Archive for the ‘Finance’ Category

It’s time Antioch started using correct, honest figures for Measure C police staffing and funding

Sunday, November 19th, 2017

The City of Antioch’s 2016-2017 Measure C Annual Status Report

By Allen Payton, Publisher

The City of Antioch’s 2016-2017 Measure C Annual Status Report was recently received in the mail and I took the time to read it. Unfortunately, what I discovered was it provides false information to the public. Now, I don’t blame city staff. They’re merely reporting and acting on the direction of the city council. But, it’s the direction of the past mayor and city council which chose to play games and manipulate the police staffing numbers and budget to make things look better than they really are. So, it’s time the new mayor, mayor pro tem and council gave new direction to the city staff to use the correct and honest figures for Measure C.

Mayor and Council Promised 22 More Sworn Officers

Here are the facts, again. In the ballot argument for Measure C, signed by then-Mayor Wade Harper and the rest of the city council at that time, which included current Council Members Monica Wilson and Tony Tiscareno, it stated:

“A Yes on Measure C will allow us to immediately hire 22 new police officers, decreasing the time it takes to respond to 911 calls. It will also provide funds to reduce the number of gang-related homicides, assaults and robberies.

Our police force has dwindled from 126 officers four years ago to only 89 today. 911 response times have increased and violent crime is up 30%. We feel unsafe in our homes and are in constant fear of becoming victims of crime.”

We Had 89 Sworn Officers

The ballot argument concluded with and was signed by the following:

“Antioch needs funds now to lower crime and to cleanup dilapidated properties. Your voting Yes on Measure C will give us the financial boost we need to turn Antioch around. Thank you.

Sergeant Tom Fuhrmann, President, Antioch Police Officers’ Association; Brittney Gougeon, Founder, Take Back Antioch; Joyann Motts, President, Antioch Unified School Board; Hans Ho, Past Chair, Antioch Crime Prevention Commission/ Neighborhood Watch Coordinator; Antioch City Council; Wade Harper, Mayor of Antioch/ Retired Police Lieutenant”

They Owed Us 111 Total Sworn Officers

My math tells me that would bring the total to 111 sworn officers (89 + 22). The ballot was written and submitted in either July or August 2013 in time for the sample ballots to be printed and mailed to the voters. So we had 89 sworn officers on the force being paid for out of the budget before the funds from Measure C began to be collected.

Please read the entire ballot statement and arguments, here – http://www.smartvoter.org/2013/11/05/ca/cc/meas/C/.

They Chose to Use 82 Sworn Officers as the Base, Instead

However, by the time Measure C passed in November, the Antioch Police Department had lost seven more officers reducing the force to just 82 sworn officers. So, that was the figure the mayor and council at that time voted and gave direction to city staff to use as the base figure. Adding 22 more officers only gives we the taxpaying and voting public a total of 104 sworn officers – which is the figure the council and staff have accounted for in next year’s budget for the 2018-19 fiscal year.

That was wrong and dishonest of them to do, because the budget already included enough for 89 sworn officers and Measure C is supposed to pay for 22 “new officers” according to the ballot argument.

Council Member Lori Ogorchock was elected in November 2014 and Mayor Sean Wright and Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe were elected last November long after Measure C passed. But they all inherited the commitments and promises of the past council to give us the 22 additional officers from Measure C, on top of the 89 we had at the time the ballot argument was written and signed, and “immediately.”

Past Police Chief Allan Cantando and current Chief Tammany Brooks have said they’ve been doing everything they can to continue to add officers to the force and have hired 49 sworn police officers since the passage of Measure C, according to Brooks’ portion of the report. However, due to past council actions including the very rich 3% at age 50 retirement benefit – which was fortunately changed in 2012 for new hires – and due to other attrition, the department has lost 35 sworn officers during that time. That brings the total number of sworn officers to just 96. That was news to me as I was under the impression we had reached and remained at the 100-officer level.

They Owe Use 15 More Sworn Police Officers

That’s just seven more officers than the city had in 2013 when Measure C was placed on the ballot. Here we are over four years later, certainly not the “immediately” as the then-mayor and council promised us. The current council owes us another 15 sworn officers paid for by Measure C funds based on simple math of 111 – 96 = 15.

Brook’s comment that “our net gain is currently 14,” is only correct when comparing it to what has happened “Since the passage of Measure C in 2013,” as the first sentence of his comments stated. It’s not correct when comparing that figure to how many officers we were actually promised if we passed Measure C.

Only seven of those 14 sworn officers are supposed to be paid for from Measure C funds and the fact is the city has only gained a net seven additional officers, not 14 from the revenue generated by the extra half-cent sales tax in Antioch.

It all goes back to the number of officers the budget was paying for at the time the ballot argument was written and signed, and the promise made which was 89.

The worst part is, even before they have given us the 22 additional officers, the previous mayor and council, of which Ogorchock was a part, voted unanimously to give pay raises to the police and the rest of the city staff totaling $9.2 million in contracts that run one year beyond the sunset of Measure C. (They did so on Election Night, by the way after it was too late for the voters to know what was in the pay and benefits packages before they voted). The additional half-cent sales tax only lasts until 2020. The contracts run through 2021. (See related articles, here and here)

Now They’re Asking for a One-Cent Sales Tax

Yet, now city staff is already asking for we the people to consider voting, not for a renewal of the half-cent sales tax, but an increase to a one-cent sales tax when Measure C expires. Among other questions about city services and issues facing our community, a recent phone survey, approved  by City Manager Ron Bernal and paid for out of his discretionary funds, asked residents if we would support that. The audacity to even us ask to consider supporting a renewal of the half-cent sales tax, much less doubling it, before fulfilling the promise and commitment made to we the people under Measure C and having spent $9.2 million on pay raises, seriously had me stunned.

They’ve Only Budgeted for 104 Sworn Officers

The last part of Chief Brooks final sentence in the report is correct: “As of June 30, 2017, $2,947,361 remains unspent pending allocation to enhancing Police and Code Enforcement services, as promised to voters.” At least he recognizes that a promise was made to the voters. But, I challenge the amount remaining unspent, since that figure should be much higher if the proper figure of 111 sworn officers was accounted for, not 103 currently and 104 in next year’s budget.

We just need the city council to remember what that promise actually was – 22 additional officers on top of the 89 sworn we already had – and ensure we are provided the 111 sworn officers Antioch needs to fight and bring down crime, which is supposed to be their highest priority. It’s time to put our money where their mouths are.

One Promise Broken, Another Can Still Be Kept

Obviously, they haven’t been able to keep the part of the promise of hiring the 22 additional officers “immediately”. But, the current city council can fulfill the promise of 111 total sworn officers as we are due, by giving new direction to staff to use the correct, honest figure of 89 sworn officers as the base not 82.

What’s that old saying – figures lie and liars figure? The figure of 82 sworn officers the city has been using since 2013 is just plain dishonest. I expect Mayor Wright, Mayor Pro Tem Thorpe and Council Member Ogorchock who were not part of the council that gave that misdirection to staff, to correct this and give new direction using 89 as the base figure. I would also hope that Council Members Wilson and Tiscareno would see the error of their ways and join them in correcting it.

We get enough of this statistical and fiscal game playing with our government and our money from Washington, DC and Sacramento, already. It should never be allowed at the local level. If the council and staff ever hope to see Measure C renewed, or much less doubled – which I seriously doubt will be supported (and we’ll see once the results of the recent survey are made public) – the council needs to correct this. Also, if Sgt. Tom Fuhrmann, Joy Motts and Hans Ho want to maintain their integrity, they will make sure the council does so, because they added their names and reputations to the ballot argument in which the promises were made to help ensure Measure C’s passage. So they all made that same promise.

Reopen Employee Contracts to Ensure Funding for 111 Officers

We the people need the council to not only start using the correct base of 89 sworn officer, we need one of the three current council members who voted for the pay raises last year to join Wright and Thorpe in reopening and renegotiating the city employee contracts. That is the only way to ensure there is enough money in the budget to pay for the 111 sworn officers we were promised.

Unfortunately, that still won’t get us to the 1.2 officers per 1,000 population level of 132 sworn police officers that we’ve been needing for the past 20 years. But, it will have to do, for now.

And the time to face the facts, take responsible action, be honest with we the people and address and fix these matters is now.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Payton Perspective: Facing does not mean filing for or in bankruptcy, but Antioch Council needs to take action to avoid it

Thursday, April 27th, 2017

Chart from city staff report presented to the Antioch City Council on Tuesday, April 11, 2017.

I was informed this week that there is some confusion in the community about the City of Antioch’s finances due to the headline for an article published on the Antioch Herald website, last week.

The headline read “City Council learns Antioch again facing bankruptcy” which is accurate, based on the staff report at the Council meeting on Tuesday, April 11,2017. The chart included with the article shows that in the 2021-22 fiscal year, without the city’s half-cent sales tax Measure C being re-approved by the voters, the city’s General Fund balance will cross the line from zero dollars. Even if Measure C is renewed that financial event occurs two years later.

I have since updated the headline to reflect that bankruptcy will occur “within five years.” But, the original headline was accurate and we stand by it. Folks, let me be frank. First, you need to understand the meaning of words and their use in a sentence. Second, you have to read the article to understand what’s going on, not just the headline.

When a government agency or a business is facing bankruptcy, it doesn’t mean it has filed for or is in bankruptcy. It means it has to make some changes to avoid it.

That’s exactly what needs to be done at City Hall and they have five years to do it.

Two things have caused this. As the article states, “Antioch’s $52.7 million General Fund budget is projected to begin deficit spending by $2.6 million in July of next year due largely to increased police staffing, pay and benefit hikes for all city employees and increased payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System.” (PERS)

The recent approvals, by the previous council and the current council majority, of the city employ contracts with increases to pay and benefits will cost the city over $9 million over the next five years. Those contracts extend one year beyond the sunset of Measure C in 2021. That council majority does not include current Mayor Sean Wright and Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe who both opposed the new contracts, but couldn’t do anything to stop them once they were on the council.

PERS is now requiring cities to pay more towards the unfunded liabilities of the pensions of past employees. That’s because for years, PERS has been projecting an overly aggressive and unrealistic return on their investments, and now reality has hit them in the face. The result is each city and government agency in California has to contribute more money to PERS to make up for the difference in what they projected and what is needed to pay for the pensions of current and future retirees.

At the end of Tuesday night’s meeting on April 25, Mayor Sean Wright said “Antioch is in fine financial shape. For those who ask if we are filing for bankruptcy the answer is no.  We have $25 million in reserves with no debt.”

His second sentence is correct, as I’ve pointed out, above. Wright’s first sentence is also correct – today. But, he’s aware and we all are, now with the staff report, that just because the city has $25 million in reserves, today doesn’t mean it will be in fine financial shape, just a few years from now. Wright is also aware that action must be taken to keep the city in “fine financial shape.”

As the city staff report on April 11, and above and below charts show, that even if we vote to renew Measure C, the city’s half-cent sales tax passed by voters in 2013, the city’s General Fund balance will be zero dollars in less than seven years.

City of Antioch General Fund Projection Chart from city staff report to council on 4/11/17.

If the Council doesn’t do three things over the next few years, Antioch will run out of those reserves and be upside down financially, which means bankruptcy.

First, the council needs to reopen and renegotiate the employee contracts. The City of Richmond just approved new contracts for their police and firefighters without a pay raise. (That city is facing the same financial challenges as Antioch, also because of PERS and even with a new tax increase. See related article, here.) Antioch should have done the same, at least until they had hired the 22 additional officers we were promised “immediately” in 2013 if we passed Measure C. Plus, all the other city employees enjoyed 13% in pay raises just a few years ago when the council ended Furlough Fridays. The council majority must have forgotten about that.

Message to the council majority: we didn’t give you two tax increases, including Measure O, to give pay raises to city staff. That was nowhere in the ballot language of either measure.

Second, the city needs to fulfill its promise and hire the 11 additional sworn police officers. So far, they’ve given us a net 11 additional officers out of the 22. They need to start budgeting for 111, not 102 like they’ve been doing. There were 89 sworn officers on the force when that promise was made.

That will result in crime being reduced which will help Antioch be able to attract business, as well as an increase in property values, which gives the city more tax revenue, without raising taxes.

Third, the city needs to more aggressively pursue new businesses to locate in Antioch. Now that the eBART extension and Hillcrest station will be opening next year, that area should be prime for attracting new businesses.

That will result in more sales and property tax revenue to the city, and possibly without having to either renew Measure C or increase other taxes – and to be frugal and responsible, the council needs to plan for and base their budgets on the expectation that it won’t be renewed.

The time to develop a plan to implement these three actions is now. I trust and hope that with the new leadership on the council and inside City Hall with a new city manager, it can and will be done.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

County Supervisors eye $3 billion budget

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

Uncertainty, as it relies on 48% of funds from federal government

By Daniel Borsuk

Contra Costa County supervisors took a peek at a proposed $3 billion budget on Tuesday that includes $250,000 to expand a popular health care program for low income citizens, $220,000 to reopen the shuttered Knightsen fire station in the East Contra Costa Fire District, and spend $500,000 for the Northern Waterfront Study Intiative.

Supervisors are scheduled to adopt the new spending plan at its May 9 meeting to replace the current $2.6 billion budget.

During the seven-hour hearing, some supervisors seemed to play the conservative card due to fiscal events that have developed in Washington, D.C. and how federal cuts in health care, education and housing might have a ripple effect at the state and county level.

County Administrator David Twa said the county receives 48 percent of its funds from the federal government so there is concern that funding cuts from Washington will impact county operations if not in the 2017-2018 fiscal year, it could occur in the 2018-2019 fiscal year when the county needs to renegotiate labor contracts with doctors, nurses. and fire fighters.

“This is one of the most difficult budgets to assemble,” Twa told supervisors, “because there is so much uncertainty at the state and federal levels.”

The fiscal uncertainty also affected the supervisors.

Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill said she would not approve the proposal for an additional $250,000 to expand the Contra Costa Cares health care program for low income residents.  The county allotment would be matched by the nonprofit organization to help access the health care program to 1,000 residents.   This current fiscal year the county spent $1 million and has proposed $1.25 million for the upcoming 2017-2018 fiscal year.

“There’s a large part of the community that doesn’t understand why we see a part of the undocumented community the way we do, but in this case, I cannot support spending an extra $250,000 for the Contra Costa Cares program,” Mitchoff said.

Mitchoff also raised doubts that Contra Costa Cares has the fundraising capabilities to collect $250,000 to expand the program.  “The hospital is not committed to contributing the $250,000,” she said.

“We’re seeing the rise of people awareness to their right to health care,” said Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood.  She favors the extra funding for the health care program that drew about eight speakers in support of the health care program.  “I’m in support of expanding it,” she said.

Initially supervisors were reluctant in setting aside $220,000 to reopen the Knightsen fire station for fiscal years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, but eventually caved in to reality that the station needed to opened.  Supervisors are frustrated over the way the ECCFD has managed its financial and business affairs.  The fire district had shuttered the fire station in order to open a new station in Brentwood..

Supervisors also voted 4-0, with Supervisor Candace Andersen absent, to designate $500,000 for the Northern Water Front Study Initiative, a project of Board Chair Federal Glover.  The funding would be spent on data development, parcel identification, engineering, and public outreach.

New Airport Safety Classifications Approved

Supervisors also approved the creation for four Airport Safety Office Classifications at the Byron Airport and Buchanan Field to replace three outdated classifications that should help the county improve the retention rate among safety personnel.  The county has a 60 percent retention rate among 17 personnel assigned to aircraft rescue and firefighting duties.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Writer not surprised Antioch facing bankruptcy, again

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

Dear Editor:

It comes as no surprise to me that the outlook for our City is bleak. I hope it does not come as surprise to you. We have known for some time now that we were spending more than we made. That we were slow on collecting monies owed the City and that we were not managing the budget in a more professional manner. There is no “single” event” that brought us to where we are today – On the Brink of Bankruptcy. It was many years for promises not kept, contracts poorly negotiated, special interests having to be placated. We saw it coming, the slow way hiring of new officers was happening, the passing of specific measures to address crime. But poorly implementing them. Increasing taxes on landlords to help our city.

But now we are down to the brass tacks. I have faith and believe there is a path through all this mess that can bring us out the other side. Cuts, slashes in retiree retirement pay, make them have to carry a larger portion of healthcare and other benefits, roll back salaries on employees. Increase fees for inspections, use fees, and some permits. Get the police number where it needs to be. It is a fairly simple solution that requires a hand implementation. 1. Save now, anyway we can. 2. Complete the police staffing. 3. Reduce our crime rate. 4 With a safer city people might want to live and spend money here and that might help us to recover. Even if we declare Bankruptcy, we still have the obligation to get our fiscal house in order. We still have to balance the budget.

We still have to settle with the claimants. We still have to pay our legal bills, and we still have to deal with our unfunded liabilities. So, running from the problem will not work. If we file, there will not a positive trusting relationship between the bankers, suppliers, vendors, employee organizations and the city management. That will just make things worse than they are.

Fred Rouse

Antioch

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

City Council learns Antioch again facing bankruptcy, within five years

Monday, April 17th, 2017

In spite of the additional $6 million from Measure C, each year

By Dave Roberts

Antioch’s budget, which teetered on the brink of bankruptcy during the Great Recession resulting in massive employee layoffs, reduction in city services and closure of City Hall one day a week, is once again headed toward bankruptcy unless significant cost-cutting measures are taken. That was the bad news from Finance Director Dawn Merchant at a City Council budget study session on Tuesday, April 11th.

Antioch’s $52.7 million General Fund budget is projected to begin deficit spending by $2.6 million in July of next year due largely to increased police staffing, pay and benefit hikes for all city employees and increased payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System. The deficit spending will occur despite the city receiving more than $6 million annually from the city’s Measure C half-cent sales tax hike that was passed in 2013.

That tax is due to expire in four years. The loss of that revenue would result in the city running a $12.5 million deficit in the fiscal year beginning July 2021, according to budget projections. And the city could be bankrupt and $10 million in debt the following year, increasing to $25 million in debt the year after that.

“It’s really important for council when making any decisions going forward, based on projections going forward, to consider the fact that Measure C needs to be looked at to either be renewed or some other revenue measure in its place,” Merchant told the council. “Otherwise once that ends, the city is going to be in a significant financial bind that we could find ourselves in. We could have to lay off police officers. The Police Department is over 70% of the General Fund budget.”

But employee costs are increasing so fast that even if Antioch voters approve an extension of Measure C, the city could still be facing bankruptcy in the budget year starting July 2023, according to a budget chart. Essentially, extending Measure C would only stave off bankruptcy for about a year and a half. As a result, the council may have to make tough cost-cutting decisions in the coming months before the 2017-18 budget is adopted on June 27.

It’s unclear, however, where those cuts would occur. Employee salary and benefit costs comprise the vast majority of the budget. But instead of holding the line on employee costs, in November the council approved more than $9.2 million in salary and benefit hikes over five years.

The other potential area for cost savings involves quality of life services. The city currently provides:

  • $1.1 million in subsidies for recreation programs and the Antioch Water Park, which is projected to increase $107,151 in the next fiscal year.
  • $501,222 for Animal Services, which is projected to increase to $873,735 in two years.
  • $455,000 for the Lone Tree Golf Course. The course also is years behind on $951,756 in debt service payments to the city, and is unable to repay two other loans totaling $1.1 million.

In addition, the Antioch Marina will need a $120,000 subsidy starting in 2019. And council members have expressed interest in increased funding for the Lynn House Gallery and to begin funding the July 4th and Holiday DeLites events.

Council Member Monica Wilson suggested cutting the city subsidies for the water park, golf course, marina and animal services.

“We are at that point where we really need to make that tough decision on can we carry the weight of the cost in those four areas,” she said. “We have looked at different organizations or companies that would come and maybe finance those things. I go to the golf course from time to time. I think it’s a great thing. But, unfortunately, I don’t think we can keep carrying that load. We’ve definitely come to the point where we need to make that decision on that area.

“On special event funding, we need to look at a definite finite amount of money that we can work with different groups. We need to look at how much longer we can support events. We want to support events but we really have to look at how much we can support the different events. How much are we able to afford to these different events.”

But Mayor Sean Wright advised the council to be cautious in cutting amenities that improve the city’s quality of life.

“When we look at the four subsidies that we do, it’s only $2.7 million, which is about 5% of our total General Fund money,” he said. “If Measure C does not get extended, we run out of reserves in 2022-23. If we do extend it, we’re only extending ourselves an extra two years to really be in that same boat. So really what we’re looking at is an increase in [employee compensation] contracts and an increase in PERS. For us to be able to save $2.7 million still doesn’t get us out of the hole.

“What’s coming as an avalanche is much bigger than $100,000 for events or $2.7 million. So looking at our budget I think we need to be fiscally prudent. But when you’re looking at a police officer or a code enforcement officer or doing things that increase the viability of economic development and community, for us to save $150,000 it’s like taking a large business and deciding that ‘You know what, in three years I’m really going to be suffering so I’m no longer going to market, I’m going to stop marketing now to save the money for three years that we’re going to need.’

“And ultimately what you do is you cause your demise because you stop doing things that would attract future development and future monies. So I think we need to be very careful in our conservative approach to look at what do we need to do to make our community something that economic development wants, that people want to come to, people want to live in, our home values go up so we increase that, we increase property taxes, we increase businesses.

“We need to be very careful. If we limit and cut ourselves, we’re still going to be in the same place. If we save $3 million a year we might postpone it one year, but we’re going to be in the same place with this oncoming avalanche of PERS and increased [employee] costs. We need to be very conservative and prudent, but smart in our decision-making so that we don’t lower the viability of our community. Sometimes spending an extra $100,000 on something that makes our community better, people want to live here, is money well spent in the long run – even though it looks like in three years that may be something we have to be careful of.”

Several residents agreed with Wright that the city should not cut recreation and animal services. Others urged the council to cut costs by renegotiating the contracts with city employees.

“We cannot tax ourselves out of this problem,” said former Council Member Ralph Hernandez. “This has existed for many years. It’s a train wreck that has been heading for a couple of decades. It’s time this council addresses it and takes honest-to-goodness action. Reopen negotiations on [employee] contracts and … be honest with them and tell them the truth: ‘We have X dollars….’ The [employee] organizations meet or they don’t. If they don’t, you impose what is needed to keep this city viable and avoid bankruptcy.”

William Leroy was also concerned about employee costs, which include $142 million in the city’s unfunded liability for retirement benefits.

“There’s over half a million dollars sitting up there in campaign contributions that got you into the seats you’re in,” he said. “And we pretend that that’s the taxpayers donating money to your campaign, when in fact we know it’s so that you can get up there and do the unpalatable like passing taxes. The way the system works is the police endorse you because you turn around and endorse their pensions and wages. And I can’t blame them for wanting more money. I do blame you….

“It continues on this game of pretending you are not bought and paid for, when in fact you are. You don’t represent us. You take our money. I think the police ought to be arresting you because that’s called theft. I’m really sad that you do this. I wish somebody would break out of the ranks and do something honest and good for the people of Antioch.”

The council’s next budget study session is scheduled for April 25 in which they will discuss the five-year capital improvement program and any outstanding issues from Tuesday’s session.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Free Financial Wellness Workshop in Antioch, Jan. 30

Saturday, January 21st, 2017

FlyerChamber

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

$1M of Measure C funds spent on administration, not more police

Monday, January 16th, 2017

Antioch Council to continue spending same amount, but not from police budget

By Dave Roberts

When 68% of Antioch voters approved the Measure C half-cent sales tax hike in 2013, the ballot measure said the money would be used to hire 22 more police, plus code enforcement officers as well as help economic development and job creation. The ballot wording didn’t mention that the money would also be used for city government administration, but that’s where more than $1 million of Measure C funds is being spent.

The sales tax had raised $13.3 million as of June 30, 2016. This has provided for the hiring of nine additional police officers and filling more than a half-dozen community service officer and code enforcement positions.

But not all of that money is devoted to public safety salaries and benefits. About 8% goes to what the city budget refers to as “internal services.” Nearly half of internal services revenue goes to the city finance department to provide payroll, accounting and purchasing services. The rest is divided among other city departments, including the city manager, attorney, clerk, human resources, city council and facilities maintenance.

The share of Measure C money going to administrative overhead for the police department has increased from 7.1% two years ago to 8.5% last year and 8% in the current fiscal year. Citywide the percentage budgeted for internal services has grown from 5.6% in 2012 to 6.3% from 2013-15 to 7.8% in 2016 and to 8.1% in 2017. The percentages are based on a formula in the city’s Cost Allocation Plan, which was adopted in 2005, and the growth in the internal services departments.

The increased cost of administration, particularly paid for with Measure C funds, created concerns at last week’s City Council meeting. Sal Sbranti, a former member of the Measure C Citizens Oversight Committee, acknowledged to the council that Measure C funds can be used for administration, but he questioned whether city administrators are taking advantage of the increased sales tax funding for public safety to beef up their own departments.

“The question deserves to be asked as to why this [administrative] allocation continues to rise at such a rate,” he said. “Every year the amount going to citywide administration goes up regardless of whether it meets Measure C guidelines or not. The committee formal report stated that due to the way the city budgets the police department for Measure C, the committee has some concerns as to whether all Measure C monies are being properly utilized to meet the objective of this measure.

“We the citizens of Antioch voted for Measure C to reduce crime, increase code enforcement, reduce 911 response times and to minimize blight. What do we get? More money spent on HR, city manager’s office, city council, city attorney – just amazing. In the last six years citywide administration has gone from $1.44 million to $3.152 million. That’s you guys approving a budget. You approved them to double their budget in six years. In the same period of time the police department only went up 52%. So who’s putting the control on citywide administration, HR, all those functions?

“Measure C is to take care of the crime in the city of Antioch. If we continue to spend money on HR, finance, the attorney and other citywide administration, at the end of the Measure C sunset [in 2021] we’ll not have the money to continue with the number of police that we have. They should not be taking Measure C money to do this. That was not what the City Council told us they were going to do. That is not what we voted on.”

Sbranti’s concerns were shared by several council members.

“I understand the Cost Allocation Plan, I understand the purpose of it,” said Mayor Sean Wright. “As somebody who worked on Measure C to help get it passed, I also understand the consternation of watching Measure C money get spent on other sources that are not helping to directly improve the safety of our community.”

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock, who had asked that the issue be placed on the council agenda, shared the mayor’s understandings and suggested two budgeting options.

“I asked for Measure C just to go toward these officers,” she said, “and the other one was to just flat out remove the Measure C cost allocation of the citywide administration fee. Or to keep doing it the way we’ve been doing it. I do trust that [city administrators are] doing it correctly and that the percentage has not changed. I understand the math where if the funds go up, the amount is going to go up. It does make sense. I do understand what people are saying the [administration] funds should not come out of Measure C funds. I have agreed with that.”

Also concerned was Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe who questioned why administrative costs had risen so much when the police department only had a net increase of less than a dozen police officers.

City Finance Director Dawn Merchant responded, “The police department has the largest share of employees of any department in the city. So we spend more resources with police department payroll versus other departments. It’s not just payroll. We pay accounts payable invoices, any money they collect we do the billing. There are a wide variety of services that finance does.”

Thorpe was skeptical, asking “For 10 additional people?”

Merchant responded, “It’s not just 10 additional people. It’s in total for the entire police department.”

City Manager Steven Duran jumped in, saying, “It doesn’t matter if there’s 10 additional people or 10 less people. The pie that’s divided is the cost of internal services. And the formula is the Cost Allocation Plan. Whether Measure C ever existed or not, the formula stays the same. So it’s nothing that anybody does except apply the math that’s in the plan. It doesn’t matter how many hires we’ve had.

“I think one of the things that some of the detractors have been emphasizing is how much it went up since 2012. That’s because when there were layoffs and furloughs prior to that, it went down. So, for instance, the city attorney has been sharing half of an administrative person and gone without a legal secretary for several years. In this year we budgeted for a legal secretary, therefore the city attorney’s budget is going up. Therefore every other department that pays internal services, they are going to pay a little more for the city attorney – police department, water, sewer, everyone. The formula doesn’t change, and it doesn’t matter what the other departments are doing or how many they have added.”

Thorpe seemed mollified, but he took exception to Duran’s characterization of the people concerned about Measure C money going to escalating administration.

“I hear you and I hear the point that if they hired no police officers and I guess if they had no additional invoices to process, it would still be the same,” said Thorpe. “I was trying to figure out how the formula [came to be] and who decided the percentage. And you’re telling me that it’s a formula that already exists, so I’m understanding that.

“I just have to point out that these are not detractors, Mr. City Manager. These are residents who have concerns, and they bring those concerns to us. So we have to take those concerns seriously. So if it frustrates you that we ask these questions, I’m sorry. But we are going to ask these questions. So I want to make clear that there are people who have concerns out there. I ask these questions to be open and transparent so that folks understand what the process is.

“So now I understand that there’s a formula. Whether it should be applied to Measure C is a starting point that I would like to discuss. Because that seems to be a concern that residents have.”

To address that concern, Wright made a motion that was unanimously passed by the council to direct Merchant to not include the administrative cost charges in the Measure C budget.

Merchant told the council that the administrative overhead would instead be shown to come out of the general fund budget, but the money being spent on administration in the overall budget would remain the same. “The expenditure is going to be there,” she said. “It’s just whether we say it’s a part of the equation for Measure C.”

Councilman Tony Tiscareno echoed Merchant, saying, “I want to make it clear that the public needs to know that there isn’t going to be a difference in cost allocation. It’s going to be the same. It’s coming from one column to another column. The reason I didn’t question the Measure C cost allocation at the time is because it was transparent to me, I saw firsthand where the money was going, knowing the money was being spent like it was supposed to be spent. We wanted to use it for hiring police and code enforcement. And I think we’ve done so.

“But we need to be transparent about all our expenditures where the money goes. This just makes it a little simpler for me to view it. But for folks that believe that this may help extend Measure C, I’ll play. But it’s still money being spent that has to be spent.”

The council is scheduled to begin reviewing the 2017-19 budget in April and to adopt it by July.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Running Your Money – Bank account opening bonuses: for real?

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017

Running Your Money column logoAre bank account opening bonuses for real?

Yes, but you will pass many dark dank alleys in a dicey neighborhood, so take care. Banks often have a third party do the pitch, such as Hustler Money, Money Crashers, and Nerd Wallet. They are very up- front about being paid by the banks. In many of them Chase is mentioned first. Being paid by the banks doesn’t make the offer phony. Often there is promotional code you must use. You can open the account online.

Two bits of advice: Always, always, print a copy of the offer and keep it at least until you have collected the money. And, always, RTFP (definition available in the Suburban Dictionary). I ignored my good advice in a recent deal with Wings Financial Credit Union; I read the fine print but didn’t print out a copy. When it came time to collect the puny $50 gift card, customer “service” said, “Ah, ah, ah, you have to agree to accepting paperless statements to earn the gift card.” I didn’t remember that but I was stuck.

Chase often puts pitches in that envelope of coupons including sewer repair and ridding your abode of rodents. I have taken several Chase offers. I like to open the account at a nearby branch. They always recognize me even though I enter the bank only to open an account; otherwise I go to the money wall.

I recently opened a Chase Business Account, depositing $1,500. The rep won’t be fussy about your business,  E just wants to close the deal and rack up brownie points. Chase will deposit $300 to the account about 70 days after opening, when  It will be available to withdraw. You must maintain a $1,000 minimum balance. To avoid a monthly fee keep at least $1,500 in the account That’s an annual percentage yield 40%. The fine print says if you close the account before 12 months, it will deduct the bonus. Well, nyah, nyah, nyah, what if I take the money and run before I close it? But they might not recognize me when I come in next year with the offer. It’s like guys on Hogs in black leather jackets with an eagle on the back; I don’t wish to incur their displeasure.

For an HSBC Bank: bonus of $350, initially deposit at least $25 dollars, pay two bills a month through them for three months and collect $350. No minimum payment is stated; I deposited $25 and for two months made two payments of $4. Account opening was arduous, I danced to their tune online and it took three weeks to open. They asked questions indicating they were seeking affluent depositors, but I have the account.

BMO Harris offered a $200 bonus and Tech CU a $150 bonus for opening an account and making a direct deposit of a paycheck or government check, such as Social Security. Residents of Northern California are eligible for membership in both institutions.

These offers appear and poof, all gone, but new offers will appear.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter