All five of Chino Hills city council members are facing a taxing dilemma.
Chino Hills qualifies, by the metrics that are said to count most, as San Bernardino County’s most affluent city. By the yardstick that really matters, Chino Hills also qualifies as the most Republican of San Bernardino County’s 24 municipalities. San Bernardino  is among five remaining GOP bastions in the State of California.
Republicans are distinguished from Democrats in many ways.
Republicans are right-leaning  conservatives and proud of it. Democrats consider themselves to be left of their Republican counterparts, and celebrate themselves as liberals and progressives.
Republicans are the party of rugged self-independence. Democrats are the party of identity politics.
Republicans value meritocracy in deriving qualifications. Democrats call for emphasizing diversity, equality and inclusion in determining an individual’s qualifications.
Republicans emphasize the United States is a republic. Democrats’ first characterization of the country is that it is a democracy.
Republicans are the party of corporations. Democrats are the party of labor.
The Republicans promote entrepreneurship. Democrats are unionists.
Republicans perceive taxation as being stifling and a limitation on freedom and growth. Democrats view taxation as a tool that will even the economic playing field and enable government to broaden the provision of public services and engage in social programs to better the community.
Despite the consideration that of Chino Hills’ 48,624 registered voters, 16,792 or 34.5 percent of them are registered as Democrats, five more than the 16,784 or 34.5 percent who are registered Republicans, elections there are dominated by Republicans. That is the product of multiple factors. Perhaps the most powerful one is that in excess of 90 percent of those Republicans participate in the electoral process on a consistent basis, whereas voter turnout among Democrats rarely reaches beyond 60 percent. Moreover, a majority of the city’s 11,871 voters or 24.4 percent who have no party affiliation and the 3,007 or 6.1 percent who are members of the American Independent, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom or other more obscure parties gravitate toward supporting Republican over Democrats. While the vast majority of city’s 170 Green Party members have proven out to be the one set of minority party members who support Democrats over Republicans, they constitute a mere 0.3 percent of Chino Hills’ electorate.
In this way, Chino Hills is now, and has always been since its 1991 incorporation, a hotbed or Republicanism. All five of its current council members – Mayor Brian Johsz, Councilman Ray Marquez, Councilman Art Bennett, Councilwoman Cynthia Moran and Councilman Peter Rogers – are Republicans. Like their predecessors, they have adhered to a fiscally conservative approach, seeking to balance the city’s budget each successive year. Historically, the city maintained fiscal discipline, embracing conservative financial management and living within its means by ensuring that expenditure out of the city’s operating budget, referred to as the “general fund,” as well out of its other funds did not exceed the revenue coming into the city.
In California, cities have revenue streams that consist of a percentage of property tax collected within its jurisdiction by the county within which that municipality is located, fees for services it provides to those applying for permits, licensing or permission to transact business or engage in construction within city limits, one cent of the six cents per dollar of the six percent sales tax collected throughout California, a percentage of the gasoline tax collected by the State of California, other money passed along to cities by the State of California in what are called subventions, along with federal and state grants which cities can apply for. In addition, if the voters in a particular city vote to approve a tax override, cities can collect and extra portion of sales tax up to 2 percent.
To the extent that a city brings in more revenue during any particular budgetary cycle, which normally runs from July 1 to June 30, corresponding to the governmental fiscal year, the city can deposit that money into a reserve account which is separate and sequestered from its other accounts and funds, including its general operating fund. Those accounts are generally interest-bearing ones. If a city has sizable reserves that money can be invested, as well, typically in bonds or U.S. Government Treasury notes.
Reserves can be built up over the years as a city takes in money in excess of its costs, as was often the case with Chino Hills. By the same token, in those years where the revenue diminishes or remains the same while operational costs increase above the amount of money coming in, deficit spending can occur. Deficit spending eats into a district’s reserves. If deficit expending persists to the point that all of a city’s reserves are consumed, in all fiscal years going forward from that point, a city has the option of immediately balancing its budget year-to-year such that its revenue, at least, matches what it is expending. This typically entails decreasing the level of service offered to the city’s residents by reducing staff and related personnel costs. Its other option is to engage in borrowing to make up the difference between its revenue and its greater operational costs. Borrowing, however, is risky, in that the city begins accumulating debt and must structure its future spending to service that debt through constant interest payments and an eventual paydown of the loan principal. This debt service turns into a years-long or decades-long drain on the city’s finances. This will most likely result in an eventual reduction of the level of service and a shedding of staff and municipal personnel. If a city does not manage to return to operating on balanced budget and retire its debt, a very real possibility of bankruptcy looms for it as well as a potential that the city itself would be disincorporated, its municipal status revoked and its governance assumed by the county.
As noted, Chino Hills, in keeping with what are considered to be municipal management/operational practices and the fiscally conservatism associated with its predominantly Republican leadership, has historically functioned utilizing balanced budgets. Over the last several years, Chino Hills has not been immune to rising costs and basic inflation which the rest of American society and California communities in general have been dealing with.
In recent months and weeks the entirely Republican Chino Hills City Council has been brought to understand the harsh financial reality facing the city. In the time before City Manager Benjamin Montgomery departed in March and over the last three months since Rod Hill has been city manager, Christa Buhagiar has been finalizing a spending plan for Fiscal 2026-27 that has pared back departmental expenditures in a way Montgomery and Hill believed was prudent and which the city’s department heads indicated they could abide by. Despite those efforts, the ratio of income to outgo is anticipated to be a negative one. The best projections available as of early this month were that between July 1, 2026 and June 30, 2027, the city can anticipate at least $58.6 million and as much as $59.4 million in revenue and that it will spend in the neighborhood of $63.5 million. Consequently, city officials anticipate the city will run a deficit of somewhere between $4.1 million and $4.9 million in the upcoming fiscal year.
The city council is thus left with the options of 1) approving the $63.5 million spending plan as laid out and making up for the difference between that figure and the actual revenue it will realize in 2026-27 by drawing from its $25.4 million in available reserves or 2) imposing mandates on the city’s department heads to reduce spending in their respective departments beyond what was previously discussed, leading to an inevitable drop in service levels to the city’s residents; or 3) an amalgam of the two previous options in which some borrowing from the reserves takes place but somewhat less than $4.1 million to $4.9 million while the city’s department heads are called upon to engage in less drastic but still significant and perhaps even painful economies within their areas of responsibility.
A fourth option, one that is almost unspeakable for the five Republicans on the city council, consists of what the City of Chino’s city council did in 2023 when it placed Measure V, calling for a one-cent-per-dollar sales tax increase within the Chino City Limits, on the March 5, 2024 ballot that corresponded with California’s primary election that year. Ultimately, with 7,385 of Chino’s residents going to the polls or participating by mail, 4,596 votes or 62.23 percent were cast in favor of the initiative, while 2,789 votes or 37.77 percent were registered against it.
While Chino officials in promoting Measure V confidently predicted its passage would generate about $28 million per year in revenue for the City of Chino, in actuality, for the 2024/25 fiscal year, the city took in $24,800,606 from the one-cent-extra-sales-tax-per dollar increase.
It is projected that if voters in Chino Hills were to approve a similar measure in 77,420-population Chino Hills, the county’s southwesternmost city would see between $11 million and $12 million in increased sales tax revenue. The benefit of a sales tax override to Chino Hills would be less pronounced than the advantage gained by Chino because Chino has a larger sales tax base, consisting of roughly two-and-a-half more retail operations than those in Chino Hills, along with the consideration that a good share of Chino Hills residents do their shopping in Chino’s commercial centers, some of which lie immediately east of the Chino Hills City Limits.
The question, of course, is whether Chino Hills residents would, like Chino residents, embrace the idea of paying higher taxes.
At the core of all of this is what the Chino Hills City Council members’ true feelings, attitude and motivations are. For years they have been selling themselves to their constituents as dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who stand for common sense and good governance, which in the words of Ronald Reagan, “governs the least.” They have labored to keep secret that they are no longer, if they ever were, true government minimalists but have evolved into politicians who want the grandeur of the entity they head to not only endure but intensify. Theirs is a commitment not so much to the individuals they represent but the city itself. The city is now being threatened with increasing operational costs and dwindling revenue with which to carry out those operations. Their Republican instincts to slim down the bloat of government in order to balance the city’s books has been overcome by their promote the city as an agency of enhancement to the community.
An indication of the degree to which the city council’s inclination toward streamlined governance has been compromised with each succeeding year its members remain in office exists in the manner in which it has made concessions to the employees at City Hall. Economic trends have been at play for years. The escalation in costs across the board did not initiate in the last six months. Despite bellwethers going back more than half of a decade indicating that cushion between municipal revenue and how much money was needed to run the city could not be maintained and a need to reduce costs rather than increase them was an imperative, in 2024, the Chino City Council signed off on giving the city’s cost-of-living and salary adjustment of 3 percent. The city’s employees next received a 5 percent salary increase on September 1, 2025, with an additional 5% raise scheduled for September 1, 2026.
It is unclear, precisely, who broached the idea of a sales tax override in Chino Hills. Whether the concept originated with the council or with city staff, it appears that Chino’s success with Measure V suggested to someone within the orbit of authority that a similar move could be made in Chino Hills. Indeed, the roughly $11 million to $12 million in revenue such a measure would bring in would, for several years at least, redress the city’s looming cash flow problem.
For the city council, however, another problem existed, that being each one of them would run the risk of coming across as tax and spend liberals if they were to openly advocate for the sales tax override. Consequently, the burden of introducing the concept and mustering up support fell to senior staff, meaning Montgomery, while he was still in place, Buhagiar and ultimately Hill. It was Montgomery’s decision to, rather than take on the risk of triggering a citizen revolt, go at the assignment obliquely.
In February, roughly a month before he left the city, he used his spending authority as city manager to retain the firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, Inc. to conduct a survey into whether city residents perceive increased municipal spending as an acceptable means of enhancing their quality of life. The questions were mixed into a host of inquiries relating to city operations and the quality and competence of government and city employees. For good measure, the survey sought out what the surveyed residents primary concerns about public life and life in general.
The survey was undertaken without fanfare or public announcement, and did nt require the knowledge or approval of the city council, as Montgomery’s managerial authority allowed him to sign on for contracts of less than $50,000.
Layered into the survey were revelations with regard to the city’s financial trouble, but not in a way that took the issue head-on but rather suggested that was the case without stating that to me a fact. Those who have looked at the survey remarked that if it was intended to serve as an announcement of the city heading into financial straits, it was a curious approach, given that fewer than 450 of the city’s 77,420 residents – slightly more than one half of one percent – participated in the survey, which the city paid Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates $39,000 to carry out.
What was suggested was that Montgomery was hoping the survey would provide an indication that approaching 50 percent of the population either supported the upping of the city’s sales tax or at least was not strenuously opposed to it, which would have given him the cover to openly advocate that an item to that effect be placed on the ballot on November 3, 2026.
Since the questionnaire was commissioned by the city, most of its questions were polite and somewhat benign, eliciting answers that percentage-wise cast the city and its officials in a warm and positive light.
By a better than two-to-one margin – 58 percent to 24 percent – survey respondents ranked the city making positive progress and change as opposed to moving in the wrong direction. The remaining percentage offered no opinion or a lack of knowledge with regard to the city’s performance.
Respondents evinced an overall approval of the quality of life in Chino Hills, with 46 percent accepting as “very accurate” the assertion that conditions in Chino Hill are superior to those in neighboring cities, with another 40 percent considering that characterization as somewhat accurate.
The survey sought and obtained what was a predictable response to residents’ attitude with regard to a primary Chino Hills institution, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s department, which serves as the city’s contract law enforcement agency. The city’s police force found approval by 74 percent of those surveyed.
Asked to rate the city council, survey takers gave the panel the thumbs up, an approval rating slightly behind that given to city government/local government overall, which stood at 68 percent.
The survey gingerly approached the issue of city finances by asking respondents to rate the accuracy of the statement, “The City of Chino Hills is facing a budget deficit.” The degree to which city financial issues were off the average resident’s radar was shown by a substantial majority – 63 percent – responding that they had no knowledge one way or the other. It was the impression of 6 percent that there is no fiscal crisis looming in Chino Hills at all, while another 12 percent were under the impression that such a problem was unlikely. Tweny percent of the city’s residents, however, gave an indication that the city was behind the eight ball in terms of its spending, with 13 percent stating the city was facing a budget deficit was “somewhat accurate” and 7 percent saying that was a very accurate statement.
While the residents surveyed did not express overwhelming confidence in the city’s stewardship of the tax money it is already receiving, neither were they overly critical in that regard. One survey question pertained to the perceived accuracy of the assertion, “The City of Chino Hills has done a good job of managing its finances.” More than one third – 37 percent – ranked that as a somewhat accurate assessment and 14 percent agreed wholeheartedly. A significant number, 29 percent said they didn’t know, while 16 percent said they believed crediting the city with that level of performance was somewhat inaccurate and another 5 percent opined it as very inaccurate.
The Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates survey came closest to meeting Montgomery’s objective of clearing the way for seeking voter approval of a citywide sales tax hike with a survey response that showed a bare majority of 51 percent believed the city needed to enhance its revenues. A full 17 percent of respondents said the city had a substantial need for more funding and another 34 percent agreeing the city had some need to bring in more money. At the same time, over 40 percent of the survey respondents were skeptical of City Halls hunger for more money. More than one fifth, 21 percent, said the city had little need for more funding and one fifth, 20 percent, said there was no real need for the city to enhance revenue. Eight percent expressed no view one way or the other.
According to Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates there appears to be among Chino Hills’ populace a “modest” though not overwhelming potential support for “more funding.”
At the June 9 council meeting, with Rogers absent, the city council engaged in what one member of the public referred to as an effort to “weasel around” the concept of increasing the sales tax rate in the city without taking responsibility for doing so and without engaging in the hard task of taking a scalpel rather than an axe to the budget in an effort to purge it of excessive and wasteful spending.
Bennett tried to sugarcoat what the city was doing.
“I think we all know where our economy is in right now, especially in California. It may be the fourth largest global economy business, but the reality is there is a lot of misspending in the state. I want you to understand that you’ve heard the presentation tonight, you see the only one viable explanation to provide alternate revenue sources. You make the decision of how valuable you think this city is, how much you enjoy living in this city, how much value is attributed to the your property that you own because of the maintenance we do, the upkeep to this city, the programs we provide, and give us some serious thought about putting yourself in our position and saying, okay, how would I come up with the additional revenues if I were on the city council. And I think you can only come up to one conclusion.
Councilwoman took a stab at being a second apologist for subjecting city residents to an additional sales tax on top of their current tax burden, including the existing state sales tax, state and federal income taxes, property tax, telecommunications and utility surcharges, environmental and regulatory fees, excise taxes, inheritance tax, gasoline tax and state disability insurance, which is withheld from employee wages to fund disability and paid family leave benefits.
“So, just that the public is clear about what we’re doing, he [Mayor Johsz] is not going to hit the gavel and your taxes are raised, because contrary to what people are saying on social media, as a city council we cannot raise your taxes, folks,” Moran said. “We don’t need a crystal ball because we can see here what our deficit is. So we know how much money needs to be raised to offset that. So with that said, I’m just speaking for my own personal opinion, with what we have to backfill, I would like to see more information on the potential of…”
At that point, Moran cut herself short, receding from personally using the dreaded T-word.
“…um, he’s calling it something different,” Moran continued, and allowed Hill to fill the blank for her.
“So, yeah, it’s a use tax, basically,” Hill said. “It’s a sales tax for all purposes.”
“So, I would be interested, from my perspective, to see that as the top viable option, and to get more information on how that would play out, and what that would mean,” Moran said.
Johsz then sought to assure the public that the council would not raise taxes but was merely providing the residents of the city to the opportunity to raise them before threatening dire consequences if the people of the city did not do so willingly.
“None of us ever want to ask for a tax increase by any means,” Johsz said. “The five of us cannot raise your taxes. We are not allowed to. That is something that the voters would have to vote on. You could vote yes and you could vote no, but whatever you decide is the direction the city will take. So if you approve it, then that will take us down one road and if you say no, then we start looking at cuts.”
Councilman Bennett, motioned for a voted to adopt the capital improvement budget with direction for having staff to come back with a viable recommendation to help the city with revenue enhancement, meaning putting the tax override referendum on the ballot in November. All four council members present voted in support of that motion. Johsz directed city staff to “take that as a motion to approve the budget with direction to come back at a further council meeting with the option of a sales tax increase.”
The council must vote to put the matter before the voters at its upcoming June 23 meeting or miss the July deadline by which the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters must receive ballot placement requests.
In 2024, the Chino City Council threw itself behind a public effort to get Chino residents to Support Measure V. They did so, knowing that of their city’s 54,286 voters, 20,9749 or 38.6 percent were registered Democrats who were more or less favorably disposed towered taxation that would be of a social benefit, and that the 17,380 registered Republicans in their city who were likely to be set against further taxation constituted just 32 percent of the electorate.
The members of the Chino Hills Council may not be willing to risk the wrath of that city’s huge Republican base by championing the levying of an add-on sales tax.