Changes only one of eight requested conditions

By Allen D. Payton

During their regular meeting on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, the Antioch City Council on four 5-0 votes approved the latest new home development project in the Sand Creek area, after almost 31 years of planning. The 294-unit Albers Ranch project, which will include a future commercial area and senior care facility on Deer Valley Road received overwhelming support from the community. Many of the members of the public spoke in favor of the project due to the senior care facility and many asked the council to waive the eight conditions of approval requested by the developer, Lucia Albers. But the council only included one exemption, for the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road on her property, off of Deer Valley Road.

Albers Ranch Project Approved 5-0 with One
Following the Proclamations under Item 1 on the meeting agenda, District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked the council to move up the public hearing on the Albers Ranch new home development project under agenda Item 5.

“Lucia Albers has been waiting 31 years,” he said. “We have about 20 people in the audience who have to get up early in the morning.”

The council approved moving up the item to be discussed before Item 2, Announcements of Civic and Community Events and the remainder of the agenda.

Former Antioch Mayor and BART Board Director, Joel Keller, Albers’ consultant on the project, spoke on her behalf. He read a letter by Albers outlining all the problems she’s faced through the years, as previously reported.

All But One Public Comment in Support
The first resident to speak was local businessman Jim Lanter saying, “I’ve never got involved in projects. This one kind of struck my nerve because of the assistant living portion. I think every project going forward in Antioch needs a component for assisted living because we don’t have the space. There aren’t the rooms. It will do one thing. It will provide more and provide competition which will drive down costs.”

“I’m kind of concerned about the future date. I’m hoping we can peg that. We’d love to continue to live in Antioch,” he added.

Ray Devlin, a commercial real estate agent with Collier’s said, “Lucia Albers has hired me to sell her project. It’s an absolutely beautiful project…beautiful property because of the hillsides. With the hillsides come costs. The conditions of approval will be handed off to our hopeful, homebuilder. Those costs will be handed off to the 294 folks who will be buying the homes, there. As Joel said, many of the conditions of approval add needless costs to the project.”

Eric Haynes, a business representative with Sheetmetal Workers #104, said he was, “representing hundreds of Antioch residents…speaking as an advocate for high-quality union construction. I’m here asking you to support Albers Ranch. It’s a multiple generational project…it allows seniors to stay in the neighborhood as they age.”

“Hundreds of area residents will be employed for the construction. Many will be apprentices…meaning more training for youth,” he added. “I would also ask for the conditions of approval to be waived. Please approve this.”

Former Antioch Mayor Pro Tem, Councilman, and local investment advisor, Manny Soliz, Jr. spoke next saying, “I’ve been a friend of Mrs. Albers and her late husband for many years. This project has been on the books for 30 years. Could you imagine if you wanted to put in a new driveway or patio at your house, you paid your fees and then a list of things was added that you had to check off? That’s a long time, 30 years. I think the additional conditions for the project should be waived. Anything added to the project will make it more expensive to build on that land.”

“Those units are going to be more expensive and artificially so,” he continued. “I’m looking at it more fundamentally. I think any of us who buy a house or buy a piece of property comes with the fundamental right to develop it and make a profit. So, I think any additional costs added to the project adds to her boat, her canoe and her canoe is getting lower and lower into the water.”

“Do they add anything of value to the project? If they don’t then don’t include them,” Soliz stated.

Long-time resident Richard Solack said, “It would be great if we could work on this project. I travel half my workday on the road. Most of my time is spent away from home. Being able to build and work in my home city…would be amazing. Just having that opportunity would be great. So, I recommend approving this project.”

Dale Paris spoke next saying, “I’ve been a life-long resident of Antioch. I’ve been a 50-year construction worker. My father, my brother and I could have worked on this project. But that’s no longer possible. As it stands, I will be able to work on this project with my son and my grandson. It’s been long enough.”

“I’ve had maybe five years total inside the city of Antioch,” he added. “Please, get this through.”

Trustee Mary Rocha spoke next saying, “This is history. Joel Keller, Don Freitas, Manny Soliz. We’ve seen this project for the past 30 years. It seems all these developers have gone on through the process. But for some reason Mrs. Albers is still here. I hope you go forward with this project.”

Johnny Impenko said, “I’m in support of the Albers project. It would be good to work closer to home, to do some coaching and be involved in the community.”

Julian Venetieri, a member of a local union, said, “There are about 15 members of electricians and a few apprentices. We really thank the Albers family for including these workforce development aspects in their project.”

“There’s something different when you have the opportunity to build a project in your own community,” he stated. “They taks a strong sense of pride with this.”

Former Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock spoke next saying, “It hasn’t been 30 years for me. In the last 10 years I’ve become good friends with Lucia and her husband Monte. This project has been near and dear to the council. This is a very good project. It’s intergenerational. Where else in the city of Antioch can you live.”

“We need more projects like this,” she continued. “We’re getting older. We need places we can go live with our families. There’s 49 acres of open space on this project. I don’t know of any other project that has that much open space. Three acres of parks. Tons of trails. This is just something that’s really, really good for Antioch.”

“I know council should support this. I have faith and trust in all of you to do the right things on those,” Ogorchock concluded.

Lucia Albers spoke next saying, “As you know, working with attorneys, consultants, engineers, project managers, all the money I made with the other project is gone.” She went on to reiterate what Keller read earlier and was previously reported. “I had to mortgage my ranch to have to pay for it. So, right now I’m not going to make any money when I sell it. I have over 200 conditions of approval…I am appealing the ones developers have brought to my attention. If you want to see the project like my neighbors want to and I want to, please waive the eight conditions of the 200 conditions so I am able to find a buyer for this project. Right now, I don’t have one. Just the EVA road costs $3 million.”

“They expect me to help pay for a road that was in the General Plan 30 years ago that’s supposed to go all the way to Balfour Road. But it may never go to Balfour Road,” she continued. She was referring to Hillcrest Avenue.

“My sewer, my utilities, everything is coming from Hillcrest. Why should I have to pay for improvements to Sand Creek Road?” Albers asked.

“The park fees are over $400,000. However, I am providing parks, open space and trails,” she added before running out of time limited to five minutes per public speaker.

Resident Velma Wilson spoke next saying, “I do approve this project. But I would also like to hear intentionalities…what are we going to do with our young people…in supporting our schools? Building our schools in real time. Make sure we’re doing everything we can for our students. We need to make sure we’re bringing communities like this where our young people can come to the forefront. Also, our seniors. So, please, let’s not belabor this any longer and approve this project.”

Mary Chapman and Nora VonUbin from An Elderly Wish Foundation spoke next. Champman said, “We’re obviously interested that this is going to be for seniors. This is so wonderful that you have the older people mixed with the younger people.”

“Thank you for the consideration…for the openness,” VonUbin said. “We hope to see this come to fulfillment.”

Debbie Toth, president of Choice in Aging said, “I’m here in support of the project for a myriad of reasons….the 8-80 concept because it’s good for 8-year-olds to 80-year-olds. We seem to cut grandpa and grandma out. This project is visionary. It’s beautiful. It will be an absolute Disneyland in Antioch.”

“Can we do this while Mrs. Albers is still alive? I think 30 years is time served. Wipe those conditions,” she added.

A member of the Board of Directors of Choice in aging who said she is a gerontologist spoke next saying, “This is an amazingly smart project. One of the biggest fears of my clients is aging out of their homes and their communities. It’s a shame. I’m listening here that this has been a 31-year process. As diverse a city as Antioch is, we need to move forward with this project.”

According to City Clerk Melissa Rhodes, 22 more residents who submitted comments but did not wish to speak were in support of the project.

Local affordable housing advocate Andrew Becker was the only person to speak against the project. He said, “I didn’t want to speak as an opponent on the project…but there are some issues. Developers do not set prices on homes. Builders do. Developers create communities. This isn’t putting in a driveway. It’s 300 homes. That’s thousands of individuals. What frustrates me is affordability is spoken a lot, here. What drives the price? The developer may come in and say, ‘this is what it costs to build. Now, how much can we get out of this community. Affordability is what you need in this community.’”

“To have the developer come up and say we shouldn’t be responsible for improving the road that comes up to my property,” he continued. “I do support housing but there has to be an affordability component.”

However, Albers was speaking about the costs of the Emergency Vehicle Access road and helping pay for Hillcrest Avenue beyond her and the neighboring projects.

Council Discussion
During city council discussion of the item, Freitas spoke first saying, “This is a very difficult request to make at the last minute to make eight changes. I am the last person who wants to delay this project. But the requests being made may sound doable. But there’s another side. I’ve spent two hours speaking with Joel Keller and Lucia Albers and said I could not support waiving the conditions.”

“We love Lucia and Monte Albers. But fair is fair,” he continued. “I want to support this project. But I will not vote for the eight exemptions. We have worked with staff for the last 31 years and have had these same exemptions. I think this project should be approved but these exemptions should not.”

However, that’s incorrect. The condition that Albers help pay for improvements to Sand Creek weren’t included until 2019 during the preliminary review of her project by the council.

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson spoke next saying, “Ms. Lucia, I think I’ve known you longer than I’ve been on this council. I’m in support of the workforce development piece. You know I think what Mrs. Albers is asking for appeals to me. I think her requests are reasonable.”

“Why should she have to pay for Sand Creek Road when her access is Hillcrest. I would approve this project?” she asked

“I think you’re the only female developer since I’ve been on this council who’s come before us,” Wilson added. “Thank you for hanging in there. I’d like to see this project go through and move my mother up there.”

“I think we all know Lucia Albers and her family,” District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said. “I’m in favor of supporting the project. I have some concerns and questions about the conditions of the project. I’m not sure how we can mitigate that. I think we should move forward with an approval, tonight. But I think our staff should look at that. These are issues that have come to us in the past few days. I don’t want to hold up this project. It seems to me, some of the issues can be met. I’m not sure all of them can.”

Freitas then asked, “If the council sees fit to approve the project as is, can we come back and visit the issues. There’s a master plan for transportation. Is that legally possible?”

“If you entitle the project tonight, then you have a vested project for a developer with rights,” Acting City Attorney Derek Cole said. “So, the answer is, ‘yes’. If we grant some of these conditions, then we have to come up with the money for Aviano. That becomes an obligation of the General Fund. You as a City may end up having to pick up that price.”

“These conditions that we’re requiring are standard…of developers in this City and Contra Costa County,” he continued. “If we do this for this project what does that say for future projects?”

Bernal asked about the curb and gutter on the EVA access road, “Is there a way to eliminate that?”

“That condition of approval was what was shown on the cross-section. So, we didn’t ask them to do it,” a City staff member responded. “But because of the hillside it needs to be done.”

Kevin Van Katwyk, senior civil engineer with Interwest, said, “The applicant proposed the curb and gutter. The EVA is pretty risky, it goes up a hill that’s steep. You might want to control it and you do that with curb and gutter at least on one side.”

“Can you do a concrete V-ditch?” Bernal, a former Antioch City Engineer asked.

“That’s one way to deal with it,” he said.

Jason Vogan of engineering firm Carlson Barbee and Gibson then said, “There are multiple ways to accommodate the drainage. This is a private improvement. So, it will be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association to maintain this.”

“This is the only one, tonight that I think, can be addressed,” Bernal stated.

“Yes. We, as staff can work with the developer,” said Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting.

“I think that would be a good compromise,” Bernal stated.

“Can we approve this tonight, with this one exemption?” Freitas asked.

“Yes,” Bernal said. Freitas then made a motion to approve, and Rocha seconded it.

“The motion was adopted,” said City Clerk Melissa Rhodes, but did not announce the vote but then announced a recess at 9:25 p.m. However, the council didn’t approve each of the four items on the agenda for the project.

At 9:40 p.m. Bernal called the meeting back to order and asked for direction from the acting city attorney.

“I’ll shake off the rust here. I think we need a vote for each of the four items,” Cole said. “I know there was some discussion on the EVA. That can be addressed in the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. It gives authority to staff to work with the developer on a cross section. I apologize for not catching this before we broke and doing a mass, one motion.”

“I apologize, also,” Bernal said.

The council then approved each of the four items on 5-0 votes for the Albers Ranch project including, adopting a resolution certifying the Albers Ranch Project Environmental Impact Report; adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program; adopting a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to amend the City of Antioch General Plan (GP-19-04); introducing and waiving the first reading of the ordinance rezoning the property to Hillside Planned Development (HPD); and adopt a resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Master Development Plan and a Resource Management Plan, and to direct staff to work with the applicant to work on the EVA.

“Congratulations, Ms. Albers,” Bernal stated.

After the meeting Albers said, “I want to thank everyone from the community for all the support they gave me, who came to the hearing and those who spoke in favor of the project. It was almost unanimous.”

“I don’t feel that I have to improve a road that has no nexus to my project,” she continued. “I would have preferred to have access to Sand Creek Road. It would have been much cheaper than connecting to Hillcrest. But the County Flood Control eminent domained my land and built the berm, blocking the road and utilities between Sand Creek Road and my property. When the City made the agreement about funding the road with Aviano (the development north of Sand Creek Road) I didn’t know about it. By that time, I no longer had access.”

“While I appreciate the council’s approval, and their consideration of working with City staff on lower cost options for the EVA, the remaining conditions are very costly, so unnecessary and make it harder to market the project, decreasing my ability to get a buyer,” Albers added. “Especially, the costs to reimburse Aviano.”

“We look forward to working with City staff to work things out on the EVA,” she concluded.

While the Tentative Map was approved, one thing that wasn’t finalized was a Development Agreement that will extend the approval of the project for up to 10 years, Keller explained later.

“We’ll continue to work with the City on the EVA and on the Development Agreement,” he added.

Entry deadline: Feb. 18

Presented by Grace Bible Fellowship of Antioch and Grace Arms

The Black History Month Contest is open to all grade school students in Contra Costa County school districts. Two winners will be selected from each category. The contest categories are Essay, Art and Entrepreneurial. Students may only enter one submission per category. Winners will receive a scholarship check ($100-$500) after graduating from high school and going to college.

Eligibility: Each contestant must be a student in the Contra Costa County School District.

Entry dates: All entries must be submitted to Anthony Randolph by Tuesday, February 18, 2025.

Email: webmaster@gbfofantioch.org or delivered to Grace Bible Fellowship Church at 3415 Oakley Road in Antioch. Phone (925) 522-2017.

Following years of delays, unfair treatment by City, County staff

Also, hiring firm for grant writing and legislative advocacy;
Flying Pan-African Flag at City Hall during Black History Month in February;
Rescinding policy for hiring outside legal counsel; and
Funds for Marchetti Park playground replacement.
Will receive Transit-Oriented Communities Policy presentation

By Allen D. Payton

During their next regular meeting tonight, Tuesday, January 28, 2025, the Antioch City Council will consider approving the Albers Ranch Project, more than 30 years after the local, female immigrant developer purchased the land.

They will begin with a Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. to discuss three real estate matters, including leasing space at city owned properties followed by the regular open session at 7:00 p.m.

Albers Ranch New Home Development
On almost 100 acres, the 47.4 acre-project will include the development of 294 non-age restricted single family units, future development of an assisted living facility and neighborhood commercial development, upon issuance of a future Conditional Use Permit, and leave the remaining 49.1 acres of the site as open space. It’s a project that so far no one in the Antioch or environmental communities has opposed. Two local unions spoke in favor of the project during the Nov. 20, 2024 Planning Commission hearing on the project.

Due to the restrictions for the design of the project, including hillside grading, Albers says she was only able to include less than 300 units. However, other developers were able to grade their land and design their projects with fewer restrictions, maximizing the use of their property for more homes per acre.

At that meeting, local developer Lucia Albers, an immigrant from Guatemala, shared her frustrations about the delays through the years from and unequal treatment by City and County staff. (See 18:25 mark of video) That included requiring her to pay for a different biologist than was used by most of the other developers in the Sand Creek area, whose report claimed she had over 10 acres of wetlands on her property and claiming a species that doesn’t exist, making the project unaffordable to build.

The report also required Albers purchase five acres for each acre she planned to develop for mitigation. As a result, the buyers interested in her property at that time withdrew their interest. Now, the requirement is for the purchase for two acres of habitat and wetlands for each acre developed, as required of all the other developments.

“It made my land worthless and delayed the project for five more years,” she stated.

Albers then hired the same biologist as the other developers, whose study showed there are only 2,000 square feet of wetlands, a claim backed up by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

In addition, Contra Costa County Flood Control forced Albers to change the access road to the project. It was supposed to be directly connected to Sand Creek Road at Rigolato Drive where a four-way signalized intersection is located. While the conditions of approval require her to still help pay for the signals, there, the project must now connect off of Hillcrest Avenue through the neighboring Creekside Vineyards housing development. That’s due to Flood Control eminent domaining Albers’ land and building a berm, where the original access road was to be built, for a detention basin north of the property.

Flood Control low-balled the offer for her land at about 10 cents on the dollar for what Albers paid forcing her to take them to court. The settlement paid her a fairer price per acre and required Flood Control to cooperate with her on the access road. But they went ahead and built the berm blocking her access road.

Yet, Albers is required to pay for both the signalized intersection which will not benefit her project as well as a portion of the cost of the Hillcrest Avenue extension south of Sand Creek Road which will provide access to her project.

The over 200 conditions of approval also require her to pay for the sewer line from Sand Creek Road. But the Planning Commission waived that if her project doesn’t use it. The commissioners also removed the requirement for the project to include curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the Emergency Vehicle Access road off of Deer Valley Road, just requiring her to provide it on one side. Yet, Albers argues that it will cost over $1 million and is not necessary because it will be maintained by the CCR’s of the homeowners’ association for the project, not the City. “And it may never be used,” she added.

The Planning Commission, with one vacancy and one member absent, voted 5-0 to approve the project with the various conditions. Some of them are still too expensive, reducing the value of her land, Albers claims. She will be asking for the council members to remove them from the conditions of the project before voting to approve.

Albers, who purchased the property in 1994 and whose husband Monte passed away last year, previously exclaimed to this reporter, “We started this when I was a young woman! Finally, I’ll have a chance to see it approved. We’ve had multiple interested buyers in the past, but the delays and increased costs proposed by City staff caused them to pull back their offers.”

Albers was referring to the fact that she is not the home builder to which the land will be sold, once she can again find another who will purchase it.

After 30 years, City staff is willing to give Albers two five-year extensions to her development agreement, which she views as positive. Because without them the builder who buys her land would have to start construction within two years. However, City staff want to charge her $630,000. Yet, she claims none of the development agreements for the neighboring projects east of Deer Valley Road were required to pay monetary compensation to the city for their development agreements, which allow for extensions.

Even after the approvals, when she sells the land, Albers says she will only be able to recuperate all the costs that were put into it.

Transit-Oriented Communities Policy Presentation
At the beginning of the regular meeting, the city council will be given a presentation on Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). TOCs feature housing and business development that is near to transportation, putting public transit in reach for more people and improving the quality of life in the Bay Area.

It’s part of the Advance Plan Bay Area 2050 implementation which has Four Goals:
• Increase affordable housing supply in transit areas;
• Increase density for commercial office development;
• Prioritize transit and active transportation near stations; and
• Create equitable transit-oriented communities.

The TOC Policy was adopted by the MTC Board in September 2022 and applies to areas within a half-mile of Regional Rail transit stops and stations, such as BART stations, as is located in Antioch and ferries, as planned for the City’s waterfront.

Approving the policy to fulfill the goals expands eligibility for some MTC discretionary funding for the City and opens consideration for future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding revisions and investments, the presentation explains. So far, across the three OBAG rounds, Antioch has received $4,946,000 in funds. Applications for OBAG Round 4 were due in November and Antioch requested a total of $850,000.

In order to comply, the City of Antioch must do the following:
• Density – Increasing residential and commercial densities around station areas;
• Housing – Adopting housing policies from the 3Ps framework (production, preservation and protection);
• Parking – Adjusting minimum and maximum parking ratios as well as transportation demand management policies; and
• Transit Station Access & Circulation – Planning for station access that includes active transportation uses and mobility hub infrastructure.

According to the MTC, Mobility Hubs offer access to many different ways of getting around. MTC coordinates, funds and provides technical assistance for new Mobility Hubs to support first and last mile connections through access to multiple travel options.

Mobility hubs are places in a community that bring together public transit, bike share, car share and other ways for people to get where they want to go without a private vehicle.

Built around frequent and high-capacity transit, mobility hubs offer a safe, comfortable, convenient and accessible space to seamlessly transfer from one type of transportation to another.

Mobility hubs can be located where transit services already come together, or in communities and locations where transportation is needed the most. MTC has prioritized pilot investments for regionally significant mobility hubs.

Once awarded, City Council must adopt a Resolution of Local Support to receive the grant funds and develop a work plan to:
▪ Update the Hillcrest Station Area Specific Plan to comply with the TOC policies
▪ Identify and plan to adopt feasible affordable housing policies
▪ Eliminate parking minimums and adopt parking maximums
▪ Complete any outstanding station access and circulation requirements

Consent Calendar
Under the Consent Calendar, the council will consider amending the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement and Operating Budget in the amount of $325,000 from the Park-In-Lieu Fund for the playground replacement purchase at Marchetti Park.

Flying Pan-African Flag for Black History Month
The council will also consider under the Consent Calendar voting on flying the Pan-African Flag at City Hall throughout the month of February 2025 in recognition of Black History Month in the City of Antioch.

Hiring Grant Writing and Legislative Advocacy Firm
Also, under the Consent Calendar, the council will vote on hiring Townsend Public Affairs for $12,500 per month in an Amount Not to Exceed $62,500 for a term ending June 30, 2025, for Grant Writing & Management and Legislative Advocacy Services. In addition, in the event both parties agree to extend the services, the additional services would be provided through June 30, 2027, and up to $300,000, and will be included for consideration in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

Rescinding Policy for Hiring Outside Legal Counsel
Under agenda Item 8, the council will consider rescinding the 2021 council resolution which consolidated the hiring of all outside legal counsel in the City Attorneys Office. According to the city staff report for the item, “The rescission of Resolution No. 2021/26 will result in a decentralized approach to the budgeting and payment of legal services. Under the current policy, all legal service costs are managed within the City Attorney’s Office General Fund budget. Rescinding the resolution will shift the responsibility for budgeting, processing, and evaluating legal services invoices to individual departments.” In addition, “By rescinding this resolution, the City will no longer have a formal policy governing the selection, approval and payment process for legal services beyond the general provisions of the Antioch Municipal Code.”

Meeting Details
The council meeting will be held in the Council Chambers inside City Hall at 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The meeting can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website at https://www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings/live/ or on Comcast Cable channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99. See the entire meeting agenda at www.antiochca.gov/fc/government/agendas/CityCouncil/2025/agendas/012825/012825.pdf.

Discusses final 6 months of 2-year budget ending this June

Agrees to eliminate council slush funds of $20K each

Without new source of funding Crisis Response Team to end Oct. 31

By Allen D. Payton

Without any public comments, Antioch City Finance Director Dawn Merchant delved right into her report to the Antioch City Council during their meeting on the budget study session held Monday, January 27, 2025. She called it, “A high-level overview for closing the books for 2024-25.” The council learned Opportunity Village, referred to as the homeless hotel on E. 18th Street will run out of funds to operate as of April 30th, as will the City’s crisis response team as of Oct. 31st and chose to eliminate the $20,000 per member slush fund the previous council majority approved.

“The numbers presented this evening are subject to change,” she added. “Department heads are already developing their budgets for Fiscal Years 2025-27” two-year budget which begins July 1, 2025.

It was the first meeting of the entire five-member council since the oath of office meeting on Dec. 10th.

Following her presentation, which was written in the staff report for the agenda, the council asked a variety of questions. Mayor Ron Bernal chose to review the staff report page by page.

Reserve Funds, Make Budget Easier to Understand

“This is a preview of future attractions, so to speak,” District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said. He then asked about the City’s two reserve funds saying “Are they the same? Why aren’t they combined?”

“Because when this was established in 2018, we had an accumulation of fund balance from staff vacancies. City Council wanted to set aside the funds in a separate funds so it didn’t appear we had all these funds to spend on ongoing expenditures…and so we would have a safety net,” Merchant said.

“The public and members of the council get very confused with the transfers-in and transfers-out,” the councilman said. “I think we should combine the reserve funds. I want someone in high school to be able to look at the budget and understand it.”

“I would like to look at possibly establishing a policy on how set-aside funds can be utilized in the future,” Bernal added.

“I agree,” Freitas responded. He also wanted to see a reserve in the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) budget.

“Making this as easy as possible for folks to understand,” Bernal stated about his desires for the budget document.

Investment Funds and Policies

Freitas then asked about the investment policies and “million decreases in building activities. That’s a red flag to me.”

“The County will have to re-examine the Urban Limit Line,” he continued. “There might be an interest in the County in limiting more growth in the cities. That could have a dramatic impact.”

“If we had all those vacant positions filled, would we have any money in the budget?” Freitas then asked. Merchant laughed. “There’s a lot of income there. City Council needs to take a realistic view…not have positions approved that have not been filled for two or three years.”

“We’re looking at all of that…the length they’ve been vacant and why,” Merchant responded.

“On that note with the vacancies what’s the timeline to fill those vacancies? One year or two years?” asked District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha.

“Instead of guessing we can get those actuals,” Merchant said. “The department heads are looking at that and preparing it. So, we can’t answer that, tonight.”

Asking about the investment funds, District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked if the investments can be changed mid-year.

“City investments are governed by the government code. Funds are supposed to be safe guarded,” Merchant stated. “The City is on a two-to-three-year benchmark. If we have excess funds…we will transfer those funds to the custodian…then to PFM” who handles the City’s investments.”

“We can go out to another investment firm, but they would be governed by the same code,” Merchant responded.

“Over a 20-year term? I’ll be making a recommendation,” Freitas said.

“It seems like our investments went from $1.1 to $2.7 million last year,” Bernal pointed out.

“The interest rates were really high for a while,” Merchant stated.

“It would probably be good to come back with a single study and go over all of how that works,” Bernal said.

Freitas suggested top staff have a meeting on a quarterly basis, to review the City’s investments.

Request Corrected Budget Figures

“We have a $95 million base not a $100 million base when we take out all the ARPA money,” Bernal stated.

“When the budget comes back and we’re going into ’26 an ’27 the budget will show what we’re expecting then…and have the one-time funds broken out,” Merchant explained.

“I think what we’re talking about is transparency, showing $95 million instead of $100 million,” Rocha stated.

Transfers In

Freitas asked about the 10% for Transfers In saying, “Is that normal?”

“It was a little bit higher in 2024-25 because of the ARPA funds and the Bicycle Garden,” Merchant shared.

Sales Tax Versus Property Tax Amounts

“I think it would be interesting…to understand the various categories of sales tax,” Freitas said. “It’s a lump sum and it doesn’t give us the ability to make any policy decisions going forward.”

“If property taxes are the largest revenue, what are we doing as a City to improve property values?” he asked.

However, Sales Tax including the City’s 1% sales tax generates 49% of taxes to the General Fund, while Property Tax generates 36% of taxes.

Wilson spoke of the Transient Occupation Tax, the 10% tax on hotel and motel bookings. “Not all our operators pay when they’re supposed to,” she stated. “I think that’s something council should take a serious look at.”

Freitas asked about when Measure W’s one-cent sales tax ends. “20 years…in 2037,” Merchant said.

“It was going to be 80-10-10 but we had to fight to get 20 for youth,” Wilson said about the split of the use of revenue from Measure W.

“Under investment income and rentals…do you have an idea what that’s going to look like over the next several years,” Bernal asked.

“I’m going to look at that,” Merchant responded.

Legal Costs Questioned

Referring to the $1.3M increase in outside legal costs for several on-going litigations mentioned in the staff report, Freitas requested, “I’d like to know how much we’ve spent last year and this year on outside legal counsel and per firm.”

City Hall & Marina Parking Lots

Regarding City Hall, “is the parking lot sinking and are the trees being removed?” Freitas asked. “If there’s a problem with the parking lot, which brings in the issue of the marina parking lot.”

“Yes, the marina parking lot does move,” Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting said. “It’s because of the underlying issue of the Bay mud. We try to eliminate the ponding as much as possible.”

“The eucalyptus trees are being removed. We are installing some EV charging stations,” he added. “It’s not moving like an earthquake. It’s moving slowly.”

“If there was an earthquake, I guess it’s called liquefaction. What would be the worst-case scenario?” Freitas asked.

“There’d be no liquefaction there, as the parking lot is on bay mud,” Buenting responded.

Lone Tree Golf Course Funds

Regarding questions on the funds for the Lone Tree Golf Course, Merchant said, “The golf course agreement that’s been in place for several years, now, that they pay us about $20,000 per year and they pay for the rest.”

Wilson said, “Mr. Mayor I want to remind you that you and I sit on the golf course committee.”

On the Transfer Out Bernal said, “these seem to be increasing each year.”

Unfunded Liabilities

About “unfunded liabilities of $166 million that seems like a lot of money” the mayor stated.

“So, the total costs that we’re paying toward this black hole is about $20 million per year?” he asked. “It’s more than 20% of our revenues. So, it’s a huge cost to the citizens of Antioch.”

“That’s just in the General Fund. There’s also an amount in the Water Fund,” Merchant stated. “They take our overall liability and subtract the value of assets”

“This is $167 million exposure…I think we need to come back and revisit this. It’s like a credit card and only paying interest,” Freitas stated.

“We are paying part of the unfunded liability,” Merchant said.

“I think we should be paying it,” Freitas responded.

“Then you’d have to decide what you don’t want to pay for in the General Fund,” Merchant responded.

Crisis Response Team May End Oct. 31

“Under ARPA…we spent $5.7 million…for the crisis response team,” Freitas pointed out. “This was ARPA money…one-time money. Has there been any discussion if this is going to continue how we’re going to come up with $6 millon?”

“No. Not at the council level,” Merchant said.

“That’s not true. It has always been stated it won’t be covered by the General Fund because it’s not sustainable,” District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker stated. “That’s why we need to start looking at state and federal funds.”

“As for the…crisis response team and Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program, there are grant funds out there…to keep funding those programs,” she added.

“So, by Oct. 31…is the crisis response team ending?” Freitas asked.

“In our discussions with the county are you looking at a strategy…and look at collaborating with the County and our neighboring cities?” Rocha asked.

“This has helped…reduce police calls for service,” Torres-Walker argued.

“I think having a crisis response team is good,” Freitas stated. “It’s the ability to finance it.”

“Thank you for acknowledging the work that does need to happen,” said Public Safety and Community Resources Department Director Tasha Johnson. “There are some possible grant funding opportunities. We do have some funds in our budget for a grant writer.”

“The community response team has done tremendous work in the community,” she continued. “They help with our unhoused residents. We are looking to sustain that with outside funding.”

Opportunity Village Homeless Hotel to Run Out of Funds April 30

“With Opportunity Village to end April 30th, this year…we are working with the County to set up that program. The state funding can only be used for encampment residents. We’ve identified the one of Devpar Court. It’s down in a ravine. You can’t really see it.”

In response to a question from Freitas about the funds and residents at Opportunity Village, the homeless hotel on E. 18th Street, Johnson responded, “For now, the encampment resolution funds will shift the focus to those residents.”

“We have a meeting with Felton to discuss the sustainability of the program,” she added in response to a question about the operator and what the City will do for the residents there.

“So, April 2025, we will no longer be operating Opportunity Village?” Freitas asked.

“Correct,” Johnson responded.

CalVIP Grant funds

Bernal asked her to speak about the CalVIP grant.

“We received approximately $1.8 million to reduce gun violence…in our community,” Johnson stated. “With that grant we were able to identify individuals who perpetrate gun violence. There are currently 13 fellows in the program. We offer all kinds of services to stabilize their lives. The operator is One Day At a Time. This program is roughly $800,000 per year. So, the $1.8 million is for two years.”

“This program is impactful. But we’re looking to grow it…for two years,” she added.

“When we first applied it was a 100% match,” from the City budget. “But this time around there is no match. So, that’s hot off the press,” Johnson.

Freitas asked for more details about the program at a future council meeting.

“A lot of this work is new. I would appreciate the opportunity to present,” she added.

“These are actually three-year cycles,” Torres-Walker shared. “The application was done jointly with the police department. Antioch could have gotten more than $1.8 million. But we need a pilot. This next cohort I’m looking to get more. The City of Richmond has been doing this for 20 years and she got $6 million.”

She also spoke of wanting to “increase the public-private partnership.”

“What I’m looking at are what are the measurable goals…when the presentation comes back,” Freitas requested.

“We’ll be asking for the council to continue the program,” City Manager Bessie Scott.

Council Budget – Agree to Eliminate $20K Slush Fund for Each Member

Under the city council budget, Freitas said, “I’m opposed to each city council member having $20,000.”

“I never spent any of the money anyways,” said Torres-Walker. “I actually raised more money in my district that exceeds this amount annually.”

Both Bernal and Rocha agreed.

“I’d rather see those funds go toward…the needs of our community,” the District 2 Councilman said.

“Each council member should have a meeting in their district. I think its appropriate on the controversial issues, especially,” Freitas said. “I think each council member can come to the council and say, ‘I want to have a meeting in my district’ and request the funds.”

“You can do a community meeting in your district without using any of these funds,” Torres-Walker stated.

“That’s where we disagree,” Freitas responded.

“On the Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program, I’d like to rename that the Antioch Apprenticeship Program or Director Johnson can come up with a catchy name,” Bernal stated.

Freitas asked about a few items in Attachment A, the General Fund Revenue Summary.

Bernal then asked about the programs based on ARPA funds. “That will give us a lot of work to do,” he stated.

Water Park Repair Funds

Wilson asked about the Water Park and the repairs needed there.

“The city council did allocate money for those repairs,” Merchant responded.

Parks & Recreation Department Director Brad Helfenberger shared, “There was an allocation of approximately $1.7 million. We are in the process of allocating that. The biggest project…will be resurfacing two pools and the deck. That will use $1 million.”

Capital Improvement Program Funds

“I know the CIP comes later in the program, but it would be good to bring it sooner, this year,” Bernal stated.

“I think we need to take a very close look at what’s in the CIP and if it’s not going to be built…it gets deleted,” Freitas requested. “I think we should deal with reality than have wish lists.”

Staff Vacancies

Bernal and Rocha then requested more details on the vacant positions and how many the city staff expects to fill and by when.

“If it’s realistic that only 20 to 25 officers and support staff can be hired, I don’t know why we would include in the budget all the vacant positions,” Freitas stated. “I think that will free up some of the money. I don’t think it’s responsible to continue allocating funds when we know realistically, we will never fill those positions in that year.”

“Agreed,” Merchant responded. “We try to do that in the budget.”

“It would be helpful to know how many police officers go out on disability,” Freitas requested.

“I’d like to know and hear about a list of infrastructure projects we can have,” Wilson requested.

Next Budget Workshop

It was agreed that the city council’s next budget session will be held on Tuesday, March 4.

Torres-Walker was concerned about when the meetings would start, “because some of us work full time” she stated.

“With everybody’s schedule, it’s hard to coordinate,” Scott responded.

“That means for the rest of the departments we’re going to have to hustle through the rest of them,” Bernal said about the schedule.

“Thank you for your work tonight and helping us move forward being productive,” he then said to city staff.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Tickets are available on their website www.elderlywish.org or by mail. For more information email info@elderlywish.org.

Dear Editor:

I think a little embarrassment may bring humility. One would hope anyway.

CA has made it too easy to steal without consequences. At the very least, a little shame may deter people from being outed.

The thief would be greatly embarrassed when friends, family, co-workers, children, neighbors, etc. see what they have been doing during their free time.

I’m really concerned that stores are closing and having to add expensive anti-theft measures that have made shopping unenjoyable.

It’s not fun shopping anymore, to me, a 60-year-old person AND when I do shop, it’s sad to see empty storefronts.

I no longer shop at a Mexican Creamery near the closed Macy’s in older Antioch because that shopping area is literally a ghost town. Somersville area. I don’t feel safe.

I hope the Antioch/Brentwood shopping centers along Lone Tree Way, don’t suffer the same fate.
Thank you!

Maggie Ahumada

Antioch

Weekly Stats: Serving with Dedication

By Antioch Police Department

Jan. 21, 2025 – Over the past 7 days, your Police Department has been hard at work:
• 1,524 Calls for Service
• 181 Criminal Cases Investigated
• 29 Arrests Made

Each number reflects the dedication and effort of our officers, dispatchers, and staff working around the clock to protect and serve our community. We’re here for you, always.

Thank you for your trust and support!

For Fiscal Years 2025-27

By Allen D. Payton

On Monday, Jan. 27, the Antioch City Council will hold a special meeting for a Budget Session to discuss development of the Fiscal Year 2025-27 budget. They will hear from the city manager and staff then provide feedback and direction.

According to the City staff report on the item, “The purpose of this discussion is to understand where we are in closing out the current budget cycle for FY25 and does not include policy discussions as we embark on the next two-year budget cycle which will revise the FY25 budget and adopt the FY26 and FY27 budgets. As a kickoff to this budget cycle, a preliminary review of the projected revised FY25 General Fund budget is being provided this evening as well as items to consider as we move forward building the proposed budgets for the next two fiscal years.”

As previously reported last October, the City is facing double-digit deficits for each of the next three fiscal years. According to the General Fund Projections for 2023-2028 presented to the city council on June 11, 2024, the General Fund was projected to run the following deficits: $12,995,259 in FY 2025-26; $13,561,074 in FY 2026-27; and $14,855,649 in FY 2027-28.

The first two are expected to be covered by transfers from the Budget Stabilization Fund, but it will only cover $1,253,902 in the third year of what could be Hernandez-Thorpe’s second term as mayor if he’s re-elected because that Fund will be depleted in FY 2028. That would result in a projected net deficit for the City of $13,601,748 by June 30, 2028, which would be covered by the General Fund reserve leaving it with an Ending Balance of just $17.4 million or 17.06% in reserves versus over 31% and 32% for the previous fiscal years.

The City staff report also shares, “As a refresher for the public and the governing body, the General Fund is the main operating fund of the City and accounts for the majority of essential services provided, other than water. The General Fund is divided into separate cost centers depending on the purpose served which are referred to as departments with sub-groupings of divisions within each department. The departments supported by the General Fund are:
• Legislative & Administrative (City Council, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, City Manager, Economic Development)
• Finance
• Non-departmental (this category is for general revenues to be spent on City services and accounts for expenses not specific to a department or division)
• Public Works (other than water/sewer)
• Police (includes Animal Shelter subsidy)
• Community Development
• Public Safety and Community Resources (other than Community Development Block Grant, Housing Successor and Environmental Services which are accounted for in individual Special Revenue Funds)
• Recreation Services (subsidy to Recreation Fund)

“While there are fees, charges and permits that fund a portion of departments directly within the General Fund, the majority of revenues that the General Fund receives are general purpose and offset the remaining cost of operations not covered by targeted revenues. These general revenues include property taxes, sales taxes, business license taxes and franchise fees.

“A budget should be balanced, meaning that the expenditures in any given fiscal year should not exceed revenues. In 2018, the City established a Budget Stabilization Fund When established, the purpose of this fund was to provide a means of handling unexpected General Fund budget variances, unanticipated projects and/or expenses, and unfunded liabilities.”

The staff report further includes the following:

Reserve Policy

“The City has an adopted reserve policy that the General Fund unassigned (not committed for other purposes) fund balance will be a minimum of 20% of General Fund operating revenues. The percentage for the revised fiscal year 2025 budget is shown at the bottom of Chart A.

General Fund Budget Summary

“Chart A provides revised FY25 General Fund budget figures as compared to the current udget based on projections and estimates by departments. The numbers may change as we proceed through this budget process. Chart B and B1 immediately following breaks down the General Fund projected FY25 revenues by category and Charts C, C1 and C2 outline the expenditures by department and category.

“The budget in Chart A reflects three commitments of fund balance:

1. Compensated absences – The purpose of this reserve is to fund the City’s mandated liability for unused vacation and/or vested sick leave benefits paid upon employee separation. The reserve level is set at 5% of the total compensated
   absences liability for General Fund employees. It was established to meet accounting best practices.
2. Litigation Reserve – The purpose of this reserve is to ensure the General Fund has money on hand for unanticipated litigation and other insurance deductible costs not covered by the City insurance. The reserve level is set at ten times the City’s self-insured liability retention, which is $50,000, representing a $500,000 reserve.
3. Community Development fees – This represents the accumulation of General Plan maintenance fees and Technology fees collected which can only be spent for these purposes. It is adjusted annually for fees collected and/or spent.

“The deficit of $5,358,842 listed above after the Budget Stabilization transfer is due to FY24 encumbrances (purchase orders) and project budgets that were unspent and rolled over and budgeted into FY25 for spending. The true deficit is anticipated to be $1,418,515, in the Budget Stabilization Transfer row above, after accounting for the budget rollover.

“The transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund is being reduced $3,198,628 from the budget of $4,617,143 due to the inflow of ARPA funds in the current fiscal year reducing the need from the Budget Stabilization Fund to balance the budget.

“The General Fund will meet the reserve unassigned fund balance policy in FY25…projected overall ending General Fund balance of $37,899,927. The projected balance of the Budget Stabilization Fund at June 30, 2025 is $38,512,955.

“It is important to note that some one-time monies are included in Chart A in the Transfers In and Revenue from Other Agencies rows…which will leave a lower starting base to evaluate FY26 and FY27 revenues.”

For more details from the staff report on the budget see the meeting agenda.

Meeting Details

The council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers inside City Hall at 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The meeting can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website.