So the city claims that it will continue transferring money from the electric utility despite the voter outcome against Measure “B”.
Here is an explanation: We normally equate the term “city” to mean the residents, taxpayers, and ratepayers. But if we change the meaning to refer to the managers, police, fire and vested interests, rather than the public, then it all makes sense.
The crucial financial problem is the increasing pension costs that now claim $31 million per year when compared to $8 million about 10 years ago. To fix the problem, the city, using the second definition, must negotiate the employment contract with its three top employee associations.
But since it is the managers who moved up the ranks who negotiate the contracts with the unions, it is unlikely that they'll choose to reduce the benefits to their own brethren. So they simply soak the rate-payer, even if it means that they violate the city charter and the state constitution.
To defend against a lawsuit, they'll use our tax money. Does it make sense now?