Latest No on O campaign mailer reveals how the Antioch City Council will spend the measure’s funds

No on O mailer #3

No on Measure O mailer that appeared in mailboxes, this week.

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


6 Comments to “Latest No on O campaign mailer reveals how the Antioch City Council will spend the measure’s funds”

  1. Larry L. Harrison says:

    Sorry Allen, but I must disagree with you on this. As envisioned by the Friday Morning Breakfast Club, Measure O funds would be applied to improving all city services to normally expected levels, including elimination of “Furlough Fridays” and half-day counter service to the pulic at City Hall, the Police Station and other City offices serving the public. This of cours included restoring City empoyee’s salaries for full 40-hour work weeks and associated pension benefits, purchase of new equipment necessary to support more police personnel and to upgrade effectivness and efficiency. Measure O revenues are to go to the City General Fund and it will be up to the Council to priortize how the funds will be spent.

    The preliminary budget for Measure O funds in question is just that: “Preliminary” and meaningless until the measure is approved by the voters and funds collected, and only then can an actual budget for the funds be approved. However, I agree with you that Statement 1 in the “No on O Coaltion’s” brochure is factual, but is twisted to give the impression the Council did a bad thing and your commentary reinforces that misperception. I do not believe the Council acted inappropriately on this matter.

  2. Marty Fernandez says:

    I am NOT in favor of returning any staff to 40 hours a week. It is too soon to do so. It is not written in stone it will happen. To freeze salaries for the next two years and help stabilize the city is a much better course and one believed in by Gary Agopian. We had conversations regarding just that. It makes sense to get our heads out of the sand and above water before we spend more money.

  3. Publisher says:

    With all due respect to the Friday Morning Breakfast Club, Larry, regardless of what their intent was for the funds from Measure O, they didn’t collect signatures and put it on the ballot, as a special tax. The City Council put it on the ballot as a general tax, the funds from which they can spend on anything they want.

    Until Antioch is fully staffed with sworn police officers, crime is under control and the City is no longer facing annual budget deficits, the funds from Measure O need to be spent there, and not on giving back the 10% the rest of the city staff took in pay cuts, when they reduced their hours from 40 to 36 per week. Again, the issue of Furlough Fridays can be dealt with during contract negotiations.

    I agree with Marty, to freeze all salaries, but for me it needs to be until the things I mentioned above are taken care of.

    Allen

  4. Publisher says:

    Please see the update to the article, regarding the misinformation in the mailer about the City’s budget and finances.
    Allen Payton
    Publisher

  5. Publisher says:

    Following is one of the updates to the article, as pointed out by a reader –
    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…”
    Allen Payton
    Publisher

  6. Rich says:

    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.

    Do you think they might have been indicating the surplus to be the property tax payments in excess of what was expected, had been received, and the city was withholding the information from the voters?

Leave a Reply