Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Retail Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Antioch board debates replacing lost grocery tax and a new 1% retail tax to fund $9.3M in capital needs
Summary
Trustees spent more than an hour weighing whether to replace a state‑eliminated grocery tax, adopt a 1% non‑home‑rule municipal retail occupation tax, or a hybrid. Staff projects roughly $1.6 million in additional annual revenue under the full retail tax scenario; trustees split over affordability for residents versus infrastructure shortfalls.
The Antioch Village Board devoted a large portion of its June 25 meeting to choosing how to replace revenue lost when the state eliminated a 1% grocery sales tax effective Jan. 1, 2026. Finance Director Michael Peterson presented revenue scenarios and said the village’s five‑year forecast relies on generating an additional $1.6 million per year to cover $9.3 million in capital and equipment needs.
Peterson told trustees the state law that removed the state grocery tax also allows non‑home‑rule municipalities to adopt a municipal grocery tax and to impose a non‑home‑rule municipal retail occupation tax without a referendum. He presented three illustrative scenarios showing how combinations of a municipal grocery tax and a 1% municipal retail occupation tax would affect residents, businesses and the forecasted budget.
Board members split on the options. Supporters said a sales tax spreads the burden beyond homeowners and helps pay urgent infrastructure needs such as storm sewer repairs, sidewalks and park projects. One trustee said the tax is "the least impactful" way to spread cost across nonresidents and residents who shop in Antioch.
Opponents warned the grocery tax disproportionately affects lower‑income households and questioned whether additional sales taxes would meaningfully reduce property tax rates. Several trustees said they want clearer drafts of the ordinances and a plain‑language explanation to use in public outreach before a final vote.
Peterson said placing a 1% retail occupation tax in the FY2026 budget was the staff recommendation to preserve the forecasted capital program and avoid cutting $1.6 million from operational budgets. He also highlighted Placer Analytics data the village used to estimate shopper origin and the per‑household impact in the corporate limits.
The board asked staff to prepare ordinance drafts (a grocery‑tax ordinance and a retail occupation ordinance) and additional scenarios for the July 9 meeting so trustees can compare a full replacement, a hybrid option and no action. The discussion will continue; no final tax ordinance was adopted at the June 25 meeting.
