Antioch City Council Approves 2-Year Operating Budget, Authorize 115 Cops

On Tuesday night, the Antioch City Council approved its 2-year operating budget for 2019-21, but it did not come without debate as they discussed whether or not to authorize 110 officers or 115-officers.

According to City Manager Ron Bernal, in order to prepare the budget, they had 8-study sessions versus 4-last budget cycle. They are finding the economy is health with sales tax up and Measure W passed which will make Antioch sustainable for the next 20-years.

“We will be able to add additional staff, address blighted properties and business centers, beautify our major corridors and increase funding to youth programs and other quality of life issues,” said Bernal.

Bernal noted the operating budget for the next 2-years is $69 million and $73 million, however, the overall budget is $158 million and $166 million dollars while reserves are pushing 30%.

Click to enlarge

Dawn Merchant, Finance Director, highlighted they have presented a balanced budget for the next two years which also includes a surplus of $320,000 in fiscal year 2020 and a surplus of $20,000 in 2021.

Councilwoman Monica Wilson highlighted she was confused on the number of police officers saying she understood they were allocating for 110-officers but hire to the 115-officers.

Merchant said during that conversation, they ultimately decided to fund to the 115-officers.

Mayor Sean Wright said it was to show the 115-officers but realize there was a 3% vacancy rate which would be reflected in the budget.

Merchant confirmed Wright’s statement adding that in 2021 they budgeted in 2.5% more to show the balanced budget.

Wilson replied stating she might have misunderstood.

Councilman Lamar Thorpe chimed in stating that he reviewed the tape saying they were clear about the 110 officers with the ability to over hire officers to 115 officers saying he thought that wasn’t the direction they were giving.

Wright stated it was his understanding they authorized the hiring to 115 officers which with a vacancy rate of 3% puts them at 110-officers in the budget.

Thorpe stated, “it wasn’t the same thing”.

The council then debated what they had previously agreed upon with Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock explaining if they didn’t approve the 115 officers, each time an officer was hired it would have to come back to the council for approval of that officer.

“It was agreed upon if the chief could get to 115 before the end of the year, but it was clear at that point and the mayor brought it back again and it was closer to the end (of the meeting), that we could hire up to 115,” said Ogorchock. “The chief came up and we told him if you could get to 115 by the end of the year, and he said he could. So that is my understanding.”

Thorpe disputed the 115 officers again saying “that was not my understanding” noting he believed the number needs to be 110 officers with the ability to over hire to 115 in an effort not to over commit so much money in the event they don’t hire 115 officers.

“I am still of that opinion, it seems like councilwoman Wilson is of that opinion as well so I will stick with that,” said Thorpe.

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts changed direction stating her concern with deficit spending in 2021-22 where they have a balanced budget for two-years, but then are deficit spending. Within 5-years, they are $12.56 million in deficit spending.

Merchant explained in all the prior study sessions, staff pointed that out and the council agreed to move forward.

“We are hopeful that cannabis or other revenues will come in and change these projections,” said Merchant. “I don’t have a crystal ball; I can’t say for sure its going to be this way. We could be $10-12 million good in 2025-26; these are projections based on what we know today. My takeaway was that council was very comfortable that cannabis and other revenues would come in and help address these deficits.”

She added that the council added $400,000 for the assistant city manager and that is going to compound each year as salary and PERS increase.

Motts then stated Thorpe’s argument makes sense of why they couldn’t just fund to 110 officers and include the authorization to go to 115 officers.

Merchant explained by changing the number of officers, it would change the budget adding that they needed to approve a budget tonight because they could not legally operate beyond July 1 without a budget—meaning they couldn’t pay their employees.

The council and Merchant further discussed the impacts of 110 vs. 115 officers with the 2.5% to 3% vacancy with 6-months savings and the savings in both Fiscal Year 2019-20 and 20-21.

Wright then asked Chief Tammany Brooks at what point he believed he could get to 115 officers because he wanted to know the actual difference between funding 110 officers and authorizing 115 officers because he believed the number would be the same.

Merchant explained that 2019-20 didn’t have a vacancy rate because there is a 6-months savings, but only 2020-21 had the vacancy rate at 3% rate which puts them at 112 officers. Wright said he thought they should have the same 3% vacancy rate each year built in because there probably will be vacancy based on them never being fully staffed all the time.

Merchant noted its more than just a body being there, they also have overtime adjustments, standby costs and other things.

Brooks responded to the Mayors question calling it complex because the numbers start before the person was even hired because he had to give someone a conditional job offer adding if its not budgeted, he could not give someone a conditional job offer.

He stated he was hoping for direction from the council as he has a number of people in the hiring process.

“I have a large contingent of laterals and I have a large contingent of entry level and so we are moving forward and all are at different stages so I need to be clear in what direction I have that I can move forward with these people without having to wait for another council meeting to determine what I can or cannot do when it comes to hiring these people,” explained Brooks. “I understood it to be the 115 and if it is, that is an easy point for me to reference. I know I can move to that point.”

Wright stated what they were hearing tonight is they are confused on how they factor the numbers and asked Thorpe if he would be willing to authorize the 115.

Thorpe stated he was willing to authorize 110 and over hire to the 115 noting that if at the end of the year if they were still at 108, why would they commit so much money. He noted that savings could be spend in other areas without committing it all to the police department with other needs in the city.

Brooks responded to Thorpe with his concerns.

“What I don’t understand is the difference between the previous action is we were using money that was already slated to go to the police department through salary savings but I heard you just say was if we don’t reach that point like within the next few months and you start allocating that money towards medians or whatever else, then that money is gone,” explained Brooks. “Then when I come to you at the end of this year when I am at 112 officers and asking to get the funding for the additional 3 officers, what I just heard you say is that money has already possibly been allocated to other things.”

Thorpe stated “no”, explaining the money is there because of the budget stabilization fund and reserve funds.

“From your vantage point, externally, you will be able to hire the folks you need to hire. Internally, what we are talking about is semantics of how we are committing the money and where its coming from,” said Thorpe. “Whatever we do here, will not impact your ability to go hire 115 positions for the police department.”

Wright stated for the public; it is clearer to authorize the 115 positions.

Thorpe then asked Brooks how many officers they have which he replied 104 officers—with 1 officer in the academy with another officer who resigned 2-weeks ago.

Thorpe stated he hopes they get to 115 officers, but in the event they don’t, didn’t understand why they would commit so much money for something that didn’t exist. He again stated he was of the opinion to hire to 110 and have the over hire to 115 for both fiscal years.

Brooks replied, “Just so I cam clear, where would that 115 be at so I can point people to show we are going to 115. The authorized number is typically where we have gone to. I recognize what you are saying regarding the Measure C money but there was a particular number of officers promised not a total number staffed, I just want to be able to demonstrate the commitment is 115 and not the 110 because I’ve always only been able to hire to the authorized number.”

Wright then explained they could authorize 115 and put in whatever vacancy rate they want to get it to the number on the books.

Thorpe again stated his opinion.

Motts interjected saying they both were saying the same thing.

“Its not the same thing. One is authorized 110 and over hire to 115. The other is authorize to 115 with a vacancy rate so that the number on the books is the same,” explained Wright. “The amount you budget is the same as long as your vacancy rate brings it down to the 110.”

Wright added what the police department is focused on is the authorized number, either 110 or 115 which is what they focus on.

“To authorize the 115 officers, it shows the commitment to where the council was truly going,” said Brooks.

Thorpe argued that in both scenarios, there was a commitment to 115 officers from the council.

“One scenario is based on we grow as we hire and another is well, we will budget here and we may have some salary savings here and we may get to 115 or we may not but its still here,” said Thorpe.

Wright said that was untrue.

“One shows a vacancy rate that you are showing the exact same number as if you are authorizing 110,” said Wright.

Merchant noted that in 2021, they could have a $1 million in vacancy rate savings.

Motts said she believed what she was hearing from the police chief was public perception on a commitment from the council.

“What I will say is from anecdotal from me, the public I have talked to. Yes that is a perception,” said Brooks.

Motts then made the recommendation that if they can achieve the same thing in savings, that they factor in the vacancy to take it to authorization of 115 officers.

“I think it is a win-win for everybody,” said Motts.

Thorpe responded.

“I am sorry Joy, I don’t agree with you,” stated Thorpe.

“I agree with Joy,” responded Wright.

Ogorchock then stated she was confused and frustrated.

“We put up numbers on that board. We put up 115 officers if the chief could get to it. Then we put up a city manager, then we put up all these different positions and I specifically asked where is this money going to come from and it was like cannabis,” stated Ogorchock. “Cannabis to me, that was the savior that night. I said we don’t know what we are going to make off cannabis. So its kinda frustrating that all of this work has been put into this. We have looked at this, the numbers were 115. I was very clear that if the chief can get to 115 by the end of this year, that this budget had to reflect that he was going to get to 115.”

Ogorchock highlighted they put items back into the budget and were at the last hour and were changing their minds again based on deficit spending when they had it all on the board, agreed, and the budget was only 2-years because anything after that was deficit spending.

Motts highlighted she was confused by Ogorchocks comment because on one hand they were worried about 115 officers and in the other hand worried about deficit spending because they had to show the community, they were being fiscally responsible in their decisions.

“If the community looks at this as more of an authorization to do it one way than the other than so be it as long as we achieve the same outcome,” said Motts who then recommended they move forward.

Ogorchock then made motion to approve the 2-year budget.

The council then approved the budget in a 5-0 vote.