speculate what it means. As soon as we get their records, we can give a response."

But that's not likely to happen anytime soon, said Chevron refinery spokeswoman Camille Priselac.

"The city can't audit our energy usage because of business confidentiality," she said. "We don't disclose information about our energy production."

Richmond, which is still recovering from a $35 million budget crisis in 2004, will not feel short-term budgetary pain, Goins said.

"We have been able to set aside $1.5 million in reserves, so it's not going to cripple the city this year," he said. "But over the course of three years, that's $12 million, a significant loss of revenue that will hurt a lot of programs such as capital improvements, road maintenance and other projects."

Goins said it's too early to tell whether city jobs hang in the balance.

For 20 years, Chevron was the only business in Richmond to calculate its utility tax using the cap rate. Some elected officials criticized the special arrangement and speculated it allowed Chevron to underpay the tax.

"This has continued to be made into a political issue by some," Priselac said. "We just hope that by paying the tax on the actual basis, the city can focus on other issues, such as public safety."

City Councilwoman Gayle McLaughlin, a cap-rate critic, said the refinery will have to open its utility usage books for inspection even if it requires legal action.

"That confidentiality clause is something that has been disputed by many," she said. "Corporate responsibility is essential to Richmond and especially for the Chevron refinery, which has such a huge impact on the city in terms of air quality and public health."

The Chevron refinery emitted 457,000 pounds of toxic air pollutants in 2004, according to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Chevron's critics have finally gotten their wish at the expense of the city, Mayor Irma Anderson said.

"McLaughlin and other council members had doubts that previous councils had done their due diligence to ascertain that the cap rate was best for the city," she said. "I've been on the council since 1993, and we were told by our former city attorney that legally Chevron never had to give us the real facts."

McLaughlin remains dubious of Chevron's legal standing.

"This is a door that's begun to open after being closed for 20 years," she said. "It's bound to squeak and make rusty sounds."

Reach John Geluardi at 510-262-2787 or jgeluardi@cctimes.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAZER SAYS: Uh huh, and the squeaky wheel got its grease. Just that there's $390K less grease since demands have come for "actual calculation." Watch Chevron be able to prove that they owe even LESS! Maybe you'd like to quit while you're behind, Gayle...

Don't get the Tazer wrong, because we think that Chevron should pay its fair share. In fact, despite that Irma was waved off by a former city attorney, it doesn't excuse her from 1) finding out for sure if Chevron didn't have to disclose that info, 2) finding out if Chevron was actually paying its fair share, and 3) if Chevron wasn't, that the city had recourse to make things right.

Richmond needs a mayor and city council that can strike a balance with Chevron: cooperation without being bowled over, and extracting taxes without being punitive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mayor stands by Potts decision
RICHMOND: Anderson opts not to ask council to reconsider appointment of activist with criminal record

By Karl Fischer
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Mayor Irma Anderson stood behind a controversial Richmond Police Commission appointment this week, saying she would not reconsider because of his criminal record.

The president of the city's police union, however, wishes she would -- and says the association will pursue the issue with her and other elected officials.

"Our concern is that we don't think he could remain unbiased, given his prior contacts with law enforcement," said Detective Kevin Martin, president of the Richmond Police Officers Association. "What happens when an officer who arrested him in the past comes before the commission?"

But Cochise Potts has earned the right to serve on the city's police watchdog panel through his dedication to community policing and public service, his proponents said at a commission meeting Wednesday night.

"I don't ever recall a time in my 11 years here that a commissioner has been the subject of such scrutiny," said Bob Sutcliffe, who resigned his commission seat last year. "The way this commissioner was treated was unfair."

Commission chairman Al Martinez asked Potts to resign in July because the Police Department had rejected his request to ride in patrol cars with on-duty officers, a requirement for serving on the mayor-appointed advisory panel that probes police misconduct complaints.

The department screens all ride-along applicants and initially rebuffed Potts because of his criminal record: prior misdemeanor convictions from a 1980s drug charge and a domestic violence charge in the early 1990s, as well as several arrests by Richmond police that never resulted in charges.

Police Chief Chris Magnus gave Potts permission to ride with police whenever he liked once he learned about the situation. Anderson, who learned about Potts' record from the Times, said last month she would ask the City Council to consider whether to change its June ratification vote in light of the new information.

"I added him because I felt ... he is very concerned about the community and about public safety," Anderson said. "I was disappointed that he did not come and talk to me (about his record), but I do feel that he has demonstrated a deep concern for his community, and since the chief has waived the requirement, I don't have any objection."

Potts, 54, has served on several city commissions, including a post with the Recreation and Parks Commission that he resigned in June to accept a spot on the Police Commission.

"Many residents, particularly people of color and lower-income residents, feel a real disconnect with the Richmond Police Department," Potts said Wednesday. "I hope my position on the board will help to bridge that gap."

Several speakers at the commission meeting complained about the treatment Potts received. Sutcliffe said the background-screening requirement for police commissioners to ride along with officers has been waived in the past.

Magnus, who came to Richmond in January, said in an interview last month that anyone who requests a ride-along is subject to a background check.

But he acknowledged he was surprised that his department's policy would dictate who could serve on the Police Commission, which is supposed to be made up of civilians who independently investigate claims of police brutality against city officers.

Martin of the police association, meanwhile, said his membership has serious doubts about Potts' suitability for the post and is concerned about his appointment setting precedent.

"The ethical thing for him to do would be to step down," Martin said. "He's not doing them any justice."

Potts' supporters point out that several former police officers, including Martinez, have sat on the Police Commission. One current commissioner, who is also a founding member of the commission, is the mother of a current Richmond police officer.

"The Police Commission has tolerated three former Richmond police officers and one former Berkeley officer over the years without making the same argument," Sutcliffe said. "It's a one-sided argument. What is the difference?"

The commission has no disciplinary power but advises the police chief about disciplinary matters.

"I'm going to serve in a fair and impartial manner, represent the community at large and foster better communication between citizens and the Richmond Police Department," Potts said.

Reach Karl Fischer at 510-262-2728 or kfischer@cctimes.com.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAZER SAYS: In this instance, we believe that Chief Magnus (and by extension, Irma Anderson...yes, really!) knows best. Bias can cut both ways, and the police commission is not only supposed to be a civilian body, it's supposed to be independent.

Did Cochise Potts pay his debt to society? Has he done good works to help the community? Can he set an EXAMPLE of redemption, and how to do what is right? If so, and Potts performs his duties, the Tazer sees no problem with his being allowed to serve.

However, to address RPOA rep Martin's concern (and those of RPD as well, perhaps?), we qualify that Potts might have to recuse himself if an officer he has encountered before comes to the attention of the commission. It would seem a more direct form of bias than merely being a former officer or relative of an officer, as Sutcliffe argues, and so it would only be fair that Potts remove himself from such a case.

The Tazer doubts that our "solution" would make everyone happy, but then perfect compromises are probably based more on all parties being at least a little unhappy.