Antioch Council to consider spending $538,000 of one-time money on various projects at Tuesday meeting
By Allen Payton
According to the staff report for the Tuesday night, March 27 meeting the Antioch City Council will consider spending as much as $537,725 of one-time money on a list of projects throughout the city. That’s half of the one-time revenue the city has received this past year, since the other half has already been applied to the unfunded pension liability of almost $160 million and growing.
The staff report reads as follows: “The City has a one-time revenue policy that outlines that a minimum 50% of one-time revenues received by the City, which will include non-Police salary savings, be contributed to unfunded liabilities with the remainder to be used on one-time projects as directed by City Council. For fiscal year 2016-2017, the only one-time revenues under this policy were non-Police salary savings totaling $1,389,250; of which 50% was allocated to unfunded liabilities and on February 13th, Council allocated $200,000 to Prewett concrete repairs leaving a remaining balance of $494,625. In the current fiscal year, the City received one-time revenues totaling $86,200 for franchise agreements approved by Council in November 2017. As these are one-time payments, 50% of this was allocated to unfunded liabilities and the remaining 50% ($43,100) may be used for one-time projects. A total of $537,725 is now available. Staff, with some additions from Councilmember Ogorchock, has compiled the following list of possible uses for the remaining funds which would be in addition to any other Council suggestions:
Of course, the Council may also direct that all remaining funds be diverted to the City’s unfunded liabilities as the policy states “a minimum” of 50% will be applied to unfunded liabilities.
Many of the listed projects far exceed the amount of funds available under the one-time revenue policy. General Fund reserves would need to be appropriated should the Council decide to spend additional funds beyond what has already been approved ($537,725). A budget summary follows incorporating the amendments approved on March 13th (which does already include the $537,725) so that Council can review the current General Fund budget in conjunction with the consideration of projects.”
The items placed on the list by Ogorchock were for the license plate readers and body cameras for police.
The council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street in downtown or it can be viewed on local cable access channel or via live stream on the city’s website at http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/citycouncilmeetings.htm.
the attachments to this post:
City Two-Year Budget Summary
One-Time $ Projects List
The animal shelter is far too small for a city of our size. The size was fine when the animal shelter was built back in 1992 but that was 26 years ago. Our population has doubled since then and our animal shelter can no longer accommodate the needs of our city. They need to add some square footage to the animal shelter. The maximum capacity is 100 dogs and 100 cats and that is ridiculously small for city where there are probably at least 50,000 dogs and cats.
We don’t need “welcome signs” and I don’t know why they keep insisting on spending money in the old downtown area of Antioch. Nobody goes downtown anymore except for special events, almost everyone shops and conducts business up in the S.E. Antioch area. So, painting light poles and utility boxes and adding string lights is just a waste of money, IMO.
You might be correct that business isn’t exactly flourishing in the downtown area…but imagine if all “older areas” become ignored and neglected. They become areas like the old Food 4 Less shopping center on Delta Fair.
It comes down to pride and I applaud the city for wanting to keep the downtown area beautiful and continue to restore its relevance.
Really ?? Are you kidding me ?? Downtown could be great for this town and how can you say something like that when the animal shelter is downtown ??? So I have been in Antioch my entire life and I remember the shelter on Fulton Ship Yard Road if you can’t remember how small that place was go down and take a look it’s still there…. the new shelter you are in now is a much bigger and better facility, count your blessings …. nothing against animals but let’s start where we need to ,first making this town a place where people will want to come to live, work, and play …
JAC,
You seriously don’t know what you just wrote.
Maybe you haven’t been downtown, lately. But, others are coming down. In fact with the opening of the new RiverTown Sweets bakery, even more people have been downtown to enjoy their cookies and cupcakes.
I don’t support the painting of utility boxes using taxpayer funds, and certainly not $50,000, either. But, as for the string of lights across G Street, that was done by the merchants and I think it’s a nice addition.
I’d rather the council do what was in the 1996 Economic Development Plan and rename the streets entering downtown, L Street to Marina Way and A & W. 2nd Streets to Rivertown and West Rivertown Drive, for one time expense for permanent marketing of the downtown. So, when you people drive on the freeway they will see there’s a marina down here, a river down here.
Studies across the country have shown that cities which have a vibrant downtown have a successful, local economy.
Allen Payton, Publisher
JAC,
As for the animal shelter, we are the only city in the county to have one separate from the county’s. So, any size is better than not having one. Otherwise our residents would also have to deal with the county’s animal services like everyone else in the county. We already spend plenty of money on the Antioch animal shelter. But, feel free to donate to or raise money for them if you want more done there.
Allen Payton, Publisher
What a list of hog wash! Paint poles. String lights. Waldie Plaza.
Some of these other things should be in our proper city budget. Police cameras were funded somehow at one point. Wasn’t Measure O supposed to pay for that kind of stuff? Not retirements.
This is the kind of stuff that proves how irresponsible our council is.