But, gets it wrong on City’s budget

ANALYSIS

By Allen Payton

In the latest mailer from the well-funded No on Measure O campaign, it states under the first reason for voting no, that “On September 23, the City Council admitted that Measure O will be used for salaries and pensions at City Hall.”

Unfortunately, that statement is correct.

Upon looking at the annotated Agenda of the September 23rd Antioch City Council meeting, (which can be viewed by clicking, here), it shows under agenda item #8 that of the estimated $2.27 million in annual revenue projected from Measure O, if it passes, city staff recommended to spend $800,000 to eliminate “Furlough Fridays” to fully staff City Hall, Police Department reception and the Public Works office five days a week, instead of the current four.

The staff report on the agenda item reads as follows:

If Measure O passes and provides $2.27 million in additional annual funding, staff recommends the following spending priorities:

Between January 2015 and the end of Fiscal Year 2015-16, use approximately $800,000 for the elimination of “Furlough Fridays” so that City Hall, Police Department reception, and the Public Works office can once again be open to the public for a five day work week. All field staff would also return to 40 hour operations. When implement ed in 2009, the furlough program was intended to be a temporary fiscal solution to the downturn in the economy, not an indefinite service reduction to the public. Although a five day work week would be implemented, restoration of afternoon counter hours in Community Development and the Police Department will be dependent upon staffing resources. This will be an ongoing cost.

Additional, one-time budget items were also listed in the staff report.

In a Herald article (which can be viewed here) about the Council meeting, it confirms that the Council voted 4-0 to support the staff recommendations.

That article states “Mayor Harper spoke in favor of EBRCS, police body cameras, and the end of furlough Fridays. The rest of the council echoed their concurrence, and a motion to approve the report was passed on a 4-0 vote.”

CORRECTION: The $800,000 mentioned in both the staff report and the article, covers 18 months of the of the tax. But, according to Michelle Fitzer, the City’s Administrative Services Director in an email to the Herald on October 30th, “The annualized cost to the General Fund to return employees to a 40 hour work week, providing services to the Community on Fridays, is $800,000.”

At a cost of between $125,000 and $200,000 per sworn police officer in Antioch, $800,000 could instead be spent to fund between four to six officers, per year.

It appears the City Council has their priorities wrong and their vote has fulfilled the concerns stated in the No on Measure O campaign, that they won’t spend the money on hiring additional police, as expected – and needed, now.

UPDATE:  In the Sample Ballot, it states under Measure O, City of Antioch, BUSINESS LICENSE TAX. “To provide funding that cannot be seized by the State, to maintain such general City services as police services, code enforcement, street repairs, senior services and youth programs, shall the City of Antioch adopt a residential landlord business license tax…”

So, if Measure O passes, the Council must change their vote on the use of funds, at their first meeting in November, and direct staff to use them to hire police, and not for the elimination of Furlough Fridays. That matter can be handled during contract negotiation time with the various city employee groups.

Surplus Revenue Claim is False

UPDATE: Also on the same mailer, at the bottom, it shows Antioch had “Revenues” of $85,498,803 in 2013 and “Expenditures” of $83,434,491 leaving “Surplus Revenue” of $2,064,312.

But, what the No on O folks don’t understand, or don’t want the voters to know, is that the totals include what are known as Enterprise Funds, which include the Marina Fund, Water Park Fund, Sewer Fund and Water Fund, which can only be spent on the specific items related to those funds. They can not be spent on police or other city services. It’s the City’s General Fund that pays for police.

According to the City’s 2014-15 Budget, the actual total General Fund revenue in 2013-14 was $37,508,575 – less than half of what the mailer states. The total expenditures was $39,195,201, resulting in an annual deficit of $1,686,626 – not a $2 million surplus.

The City Budget includes the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds, Debt Service Fund, the City of Antioch as Successor Agency and Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency Funds, and funds from the Antioch Public Financing Authority.

So, any budget surplus was not in the General Fund and can not be spent as the City Council wishes. So the mailer seriously misstates the City’s finances.

Plus, the mailer compares Antioch’s revenues, expenditures and surplus with other, much smaller cities, such as Oakley, Walnut Creek and Lafayette, none of which have their own water department, water park or marina.

So, they’re not providing accurate information and are comparing apples and oranges.

the attachments to this post:

No on O mailer #3

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 at 1:10 am and is filed under Politics & Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.