The Contra Costa County town of Antioch, best known as the site of the imprisonment and serial rape of Jaycee Dugard, has been considering bankruptcy throughout this year. While the city is trying to fob off a sales tax increase, one Antioch official is already preparing to close the city's financial gap through actual spending cuts -- or by just going belly up. Dave Roberts of the Antioch Press talks with city manager Jim Jakel:
But city officials are looking at a $4 million budget shortfall in the fiscal year starting next July. And $4 million is the amount that officials expect the city to receive each year for the next eight years if the tax hike measure passes. If it fails, it will be Jakel's job to make additional cuts in a city staff that he's said has already been pared to the bone. And this time it's unlikely that police officers will be spared the budget axe, despite the city's violent crime problem.
"If it fails, we will make the reductions we have to make, and face a greater percentage chance of bankruptcy," said Jakel. "But we are still in control. We start this budget year with $34 million (in the General Fund). We know we had a good operation, but not a flush or big operation, at $47 million (several years ago). We will buy $34 million of municipal services, and do the best we can with direction from the council for $34 million.
"If the public doesn't vote for it, that's perfectly OK. We will do what we need to do. I can probably come up with a lot of the reasons the public wouldn't vote for it too. It's a tough economy and people don't want to pay more money. But it's incumbent on the city to put it to the voters to make that choice. In bankruptcy one of first things that the magistrate will say is, 'Did you ask the people in your community to pay more? If the answer is no, then go ask.' That's what they did to Vallejo."
What would it mean for city government and for residents if Antioch joined Vallejo in bankruptcy? "It's a rarity in the whole country; so it's very unusual to know," said Jakel. "My understanding is you pretty much run as usual. There will be some sort of legal process with an outside entity who's going to be double-checking and overseeing. But the City Council is still the City Council. The management team is still generally in place. You have court-appointed authorities who oversee it.
Corrections: Although Roberts puts Jakel's annual compensation at "just short of $200,000," the city manager in fact makes $221,000 a year, according to tax records gathered by the League of California Cities in its manager compensation survey. Also, while the article implies the tax hike would be applied to closing the deficit, a landmark study [pdf] of federal tax policy suggests that revenue increases do not reduce deficits and may increase them –and California's fiscal experience over the past decade supports this view.
Although Vallejo's bankruptcy ended up not getting the city out of its pension obligations to government employees, default remains an attractive way for municipalities to escape impossible fiscal straits. Organized labor has been trying, without much success, to close this option off. Assembly Bill 155, which would have subjected insolvent cities to review by a state panel packed with union muscle, failed in the legislature last month, and the idea didn't make it onto the November slate of (mostly bad) ballot initiatives. Jakel is the rare city official willing to talk about default, but more cities should be considering this option.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
I envision a city going tits up and the citizens agreeing to disband and move to other towns. Bankruptcy is less fun to consider.
And about that, are bankruptcy judges appointed or elected? If elected, then I fail to see how unions can't get control of that whole mess like they pretty much hold sway over every other public sector entity.
I would like to think that the politicians would have to tiptoe barefoot through the shards of their broken promises, but I know damned well that they will engage in the most massive blameshifting campaign in history.
If it fails, it will be Jakel's job to make additional cuts in a city staff that he's said has already been pared to the bone. And this time it's unlikely that police officers will be spared the budget axe, despite the city's violent crime problem.
pared to the bone = sparing cuts to police
when the vast majority of costs for a California municipality is in compensation.
'Kay.
In all fairness, I'm perfectly fine with municipal considering bankruptcy (read: ending denial), as long as the argument is, "Well, you fuckers were dumb enough to lend us money."
Also, while the article implies the tax hike would be applied to closing the deficit, a landmark study [pdf] of federal tax policy suggests that revenue increases do not reduce deficits and may increase them
Cannot be repeated enough.
Deficits aren't caused by taxes that aren't high enough. Deficits are caused by spending too much. Period.
...or by just going belly up.
I envision a city going tits up and the citizens agreeing to disband and move to other towns. Bankruptcy is less fun to consider.
And about that, are bankruptcy judges appointed or elected? If elected, then I fail to see how unions can't get control of that whole mess like they pretty much hold sway over every other public sector entity.
Fist - BR judges are appointed judges that are confirmed by Congress and they serve a fixed period of time (something like 14 years).
Fist - BR judges are appointed judges that are confirmed by Congress and they serve a fixed period of time (something like 14 years).
As default becomes less unthinkable at all levels of government, oh what fun we shall have!
I would like to think that the politicians would have to tiptoe barefoot through the shards of their broken promises, but I know damned well that they will engage in the most massive blameshifting campaign in history.
At first I thought the first photo was of the funeral pyre from Conan the Barbarian.
"Fire won't burn there... no fire at all."
Conan pulled it off - I bet Arnold can make California burn too.
ended up not getting = didn't get
Is Cavanaugh paid by the word?
Is Max desperately reaching for straws?
Is Max so desperate for human contact that the only thing that keeps him from ending it all is posting here?
Why is there a song running through my head? What is it? Can I just put a name to the tune?
Oh. Yeah.
Look for.... the union label...
Clearly, this is the people's fault for not paying enough in taxes. Those poor government officials are just trying to make ends meet.
LET. IT. BURN.
If it fails, it will be Jakel's job to make additional cuts in a city staff that he's said has already been pared to the bone. And this time it's unlikely that police officers will be spared the budget axe, despite the city's violent crime problem.
pared to the bone = sparing cuts to police
when the vast majority of costs for a California municipality is in compensation.
'Kay.
In all fairness, I'm perfectly fine with municipal considering bankruptcy (read: ending denial), as long as the argument is, "Well, you fuckers were dumb enough to lend us money."
Otter: "You fucked up... you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!"
revenue increases do not reduce deficits and may increase them
Whoda thunk it?
This:
Also, while the article implies the tax hike would be applied to closing the deficit, a landmark study [pdf] of federal tax policy suggests that revenue increases do not reduce deficits and may increase them
Cannot be repeated enough.
Deficits aren't caused by taxes that aren't high enough. Deficits are caused by spending too much. Period.
"Landmark study" = some minority report prepared by the GOP back in the late '80's.