Antioch Public Safety Tax: “Keep it Simple Stupid”

It would be prudent of the Antioch City Council to first gather all the information they requested last month from City Staff prior to entertaining discussion on the upcoming “public safety tax” to fund its police force. For starters, this prevents hysteria, rumors, and alienating voters this early in the game.

Last night’s Antioch City Council meeting was difficult to watch when the item of the Revenue Ballot Measure came up as I couldn’t help but think back to college when one of my teachers taught me the saying “K.I.S.S.” which stood for “keep it simple stupid”.

While I understand the goal of the council in trying to be transparent, they are sending too many messages out to the public. Ultimately, the goal in discussing any tax option to fund the police department is to increase support, not to confuse people as they did last night.

It’s almost as if the Council is shopping off the tax À la carte menu rather than discussing the “value menu” with voters. They are picking at ideas here and there and appear to be all over the map—quite frankly, it’s confusing!

While I understand city staff has questions regarding a 40-hr work week and furloughs, it only adds to the confusion and should be nowhere near this tax discussion and should be kept with the city budget.

The council needs to start acting like leaders and stop being so coy with this discussion while playing it safe. Simply state what they feel and present it to the public. From there, they can measure the level of support.

For two meetings, the council has hinted at what they prefer, but won’t give anything concrete.

While there are many unknowns, here is what we do know:

• A tax won’t be put on a ballot before November 2013 at the earliest
• A business license tax on rentals is preferred, but it won’t raise enough money
• A 2/3 vote is likely out of the question
• A sales tax comparable to what Pittsburg did appears to be preferred (simple majority vote)
• A poll will be done at some point
• City staff is in the process of determining “high, medium and low” price ranges for the tax option

If the council wants a comprehensive plan, state what it is and how they hope to achieve it. Being honest with voters goes a long way because you can prevent rumors from spreading today as opposed to trying to correct them later—this earns “yes” votes, not saving “yes” votes!

For starters, when there is mention of a business tax, the rumor is all business will be taxed when in reality that discussion is for rentals only.

Councilman Gary Agopian didn’t help this rumor last night when he asked for a $240 tax on licensee fees for business such as smoke shops, card rooms or others that take up “an inordinate amount of police time.” This is a far cry from the prior meeting when he stated a tax only on rental property.

Furthermore, he also asked that that money be allocated specifically to code enforcement to focus on blight caused by squatters, vacant homes, and trashy homes. Now you are talking about two different things.

Councilman Tony Tiscareno asked to see figures on a $200, $250, $300 tax on rentals to see potential revenue of how many officers/services this could support. Pittsburg Vice-Mayor Sal Evola discussed the Pittsburg’s sales tax and urged the council not to go towards gaming.

The end result, the business community feels threatened which kills potential “yes” votes. The reality is the council needs the business community more than the business community needs the council to help sell the idea of a public safety tax.

It’s almost as if a giant list should be created to show who will be effected and who won’t be effected.

Then we move into the whole idea of a 2/3 vs. simple majority vote. The debate here is a 2/3 would go strictly for police while a simple majority puts revenue into the general fund. The rumor being put out is people claim the city is using this tax to boost its bottom line and won’t go entirely for police services—that decision has not been made yet.

Again, this rumor kills potential “yes” votes. The reality is there is talk of with the money going into a general fund; it would be a separate account with an oversight committee from the community, but nothing concrete.

If you recall, two meetings ago the council discussed working backwards from the 144-officers. Last night, it was discussed how they had to at least get to 126-officers. So which is it?  Without numbers from staff, the council can’t measure the cost value on either option.

Police Chief Allan Cantando should further illustrate how resources would be used in either staffing model along with services as a form of transparency while ensuring revenue is actually used for what they say it will be used for–it creates an extra level of accountability to the council when they present the final version of the tax to the public.

At this point in time, there are too many options on the table along with mixing and matching tax options. The council is walking a very thin line right now by making the process more complex than it needs to be—and this is all being done with any sort of public polling or results of polling.

Former Mayor Donald Freitas made the perfect point last night about a comprehensive plan, but he reminded the council that anything put out needs to be first and foremost “fair”, but more importantly needs to be “simple” to allow the public to understand the purpose and goals of the tax.

At this point, the council is doing a tremendous job at trying to be fair, but they haven’t quite figured out how to be simple.

Good leadership can take a complex issue and simplify it to the public. While there will always be naysayers, the council needs to go with the best possible option to pass this tax.   The time is now for the council to step up and take a leadership position on this tax and push it forward.

The clock is ticking towards November.

By Michael Burkholder