Home Antioch With Chamber Support, Antioch To Push Forward with Half-Cent Sales Tax Measure

With Chamber Support, Antioch To Push Forward with Half-Cent Sales Tax Measure

by ECT

AntiochLogo

With a unanimous vote Tuesday night, the Antioch City Council agreed to move forward with a 7-year ½ cent sales tax measure to help raise money to help hire police, code enforcement, and provide other city services.

Originally, the ½ cent sales tax measure was supposed to be a 10-year sunset, however, the Antioch Chamber of Commerce decided to endorse a measure that sunsets after 7-years. Sean Wright, chamber chief executive officer, explained to the council it would remain neutral if it moved forward with a 10-year plan.

The Council did not want to push their luck with the Chamber, so they caved and reduced the number of years.

Councilmembers Monica Wilson and Mary Rocha stated they were willing to meet the Chambers demands and compromise down to 7-years. However, Councilman Tony Tiscareno had reservations.

“Everyone can agree there needs to be some revenue to the city and we are talking about one proposal now and another in a few seconds. I am very pleased the Chamber of Commerce is willing to endorse a half cent sales tax—its unprecedented,” said Tiscareno. “I am a little concerned about the 7-year part; I believe through discussion that the 10-year window period would be significant part of bringing in revenues.”

Meanwhile, Gary Agopian also had reservations of reducing the number of years and provided an on-the-spot compromise and suggested a 10-year measure with 7-years being at ½ cent and 3-years being at ¼ cent.

The motion was not seconded after Mayor Wade Harper disagreed stating he wanted to keep this clean and simple and not confuse anyone.

Ultimately, the council approved by way of 5-0 vote, a 7-year sales tax at ½ cent. The sales tax measure is estimated to bring in about $4.7 million per year.

In a second discussion regarding the ballot measure, the Council also approved via way of 5-0 vote to move forward with staff to craft a ballot proposal to tax landlords—considered a Landlord Rental Fee.  This proposal was created by the “Friday Morning Breakfast Club”.

Based off discussions from the last meeting, there was some adjustments to the fee based off number of rentals. Under the new proposal, here is how the tax works.

  • 1-24 units: $240 ($20 a mo.)
  • 25-50 units: $120 ($10 a mo.)
  • 51-150 units: $75 ($6.25 a mo)
  • Over 150 units: $50 ($4.16 a mo.)

Theresa Karr, executive director of the Contra Costa Chapter of the California Apartment Association, rejected the idea of a Landlord Rental Fee and spoke in opposition on behalf of her group’s members in Antioch. She also stated the city may be inviting legal challenges.

Editor’s Comment:

My question to her is where the heck has she been on this Landlord Rental Fee? This has been discussed for months and is now speaking up against it when the California Apartment Association could have been part of the process?

That being said, you can’t really blame them; for example, a renter with 10-homes would be paying a tax of $2,400 on the year. A person with 125 units would pay $9,375 in additional taxes.

Mayor Wade Harper disagreed with Theresa Karr stating they had chances to speak up and provided tweaks and comments and chose not to make suggestions prior to the meeting. He chose to support the effort provided by the citizens group on a fee for residential landlords.

“It’s not unfair to anyone and it gives a break to those with many units,” stated Mayor Harper.

Monica Wilson agreed.

“I’ll support the citizen’s proposal. It’s a reasonable compromise,” said Wilson.

Although he had reservations, Tony Tiscareno agreed to go along with the proposal.

“I can support the concept of number two but my dilemma is unification with all parties that are going to promote this. We also have a community survey that says the ½ cents is popular, the survey doesn’t say that for the landlord fee,” explained Tiscareno. “I am going to go out on the limb and support this thing knowing that there is going to be opposition. I am just hoping there can be some discussion while we get this thing prepared to make this thing work.”

During the last meeting, Tiscareno shared that he thought two-measures on the ballot may result in a loss of both measures even if they are complimentary—from a bird’s eye view, he is likely correct if troops are not mobilized to begin advocating immediately.

Councilman Gary Agopian stated he will have to pay the tax on his rentals, but is more than willing to pay in order to get the police some added help.

We have to do it in a way that is consistent and fair, this does that, this will have community support and we have to pass this companion measures,” said Agopian.

Since the Council approved the Landlord Rental Fee, staff will now begin working on language and will be brought back for a reading in the near future for final approval.

Paul Burgarino of the Contra Costa Times also has a nice recap of the meeting posted on the Times website

You may also like

9 comments

JimSimmons42 May 29, 2013 - 7:08 am

What a bad idea to put two measures on the ballot. This is a mistake by the council. Take what you can get now and then try for the other.

Former Chamber Member May 29, 2013 - 8:45 am

Pretty amazing that a Chamber of Commerce can put fear in a City Council like that to knock off three years from a tax. Now I wish the Chamber would get more involved in other issues and hold this council more responsible.

NoNameRequired May 29, 2013 - 3:57 pm

I was thinking the same thing, actually. Didn’t realize the Chamber of Commerce held so much weight with the council…what is that all about??

Julio-Antioch May 29, 2013 - 9:43 am

With out Sean Wright at the helm the past couple of years the Chamber of Commerce would be nothing. Many business owners don’t like his being so political but he has been a force in a Chamber that would not exist without him.

Bay Area Landlord May 29, 2013 - 12:47 pm

Funny, they want landlords to pay their fair share, yet we pay the same property taxes that owner occupied properties do. Yet, what they like to say is that the landlords will pay this, but what any business owner knows is that the cost will be passed on to the tenants, as I will do. So, this is really a tax on renters.
I have nice properties with nice people renting them and have had to fight against discrimination against them simply due to their status as a renter. As an investor I bought blighted properties and spent my own capital to improve all of them and rent them out as a longterm investment as is my right to do and assume the risk that comes along with that as well. All of my properties have increased in value and increased the value of the homes immediately surrounding them. This has brought more money into the state and city via increased home values and subsequently increased property taxes. So, I see taxing the rental property on top of that as a double taxation rather than bring me on par with what other businesses are paying to operate in Antioch. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Or, how about this novel idea, require these tax funded entities to operate under the same methods as private businesses do that do not have an endless source of revenue coming in each year. My guess is that they would be required to trim, run more efficiently and hire and pay more responsibly and operate within their means. This could possibly eliminate the need for more money from anyone and still provide the needed services to the community. I know, uphill battle, but just a thought since as a private business owner I have managed to do that for several years.

Last thought, there are a number of owner occupied properties that drain city services and I think it is unfair to single out renters as the source of the problem. It is a veiled source of discrimination against those that cannot afford or chose not to buy a home. Perhaps money should be spent to asses penalties on landlords and owner occupied homeowners where the drain on city services occurs. The more you utilize city services due to your irresponsibility or reckless behavior, the, more you have to pay for it. Leave us responsible property owners out of it. Or more simply, perhaps they should go for a parcel tax that would tax everyone equally as they qualify these services equally.

That’s my rant for the day. Be well.

NoNameRequired May 29, 2013 - 4:00 pm

It’ll be a tax deduction for you, and the money is for a good cause. Sure, it’ll get passed onto the renters, but the renters are the cause of a lot of the problems we are trying to eliminate, are they not?

Marty Fernandez May 29, 2013 - 1:10 pm

A rental is a business. It is income. You can deduct this license fee from your income tax because it is a cost of doing business. Whether it is one house, the 300 some odd the 49’er group has, or more it is a business in this city and should pay a business license fee just like every other business, Lowes, the beauty shop, dry cleaners or liquor store. There is no discrimination because you will now pay a business license fee just like every other business in town.

Marty Fernandez May 29, 2013 - 1:31 pm

Sorry but I’d also like to add….Antioch is the only city locally that doesn’t charge this fee. Also, there are many cities that charge 1,500 or 2 or 3 thousand a year plus a percentage of the gross. So, we are only asking to bring our fee schedule up to date because it was last up dated in 1968. So rental property owners have had a free ride for 45 years.

Julio-Antioch May 29, 2013 - 5:52 pm

“what is that all about??” Wade’s political career. Two weeks ago he was upset Sean wasn’t at the meeting because he expected this result of a meeting. So, Sean came through last night.

Comments are closed.