An apparently disappointed Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker speaks on renaming the department during the council meeting on May 26, 2026. Video screenshot.
Public Safety & Community Resources Department is not part of police or fire services
By Allen D. Payton
At the urging of Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas, during their meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, the Antioch City Council agreed to correct and clear up confusion of including the words “Public Safety” in the name of the newest department which is not part of police or fire services. Instead of its current name, the Public Safety & Community Resources Department, the brainchild of District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker who has an expanded definition of the term, will be renamed simply, the Community Services Department. The councilmembers also voted to change the titles of the department’s staff.
The council approved the new department in February 2022 on a 4-1 vote. At that time, Torres-Walker tried to redefine the term saying, “a lot of us have decided that public safety is a lot more than policing. It’s about quality of life, environmental justice, youth services, housing. Public safety is about economic dignity, access to jobs, clean water, clean air. All of those things, not just policing. Policing is a part of public safety and we have forgot about that as a community. And I think being able to have this department be called the Department of Public Safety and Community Resources will also help reorient our community to understand that public safety doesn’t just mean policing. It also means access to quality, well organized resources in the city.”
But the department’s name has caused confusion because the majority of people don’t define the term the same as the councilwoman does.
According to the department’s webpage, it consists of three divisions including Violence Intervention & Prevention Division, Youth Services Division and Housing Division. That can also cause confusion as new housing is handled by the Community Development & Economic Development Department and its Planning Division. But the Housing Division of the newly renamed department “provides a range of programs and services designed to support tenants, landlords, and unsheltered community members.”
City Staff Report & Recommendations
In introducing the item, #10 on the agenda, Acting City Manager Ana Cortez said, “The proposed change is intended to better align the department’s public identity with the current vision and focus on prevention.”
According to the City staff report by department Director Monserrat Cabral, “While the department collaborates closely with the Antioch Police Department, first responders, schools, County agencies, and other public safety partners, the department itself is not a law enforcement entity.
“The department’s primary functions are rooted in prevention, intervention, stabilization, human services, outreach, youth development, housing support, violence interruption, and community engagement, with a focus on improving quality of life outcomes and strengthening long-term community well-being for Antioch residents.
“However, nonprofit partners, outside agencies, and community stakeholders often assume the department is a law enforcement division or enforcement-based office due to the inclusion of the phrase ‘Public Safety’ in the department title. This confusion has created challenges including:
• Residents being uncertain whether the department provides direct community services;
• Hesitancy from vulnerable populations who may be reluctant to engage with anything perceived as enforcement-related;
• Misunderstanding regarding the department’s role during outreach and community engagement efforts;
• Difficulty clearly communicating the department’s mission externally; and
• Ongoing confusion between the PSCR Department and the Antioch Police Department.
During her presentation on the matter, Cabral said, “Since its creation, the department has evolved significantly.”
The staff report further reads, “the department…today oversees a broad and diverse portfolio of community-serving functions, including:
• Violence Intervention & Prevention;
• Housing & Homelessness Services;
• Youth Development & Workforce Programs;
• Community Engagement & Outreach;
• Crisis Response & Stabilization Partnerships;
• Grant Administration & Community-Based Funding Initiatives; and
• Nonprofit and Intergovernmental Partnerships.
City staff offered alternative names for the department. The report read, “Common naming themes emerging across municipalities include:
• Human Services;
• Community Services;
• Community & Human Services;
• Community Well-Being;
• Community Support Services;
• Neighborhood Services; and
• Community Development & Wellness.
Staff offered multiple names from other agencies and recommended the new name be the Human and Community Services Department. The recommendation also included “Changing the Department Director title from “Public Safety and Community Resources Director” to “Human & Community Services Director”; and the “Public Safety Manager” classification overseeing Violence Intervention & Prevention functions to “Community Engagement Manager”.
Council Discussion & Direction
Since the item was for discussion only, no council action was expected on renaming the department during Tuesday’s meeting. But a vote was taken.
Torres-Walker was the first council member to speak on the item saying, “We have a recommended name, here. Should we just go with it and call it a night?”
Freitas responded, “No. No.” He then said, “I do realize there is differences of opinion about renaming it. From my perspective, I would just rename it the Community Services Department. Period. I’m trying to be all inclusive. Make sure it’s flexible now and in the future and it’s understandable. I don’t want to sound like a department of the federal…department of the U.S. government. So, from my perspective the Community Services Department serves all that bill and that’s what I support.”
Freitas then made a motion to rename the department and “change the classifications of the certain positions.”
Cabral pointed out that the council would not be changing classifications, just the titles and they would be “changing the code.”
“Yes,” Freitas responded.
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha seconded the motion.
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson mentioned, “Community Services Department.”
Bernal responded, “We have a Community Development Department.” He then asked Freitas if he would support placing the words “Department of” at the beginning. The Mayor Pro Tem declined.
An apparently disappointed Torres-Walker then could be heard saying softly, “It’s too late to care.”
Bernal asked if there were any more comments and turned to the District 1 Councilwoman who reiterated, “I just said I don’t care. Let’s vote. It’s late.”
Wilson said, “I personally like ‘Human and’. But if everybody is fine with Community Services then that’s alright.”
A donated “Pride Flag” hangs from the Antioch City Council dais inside the Council Chambers during their meeting Tuesday, May 26, 2026, in violation of the City Flag Display Ordinance. Video screenshot.
Once again adopts proclamation recognizing June as “Pride Month”, “honoring…contributions, history, …resilience of LGBTQ+ community” and says “City of Antioch is committed to celebrate the history and diversity of our city’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community”
Torres-Walker complains of no “Pride Parade” in Antioch
By Allen D. Payton
During their regular meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, after approving the “Pride Month” proclamation on a 5-0 vote, the City Council allowed a rainbow flag to be hung from the dais in front of Mayor Ron Bernal. That violates the unanimously adopted City of Antioch Flag Display Policy approved on Feb. 11, 2020, when Bernal was city manager. The policy, adopted after the council for the first time flew the “Pride Flag” on the pole at City Hall, clearly states only the American, State and City flags can be displayed inside the Council Chambers.
Section 2.07 Display of Flags in the City Council Chambers of the policy reads: “The American Flag, State Flag and City Flag shall be the only flags displayed in the City Council Chambers. The American Flag shall be displayed in the first position of honor. This position is on the Mayor and City Council’s right as they face the audience or to the observer’s left. The State Flag shall be displayed in the second position of honor. This position is to the observer’s right of the American Flag. The City Flag shall be displayed to the observer’s right of the State Flag.”
See the Policy under item 5 of the Feb. 11, 2020, council meeting agenda, here or view it on the Herald website.
In recent years, the Council also allowed the Transgender and Progress Pride flags to be displayed inside the Council Chambers, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker has displayed other small flags on the dais in front of her, all in violation of the Flag Policy. She no longer does that.
This year’s proclamation once again recognizes June as “Pride Month” in the City. But a new clause was added which states, “and each following June”.
The proclamation was presented to Nicole Lapointe, the Clinical Director of the Rainbow Community Center in Concord whose mission she said, “is to build community, equity and well-being among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual or agender and two-spirit people and our allies.”
But a proclamation isn’t enough for Torres-Walker. She complained that she and other residents have to go to other cities to attend a “Pride Parade”.
“I know that the city of Antioch does have a large non-gender-conforming community,” the councilwoman claimed. “I’m also wondering why I have to go to Concord or Clayton or San Francisco to attend a Pride Parade. So, people have to leave this city to be recognized, and people have to force flags on us when we should really be committed to not just a proclamation once a year, but we should be committed to valuing all of our residents, especially individuals in the LGBTQUIA plus non-gender conforming community.”
According to a speaker during public comments on the item, later identified by Torres-Walker as named Mary, the flag hanging from the dais was donated by an Antioch resident. The woman presented the flag to Bernal who, along with Torres-Walker, helped her hang it on the center of the dais in front of him.
A woman, named Mary, hangs a “Pride Flag” from the council dais with the help of Mayor Bernal and Councilwoman Torres-Walker during the meeting on May 26, 2026, in violation of City policy. Video screenshot.
A woman, later identified by Torres-Walker as named Mary, then presented the flag to Bernal who, along with Torres-Walker, helped her hang it on the center of the dais in front of him.
The proclamation reads as follows:
RECOGNIZING JUNE 2026 ASPRIDE MONTH IN THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
WHEREAS, June is recognized across the United States and around the world as Pride Month, honoring the contributions, history, and resilience of LGBTQ+ community;
WHEREAS, “every individual” is equal before and under the law and has right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability;
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch recognizes that diversity, inclusion, dignity, and equal protection for all residents strengthen the social, cultural, and civic fabric of the community, and reaffirms its commitment to fostering a welcoming environment where individuals of all backgrounds, identities, and abilities are treated with respect and afforded equal opportunity to live, work, and participate fully in community life;
WHEREAS, the long and ongoing struggle to transgender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and other sexual minorities for basic civil and human rights continues to provide inspiration to all;
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch is committed to celebrate the history and diversity of our city’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, and promotes a society in which all residents can live free from discrimination; and
WHEREAS, Pride Month is an opportunity to celebrate this harmony in which we coexist.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RON BERNAL, Mayor of the City of Antioch, hereby proclaim the month of June 2026, and each following June, as “PRIDE MONTH” in the City of Antioch and invite everyone to reflect on ways we can live and work together with a commitment to mutual respect and understanding.
On June 2, Contra Costa County voters will decide whether to saddle themselves — and their children — with the largest bond debt in the history of the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD). Measure G asks for $920 million in new borrowing. With interest, the true cost climbs to $1.88 billion, with final payoff projected in 2059. CoCoTax has opposed this measure in official ballot arguments, in public presentations, and in a detailed response to a recent article in the Contra Costa College Advocate.
The case against Measure G is straightforward: it is far too much money, sought too soon given outstanding bond debt, by a district that hasn’t demonstrated the fiscal discipline to deserve it.
Already Drowning in Debt
4CD still owes on three bond measures as is: 2002’s Measure A ($120 million), 2006’s second Measure A, ($286.5 million), and 2014’s Measure E ($450 million) — totaling $856.5 million in principal alone. County taxpayers still owe nearly $727 million on those existing obligations, with the final payment on Measure E not expected until 2039. Measure G would pile $1.88 billion more on top of all that. If it passes, total bonded indebtedness reaches $2.61 billion, secured by Contra Costa County property values — with no senior exemption.
Enrollment Is Down 28% — Yet They Want to Build More
4CD advertises “nearly 50,000 students,” but that figure is misleading. California’s actual funding metric is Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES). According to the State Chancellor’s October 2025 FTES Report, 4CD’s count was just 21,940 — down 28% from 30,648 when Measure A passed in 2002. Expanding costly new facilities while enrollment trends sharply downward is the opposite of responsible stewardship.
“Deferred Maintenance” — Deferred Forever?
Roofing repairs, seismic retrofits, HVAC upgrades, and electrical work appear repeatedly in 4CD bond project lists going back to 2002. How many bond measures must pass before these basics get done? There’s a core problem: 4CD’s maintenance budget has crept from just 0.10% to 0.20% of Plant Replacement Value over the past decade, when the commercial building standard is 2–5%. Routine maintenance gets deferred so the general fund can support other priorities — including lavish administrative compensation — and then bond money pays for the fixes, with interest on top.
Executive Pay That Outstrips the Governor’s
While seeking $920 million in new principal from taxpayers, 4CD’s Chancellor drew a $404,238 salary (as of 2024) — plus $130,674 in benefits, for total compensation reaching $548,112. That salary alone exceeds the official pay of the President of the United States and far surpasses Governor Newsom’s $245,929. Vice Chancellors, College Presidents, and Directors also earn hundreds of thousands in total compensation. Lavish pay and lean maintenance are two sides of the same General Fund coin.
Who’s Funding “Yes on G”?
The pro-Measure G campaign has raised nearly $400,000 so far — with the bulk coming from the tax-exempt Contra Costa College Foundation ($100,000), the DVC Foundation ($50,000), and multiple construction unions (IBEW Local 302, Plumbers Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and others). Contractor unions have a direct financial interest in a $920 million construction program. Ordinary property-tax-paying residents have no equivalent organized voice — a textbook example of what economists call “Public Choice Theory.”
The Bottom Line
Property owners already pay an average of $13.97 per $100,000 of assessed value toward 4CD’s existing bonds. Measure G adds another $10 — and that rate could rise if the county’s assessed values don’t grow at the 4% annual pace 4CD projects, projections that, by 4CD’s own admission, “are not binding upon 4CD.”
4CD should maintain its existing buildings with its existing budget rather than repeatedly turning to taxpayers for borrowed billions. Vote NO on Measure G.
Dear Antioch Unified School District Board Members,
Given the severity of the district’s deficit, the community deserves to understand why the Board continues to authorize expensive contractors to perform work that qualified district staff are fully capable of handling. In education, sustainable improvement comes from setting clear expectations, providing support, and building internal capacity. Antioch is a resilient community filled with talented professionals. Our people deserve the opportunity and the trust to meet the standard.
It is also important to acknowledge that many of these same consultants were used in Pacifica and Sequoia, districts where the Superintendent departed in under two years amid controversy. Why would the Board select a leader without a demonstrated record of long-term, successful superintendent leadership.
Board President Dr. Jag Lathan, you are currently running for County Superintendent. If effective oversight and leadership cannot be demonstrated in a mid‑sized district like Antioch, how will you lead an entire county. Voters are watching and waiting for you to do what is right.
The district’s increasing reliance on high‑cost consultants is fiscally irresponsible and deeply concerning especially during a financial crisis. This year alone, consultant contracts are projected to exceed half a million dollars, including external providers for executive coaching, financial consulting, data analysis, and organizational climate assessments. Only a small portion of these contracts appear justified given staffing shortages. The rest raise serious questions about duplication of services, transparency, and fiscal priorities. The district already employs dedicated, effective leaders who have invested their careers and their hearts into serving Antioch’s students. Overlooking this internal capacity wastes resources and damages morale. Replacing qualified internal leaders with consultants occupying long‑term roles is unjust, irresponsible, and demoralizing. At what point will the Board accept accountability for these decisions?
There has also been a mass exodus of leadership and long‑term teachers. This exodus is directly tied to the current district leadership. Why is the Board not interviewing these long-standing, highly respected employees to understand why they are leaving AUSD?
Attorney fees have been repeatedly discussed at board meetings and often dismissed by comparing them to previous years. But this year, the number of law firms brought in under Dr. Williams has significantly increased legal costs. If the highly publicized employee bullying lawsuit from last year were removed from the comparison, would last year’s attorney fees still exceed the current year’s. That is a question the community deserves answered.
According to individuals familiar with the superintendent hiring process, community panelists were puzzled by the Board’s decision. Several candidates reportedly ranked higher among parents, staff, and students including two Latino leaders who panelists felt could more closely relate to and serve the district’s student population. Insiders state that Dr. Williams ranked last among five finalists in some community feedback summaries. Despite these concerns, Dr. Williams assumed leadership of AUSD in July 2025.
It is public knowledge that entering the 2025–26 school year, AUSD faced an approximate $12 million deficit. The CBO in place at the time who had full knowledge of the deficit and a fiscally sound plan to address it without harming student services or requiring staff layoffs was placed on leave almost immediately by Dr. Williams. It has been stated repeatedly at board meetings that the approved raises and continued 100% district‑paid health benefits did not contribute to the now $31 million deficit. That is not accurate. The increased deficit is directly tied to the raises and benefits negotiated by Dr. Williams and her attorney.
Another contributing factor is the Superintendent’s newly created salary schedule. Historically, AUSD superintendents were placed on salary schedule 734 with a 260-day work year. Dr. Williams negotiated a new 737 range with a 225-day work year 35 fewer days than her senior management team. The previous superintendent, at year six, earned $358,340 annually ($1,378 per day). Dr. Williams began at $361,165 annually ($1,605 per day) and will top out at $1,728 per day.
Despite this significantly higher, per‑day rate, district staff report that Dr. Williams is rarely present in the district office, and when she does arrive, it is often afternoon. She is not beginning her day at school sites, and her whereabouts during the workday are frequently unaccounted for. Given these concerns, why was an entirely new salary schedule created without any data demonstrating long‑term success, improved student outcomes, or consistent leadership presence. Her history shows the opposite, with districts left in turmoil.
At what point will the Board seek honest insight from current and former employees rather than relying on soundbites and publicity efforts. The community is asking for transparency, accountability, and the responsible use of AUSD funds. Every dollar spent should reflect a commitment to students, staff, and the long‑term stability of this district—not to unnecessary contracts, unchecked legal fees, or inflated administrative compensation.
Respectfully,
Amy Bettencourt, former Director of Educational Services, Antioch Unified School District and Concerned Staff, Parents and Citizens
In a note included with the emailed letter to the editor Bettencourt wrote, “I know I left Antioch USD at the end of February due to the toxicity and storm the new superintendent brought to the district, but I continue to hear from a large group of employees who are desperately trying to elevate their concerns publicly.”
Multiple Bay Area transit agencies would benefit from the five-county sales tax measure. Photo: MTC. Map source: Connect Bay Area
Connect Bay Area far surpasses 186,000 signatures required to qualify BART, regional transit funding measure
By Jeff Cretan, West Advisors
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA — The Connect Bay Area campaign today announced it has submitted more than 305,000 signatures to qualify a regional transit funding measure for the November ballot — blowing past the 186,000 valid signatures required.
The success of this effort is built on one of the largest grassroots transit organizing efforts the region has ever seen and major support from business and labor organizations.
The Connect Bay Area five-county sales tax measure would provide long-term operational funding for major Bay Area transit agencies, while supporting projects to strengthen and connect transit systems across the region. It will protect major transit agencies like BART from devastating service cuts and help VTA grow to better serve residents, workers, and businesses.
Connect Bay Area also strengthens accountability for transit agencies. SB 63 – the legislation authored by Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguin that enabled Connect Bay Area – set strong accountability requirements to take effect before the measure even gets on the ballot. The measure requires independent financial reviews and continued efficiency improvements from transit agencies.
Unprecedented Grassroots, Labor, and Business Support
The Connect Bay Area Campaign has grown in support over the last several months with more than 80 elected officials and more than 90 labor groups and advocacy organizations signing on in support. Major businesses from across the region have helped to fundraise over $5.5 million so far to get the measure on the ballot and prepare for the November election.
Since launching in January, Connect Bay Area has mobilized more than 1,000 volunteers and advocates across Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Supporters gathered signatures at transit stations, farmers markets, community events, neighborhood meetings, and major public gatherings throughout the Bay Area.
The overwhelming signature total reflects the broad support for transit and the awareness of urgency surrounding the future of Bay Area public transit.
Without sustainable transit funding, the Bay Area could face catastrophic service reductions:
BART: Up to 15 station closures, elimination of two lines, and service cuts of up to 70%
Caltrain: Hourly train service, no weekend service, and weekday shutdowns after 9 p.m.
Muni: At least 20 bus routes eliminated and service reductions of 30% or more
AC Transit: Service cuts of at least 16%
The more than 300,000 signatures – which were the result of both a paid effort and an advocate-led grassroots effort – will now be officially counted and validated by the Departments of Elections for each of the five counties over the next few weeks before the measure can officially be placed on the ballot.
“We’re blown away by the over 1,000 Bay Area volunteers, transit advocates, and labor partners who contributed to getting transit funding on the November ballot,” said Lian Chang, co-lead of the Connect Bay Area grassroots signature gathering effort. “This is the largest grassroots signature-gathering effort in the history of the Bay Area, and represents thousands of hours spent by people from all backgrounds and all corners of our five-county region to protect this thing—transit—that matters to millions of Bay Area residents. Everyday more voters are getting on board to support our economy, social justice, the environment and reducing congestion. And we’re just getting started.”
“This is a resounding statement by Bay Area voters that they believe in the value of our regional transit systems and how important they are to keeping our region moving,” said Libby Schaaf, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council. “Now we must turn our attention to November and protecting the many billions of dollars we’ve invested over many decades to build these systems while also making them more efficient, cost-effective, safe and convenient for the millions of commuters who rely on them.”
“Public transit is a cornerstone of our economy and an essential public good that keeps our region affordable for residents,” said Congressman Kevin Mullin. “Connect Bay Area will protect the public transportation service we all rely on while ensuring strong accountability so every dollar delivers reliable, safe transit.”
“The Bay Area’s public transit is a core pillar of our region’s ability to usher in a climate-smart, affordable, and just future,” said Amanda Brown-Stevens, Executive Director of the Greenbelt Alliance. “Greenbelt Alliance is excited to be a part of this grassroots coalition to help protect and enhance our public transportation and reduce pollution.
About Connect Bay Area
The Connect Bay Area campaign will bring a five-county sales tax to the ballot in November 2026 through a citizen signature gathering effort. The rate will be set at 0.5%, with the exception that San Francisco will be set at a 1% rate to provide additional support for Muni. This measure will provide long-term operations funding for major Bay Area transit agencies and support regional projects to strengthen transit throughout the Bay Area.
The Connect Bay Area measure will support the future of public transportation in the Bay Area:
Protect and improve service on BART, Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and AC Transit
Prevent catastrophic service cuts that could devastate the Bay Area
Keep traffic and emissions down, preventing gridlock and protecting climate progress;
Support the Bay Area’s economy, ensuring that downtown recovery and regional mobility remain strong.
Connect Bay Area has strong accountability and oversight provisions, including dependent financial reviews for every transit operator, regional coordination mandates to ensure systems work better together, and a citizen oversight committee to monitor spending and performance. A recent independent study required by Connect Bay Area found the agencies had saved $1 billion in operational efficiencies and set new actions for the agencies to take to further improve efficiency and service.
The Connect Bay Area Transit Committee is comprised of labor, business, and transit advocates, including Bay Area Council, SEIU 1021, ATU 1555, SPUR, and SAMCEDA, alongside an advocacy council of more than 20 organizations representing transit, housing, environmental, equity, and senior and disability groups.
For more information about the Connect Bay Area campaign or to get involved, visit https://connectbayarea.com/
Will invest in roads, bridges, transit, rail transportation and highway and motor carrier safety programs over five years
By Cameron Niven, Communications Director, Office of Congressman John Garamendi
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Friday, May 22, 2026, Congressman John Garamendi (CA-08), a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, secured critical wins for California in the bipartisan Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-term Development for America’s 250th Act (BUILD America 250 Act) (H.R.8870). This five-year surface transportation reauthorization bill will invest in America’s roads, bridges, transit, rail transportation and highway and motor carrier safety programs.
“America’s economy is nothing without our infrastructure,” said Rep. Garamendi. “I’m proud to have secured essential provisions in the BUILD America 250 Act that will improve the lives of my constituents as much as the roads they drive, the bridges they cross and the trains they ride. This bipartisan bill will restore our aging bridges and repair crumbling roads to build out safe, accessible transit and bike infrastructure.”
The total funding authorization in the bill is about $580 billion over FY2027–FY2031 and will replace the expiring Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding approved in 2021.
“No legislation of this scope is perfect, and while I am disappointed it does not include all my amendments, I am committed to building on the work that has been done and I am glad that this Committee was able to come to an agreement that will benefit Californians,” Garamendi continued.
The BUILD America 250 Act includes several key provisions authored by Congressman Garamendi:
The “Transportation Emergency Relief Extension Act” with Senator Padilla, Senator Cornyn and the late Congressman LaMalfa (H.R.4847)
Extends deadline for construction obligation for highway projects funded through the Emergency Relief Program from two to four years. This will ensure state and local governments have adequate time to fully utilize federal funds awarded to repair roads damaged by disasters
Key provisions from his “Transportation Emergency Relief Funds Availability Act” (H.R.3193)
Extends the obligation deadline for Emergency Relief Program funds for public transportation projects from two to five years. This will afford state and local governments the time and certainty needed to complete these projects efficiently and responsibly.
Key provisions from his “Expedited Federal Permitting for California Act” (H.R.4908)
Permanently extends the program that allows states that have assumed the responsibility for environmental reviews to make approvals for projects under state laws rather than the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This commonsense reform will simply let certain federally funded transportation projects make use of existing state permitting processes without the need for a redundant, less stringent federal environmental review.
Key provisions from his “Bridge Corrosion Prevention and Repair Act” with Congressman Bost (H.R.4170)
Requires USDOT to carry out a study on best practices for addressing corrosion on weathering steel bridges, as well as the frequency and method of inspecting corrosion on steel bridges. Corrosion costs the United States billions of dollars every year while putting public safety at risk. The persistent corrosion of our roads and bridges needs to be addressed with the urgency this issue demands.
Key provisions from his “Airport TIFIA Certainty Act” (H.R.6168), with Congressman Hurd
Reauthorizes the TIFIA credit assistance program and preserves the 15% allowance for airports. This ensures low-interest federal financing remains available for critical airport projects. Sacramento Airport recently received a $36.1 million TIFIA loan to deliver critical infrastructure upgrades for California travelers.
An overview of the major provisions in the BUILD America 250 Act is included below:
Investing in Safe, Reliable, Accessible and Affordable Transit
The nation’s transit systems provide a safe, affordable and environmentally friendly means of travel for millions of Americans. Transit agencies are modernizing service to meet the needs of communities post-pandemic; making investments in safer and more reliable systems; and working to ensure accessibility for all. The BUILD America 250 Act continues the federal government’s partnership in these efforts through robust funding, new worker protections, and streamlining provisions to deliver transit projects faster.
Keeping the Focus on Safety
The BUILD America 250 Act seeks to build on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s focus on safety byinvesting in state and local safety projects, addressing the safety of all road users, and insisting on evidence-based strategies to save lives. This bill:
Guarantees $3.75 billion in funding for the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program which provides local communities with competitive federal funding for safety action plans and demonstration projects. More than 75 percent of the country is covered by a SS4A safety plan; five more years of funding will ensure many more communities can turn their safety vision into a reality.
Protects the 10 percent Transportation Alternatives program (TAP) set aside (the main source of formula funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure) within the Surface Transportation Block Grant program. Retains a requirement that states invest a significant portion of TAP funds based on population, ensuring small and under-served communities maintain access to these dollars.
Allows local communities to use Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) dollars as the local match for TAP. This provision, which comes from the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act, will help
Safe Integration of Autonomous Commercial Motor Vehicles
The BUILD America 250 Act creates the nation’s first-ever regulatory framework for autonomous commercial motor vehicles,harnessing the benefits of innovation without sacrificing safety, jobs, or accountability on our roads.
This legislation directs the Secretary to establish a performance-based safety standard that manufacturers and operators of commercial vehicles equipped with automated driving systems (ADS) must meet in order to operate in interstate commerce.
To ensure this standard is nuanced, rigorous and pro-safety, the bill convenes a broad panel of more than 13 critical stakeholders––including safety organizations, labor unions, industry groups and academic experts––to set the safety standard’s requirements and adapt current Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations, ensuring ADS-equipped commercial vehicles are subject to the same safety and performance standards as any other commercial vehicle.
Taken together, this framework is built on three fundamental pillars: Safety, Qualified, and Robust Work Force, and Accountability.
Supporting Local Communities
The BUILD America 250 Act provides nearly$83 billion over five years in Highway Trust Fund highway and multimodal funding to local communities. The bill continues several competitive grant programs for local governments to directly apply for funds; provides Metropolitan Planning organizations with a path to become direct recipients of federal planning funds; and improves the flow of funds to communities of all sizes.
Garamendi represents California’s 8th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives which includes a majority of Solano County and portions of Contra Costa County including portions of Antioch.
Includes not filling 12 sworn police officer vacancies until FY27-28, assistant city manager position, keeping Acting CM until end of June 2027
Will conduct performance evaluations of new city attorney, manager who is currently on paid leave
By Allen D. Payton
During a Special Closed Session Meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, the Antioch City Council will conduct performance evaluations of both the new City Attorney Lori Asuncion, as well as City Manager Bessie Scott, who has been on paid leave since May 6th. The session will begin at 4:00 p.m. That will be followed by another Special Meeting Study Session on the 2026-27 Budget, as well as the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program for 2026-31 at 5:00 p.m. The regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. when the city attorney will report out any actions taken during Closed Session.
Performance Evaluations
Asuncion was hired in February and started in her new position on March 2nd. So, the session labeled “1) Public Employee Performance Evaluation…City Attorney” will most likely be the Council’s opportunity to discuss with Asuncion the goals and objectives they want and expect her to accomplish in order to provide her with an annual evaluation next year.
During Closed Session of a special council meeting on Tuesday afternoon, May 5, the City Council, on a 4-0-1 vote, with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting to abstain, placed Scott “on leave of absence effective Wednesday, May 6, 2026. Compensation will continue without disruption,” Asuncion announced.
Source: City of Antioch
Budget Study Session, Staff Answers Councilmembers’ Questions
During the Special Meeting Study Session on the 2026-27 Budget Development, staff will provide answers to questions from the City Council posed during their special meeting on May 13th. Plus, the Council will discuss $3,136,398 in additional cuts for a total of $10,485,141 in budget cuts.
According to the staff report, “On May 13, 2026, City Council was provided with the latest budget projections and vacancy updates. As a result of that discussion, and further meetings with the Police Department, some reductions and additional vacancy savings have been built into the Fiscal year 2026-27 draft budget.
There were several follow-up requests from that meeting as well, addressed below are those we are able to provide information for in time for this meeting.
1. Are facility roof replacements included in the FY27 draft budget? No. Estimated unfunded cost by facility are:
a. Antioch Community Center – $540,000
b. Police Department – $1,350,000
c. Maintenance Service Center – $490,000 (would be FY28)
d. City Hall – $345,000 (would be FY28)
2. When does the parks maintenance contract expire? 6130126
3. Can the APOC budget of $75,000 be reduced? There is no training requirement or budget required for APOC in the settlement agreement. Upon review of training the committee could potentially attend, this budget has been reduced to $50,000 in FY26 & FY27.
4. What is the breakdown of current and prior fiscal year “Business Expense” in the City Manager’s budget? See table below.
Source: City of Antioch
5. Why was “Business Expense” in non-departmental so much higher last year than current year? Bad debt write off for uncollectible receivables was $378,212 last year. As part of required accounting rules, the City has to write off to an allowance, a certain percentage of aged receivables. Current year budget is only $50,000.
6. What is the breakdown of the Youth Network Services contracts in FY27? Refer to Attachment B.
7. For the Public Safety & Community Resources (PSCR) Housing and Homelessness HomeKey+ FY26 budget, can CDBG be used for the building acquisition? This is the intent, however, the proposal process is being reviewed against HUD guidelines to make sure it meets requirements. At this point, the building acquisition would not happen by 6/30/26 and the $400,000 in the FY26 budget has been removed.
8. For the HomeKey+ project, when would the $1.2M annual commitment start? It would start after the building is purchased, operationalized and residents are being served. As the CDBG commitment is not confirmed, the $1.2M remains in the FY27 draft, which would represent potential building purchase ($750K) and start of annual subsidy ($450K) until the City has further information.
9. For the PCSR Housing and Homelessness Homeless Services budget, what is the $360,000 split for safe parking and resource fairs, and doesn’t CDBG cover safe parking? CDBG and PLHA do provide support for safe parking, however, the funding does not fully cover the annual program operating costs and thus additional support is necessary to sustain the program. Refer to Attachment B for contract detail.
In addition, the City staff report provides a list of additional cuts proposed during the May 13th meeting. They include not filling 12 sworn police officer vacancies previously added to the budget.
Proposed Additional Cuts Include Not Filling 12 Sworn Police Officer Vacancies Until FY 2028
According to the staff report for the item, “Of note, on April 21st, Council consensus was to increase Police Sworn staffing to 117 from 105 in FY27, an addition of 12 Police Officer positions. $631,464 was included in the FY27 draft budget as presented on May 13th, representing the cost of 12 Police Trainees attending the academy for the latter 6 months of the fiscal year. Based on current Police recruitment status and Police Trainees in the pipeline for the academy, the Police Chief has stated that there is no feasible way to get an additional 12 Police Trainees in any academy during FY27 and the soonest they would be able to have academy slots is early in FY28. Thus, the $631,464 has been removed from the FY27 budget. FY28 projections include the cost of the 12 additional trainees for 6 months, recognizing the savings between the cost of 12 full-time Officers during that 6-month period.”
Source: City of Antioch
Also Includes No Assistant City Manager, Human Resources Manager, Permanent City Manager Until FY 2028
According to the proposed additional cuts list, the Assistant City Manager position would remain vacant, as would the position of Human Resources Manager, since Ana Cortez was temporarily promoted from that role to Acting City Manager. Finally, the proposal would leave her in the new position until at least the end of June 2027.
The staff report reads, “In addition, the Acting City Manager evaluated the Human Resources Manager vacancy and proposes (as mentioned during the budget session on the 13th) to underfill the Manager position with a promotional Human Resources Analyst and then freeze the Human Resource Specialist spot vacated as a result of the promotion during FY27. FY28 projections include re-establishment of the Manager position.”
City Will Still Face Deficits This Year and Next
With the proposed cuts of $10.5 million, according to the Proposed General Fund Budget Summary for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year, the City will still face a $6,643,141 deficit and $15,793,099 for FY 2027-28. With $5 million annual transfers from the Budget Stabilization Fund, that leaves a $1.64 million deficit for 2026-27 and $10.8 million for FY27-28. Those amounts can be reduced by another $500,000 each year if Litigation Reserve funds are applied. The proposed budgets assume projected Community and Economic Development fee revenue increases of $1.796M in both FY27 and FY28.
The staff report concludes, “Department meetings will continue over the next couple of weeks to further drill down into the budget for any additional reductions that can be made, and a final presentation of the draft budget will be made on June 9th to provide Council one last review of the draft budget for final direction before the budget is presented for adoption on June 23, 2026.”
The beginning of the Closed Session as well as the Budget Study Session and regular meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown and are broadcast live on Comcast Channel 24, AT&T U-verse Channel 99, and livestreamed online on the City’s website.
