On Monday, Sept. 22, 2025, at 7:30 AM the Antioch City Council will hold a special, closed session meeting on the recruitment of a permanent City Attorney. The new hire will replace current Interim City Attorney Derek Cole who has been serving in the position since Thomas L. Smith resigned the position in January, following a two-and-a-half hour Closed Session meeting by the council.
The meeting will begin in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street in Antioch’s downtown Rivertown and public comments will be heard before the Council adjourns to closed session. The Council will later return, and Cole will publicly state any reportable action.
The Antioch City Council settled a complaint by former Police Chief Steve Ford following an investigation that cleared his name of false allegations earlier this year. Herald file photo
Months after investigation completed; Council pays out $190K to Steve Ford who sought more than $500K to settle complaint over email sent by estranged-wife 15 months after he left department and released by then-Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe
Ford saw leak as political retaliation for endorsing Bernal for mayorand costing him permanent chief position
“The main thing for me was to clear my name. None of this was true.” – Steve Ford
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on August 12, 2025, the Antioch City Council voted unanimously in closed session, to settle a complaint by former Police Chief Steve Ford over leaked information from his estranged wife alleging misconduct with a City staffer. It includes $190,000 and a public apology through the local media that reported on the matter last year, including the East Bay Times, which broke the story, and the Antioch Herald.
According to the Dec. 5, 2024, report by the Herald, “An email from Ford’s estranged wife, Julia, who is pursuing a divorce, was sent to District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker about the allegations, who in turn informed City Manager Bessie Scott who then began an investigative process. It was confirmed…that the email…was sent by Scott only to Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe after he asked her to put in writing details about the matter.”
According to the settlement, on Feb. 18, 2025, “the City issued a private memorandum to Ford confirming the investigation had concluded and that the allegations were unfounded.” But the City did not inform the media clearing Ford’s name until after he filed a complaint in April and it was settled in late August.
Feb. 18, 2025, memo from Chief Joe Vigil to Steve Ford included in complaint that the allegations were “Unfounded”. Redacted by Antioch Herald.
Complaint
According to the complaint, “Mr. Ford was subjected to an internal investigation by the City of Antioch in November 2024, based solely on an unverified accusation from his estranged spouse. On November 27, 2024, City Manager Scott summarized the unsubstantiated allegation in a confidential email sent only to then-Mayor Thorpe. That email was leaked to the press, causing widespread public damage to Mr. Ford’s reputation. The City’s negligent or intentional failure to secure confidential personnel information, as required by Penal Code § 832.7, directly caused the unauthorized disclosure, and its refusal to publicly retract the allegations amplified the reputational damage. This breach of the City’s statutory duty to safeguard personnel records directly enabled the harmful disclosure.
“At no time prior to the media leak did the City of Antioch notify Mr. Ford that he was under investigation or that such allegations had been made. He was not provided an opportunity to respond or to participate in the process. Indeed, Mr. Ford first learned of the allegations—and the City’s internal investigation—only after they had been disclosed through the media.
“Further, Mr. Ford was not provided with a copy of the investigation findings until after the undersigned attorney contacted the City to address the publication of false and defamatory information. Only then, on February 18, 2025, did the City issue a written memorandum confirming that its internal investigation had concluded and that the allegations against Mr. Ford were unfounded. However, this communication was preceded by inconsistent representations by the City. On February 12, 2025, the undersigned attorney contacted the interim City Attorney, seeking confirmation that no internal investigation was pending, noting that Mr. Ford had received no notice, was never interviewed, and had been separated from the City for over one year. After receiving no response, a follow-up message was sent on February 19. On February 24, the interim City Attorney replied that an investigation was ‘open and pending,’ documentation of which is available upon request. Mr. Ford did not receive the February 18 letter, which confirmed the investigation was closed with a finding of ‘Unfounded,’ until February 27, 2025. The City’s inconsistent communications, including falsely stating on February 24, 2025, that the investigation was ‘open and pending’ after it had concluded, demonstrate bad faith and aggravated harm to Mr. Ford. This bad faith and the City’s negligent or intentional disclosure of confidential information form a pattern of misconduct that aggravated Mr. Ford’s injuries.
“Despite privately acknowledging the allegations were unfounded, the City’s failure to publicly retract the accusations perpetuated the damage to Mr. Ford’s professional standing.
“Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ford was informed that he had not been selected as Antioch Police Chief, despite reaching the final interview stage. Mr. Ford had publicly supported then-candidate Ron Bernal, who defeated Mayor Thorpe in the November 2024 election, raising serious concerns that the City’s conduct and failure to repair the public damage were motivated, at least in part, by political retaliation. Discovery will clarify whether former Mayor Thorpe or other officials were aware of Mr. Ford’s endorsement and acted with retaliatory intent.”
Ford alleged the following legal violations:
Defamation (Libel per se)
False Light.
Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Facts).
Breach of Confidentiality (Penal Code § 832.7). This breach of the City’s statutory duty to safeguard personnel records directly enabled the harmful disclosure.
Violation of Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) (Gov. Code §§ 3300 et seq.). The City violated Gov. Code §§ 3304 and 3305 by failing to notify Mr. Ford of the investigation, denying him an opportunity to respond, and improperly disclosing personnel information. These POBRA protections apply to Mr. Ford, to the extent applicable, as a former officer, given the investigation’s impact on his personnel record and reputation.
Political Retaliation (California Constitution, Art. I §§ 2, 3).
Violation of California Labor Code §§1101 & 1102.
Failure to Hire in Retaliation.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED).
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
He also claimed the following injury and damages:
Severe reputational harm in the law enforcement and broader community
Loss of past and future employment opportunities
Emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish
Economic damages, including lost wages, future income, and attorneys’ fees
Continuing harm to career prospects, public image, and professional standing
Specifically, the complaint alleged, “The amount of damages is currently unliquidated but exceeds $500,000. This includes general and special damages, such as lost wages from the Antioch Police Chief position, emotional distress damages from public humiliation, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties where permitted, subject to proof at trial.”
The complaint also included copies of the articles published by the Times and Antioch Herald as supporting documentation.
Ford Sought Relief in Four Ways:
Monetary damages (economic and non-economic);
A public retraction and apology, published in the Antioch Herald, Times Herald, and East Bay Times and on the City’s official website, acknowledging that the allegations were unfounded and that Mr. Ford committed no misconduct;
Injunctive relief prohibiting future disclosures of protected personnel records; and
About the complaint and settlement Cole wrote in a Memorandum to the City Council included in the agenda for their meeting on September 9, 2025, “On April 28, Ford filed a complaint against the City through his attorney…This Memorandum supplements the City Council’s report-out from the above item considered at its regular meeting on August 12, 2025. The matter then identified as an anticipated litigation item-significant exposure to litigation related to a government claim filed by former Police Chief Steven Ford. Following the report out on that evening, the City—acting under direction the City Council provided during the closed session—executed a settlement with former Chief Ford. The written settlement agreement is now available as a public record.
“The settlement was approved by motion made during the August 12, 2025, closed session. The motion was: to resolve the government claim filed by former Police Chief Steven Ford, subject to the preparation and execution of a written settlement agreement prepared and approved by the Interim City Attorney. Motion by Councilmember Freitas, second by Councilmember Torrres-Walker, with unanimous approval (all 5 members present voted ‘Yes’).”
However, on Aug 12, Interim City Attorney Derek Cole, while reporting out from the Council’s Closed Session, merely said, “the council provided direction to counsel. No reportable action was taken.”
Asked why the council’s vote wasn’t reportable Cole explained, “The action taken in closed session on August 12 was not then reportable because the other side had not yet accepted the settlement. At the time of that closed session, we did not know if Chief Ford would agree on the same terms as the Council had authorized. He later did accept on those terms and his counsel and I reduced those to the written settlement agreement you now have. Once that was executed, there was no further executory action on either side’s part, so we made the updated report-out at the last meeting.”
The settlement was signed by representatives of both parties on August 25 and 26.
Source: City of Antioch
Public Apology by City
The City issued the following “Statement…Regarding Settlement of Government Claim Filed by Former Police Chief Steven Ford
August 27, 2025
“In November 2024, the City of Antioch initiated an internal investigation involving former Police Chief Steven Ford. The City received an email alleging Chief Ford, while employed with the City, had an inappropriate relationship with an unnamed subordinate. The investigation, which concluded in February 2025, determined this allegation was unfounded.
“The City acknowledges that shortly after the investigation began, the investigation’s existence and the subject of investigation were inappropriately revealed to the Press – before Chief Ford was made aware. This breach of confidentiality resulted in damaging media coverage about Chief Ford beginning on or about December 3, 2024
“The City acknowledges the investigation’s existence should not have been revealed to the Press. Chief Ford had a right to expect any unverified allegation about him would be investigated confidentially. Under California law, investigations regarding peace officers may only be revealed publicly when allegations are sustained. In this matter, the allegation against Chief Ford was found not true.
“The City expresses its appreciation for his previous service as Antioch Police Chief. It wishes Chief Ford the best for his future law enforcement career.”
When reached for comment about his complaint and settlement with the City, Ford said, “The main thing for me was to clear my name. That was important to me. The monetary compensation, I’m appreciative of. Because my name was tarnished by a lie forwarded in an email. It was my estranged wife who sent the email with some information that has been proven categorically untrue.”
“I was wondering why my ex would do that 16 months after I had left the Antioch Police Department,” he continued. “The City of Antioch acknowledged it was untrue. So, after 34 years building what I believe is a strong reputation there had never been anything like this. None of this was true.”
Asked why he didn’t sue Hernandez-Thorpe for sending it out to the media, Ford said, “That’s certainly an option. But my main goal was to clear my name.”
Asked why the City didn’t make the results of the investigation public in February he said, “They did not make that known in a timely fashion. I didn’t know an investigation had begun. I found out on December 3 there was an investigation, in the paper like everyone else.”
“That’s the ultimate violation of my Constitutional rights to due process,” the former police chief stated.
“This was for a divorce she filed for,” Ford explained. “It would be one thing if I had filed. But the slander campaign was outrageous by my estranged wife and Lamar.”
Asked why didn’t he or his attorney didn’t release the findings in February, Ford said, “I had no knowledge of my name being cleared as of Feb. 18th. They didn’t inform me of any disposition. I learned of that after the fact. That’s when I prompted my attorney to find out the disposition. Then we determined if I wanted to file the complaint which we did, in April.”
Asked for a copy of the investigation report, he said, “I was informed that’s something that has to be worked out between Cole and my attorney.”
City Attorney Cole was asked why the results of the investigation weren’t provided to the media when it was completed to clear Ford’s name at that point rather than wait for him to file and the City to settle his complaint and for a copy of the report. Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Would require developers to allocate percentage of housing units in market-rate developments as affordable or below-market rate
May increase costs to new home buyers, reduce number of new housing units; “there would likely be a fiscal impact” to City, possibly increase revenue from developer fees
By Allen D. Payton
During a special meeting tonight, Tuesday, September 16, 2025, beginning at 6:00 p.m., the Antioch City Council will hold a study session to discuss a possible Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and give direction to staff to develop one for a future vote.
According to the City staff report for the one item on the agenda, “An IHO, often referred to as inclusionary zoning, is an ordinance that requires developers to allocate a percentage of housing units in market-rate developments as affordable, or below-market rate (BMR) units.” Staff is recommending the Council support an IHO and a apply a 15% total inclusionary requirement to both rental and for-sale projects.
Background: “On May 27, 2025, the City Council held a study session on the possible adoption of an IHO, which is an Implementation Measure contained within the City’s Certified 6th Cycle Housing Element at Program 2.1.10. The possible adoption of an IHO can also be used for compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Oriented Communities (MTC TOC) Policy, as discussed in the May 27, 2025 staff report, linked below.
“Staff and the project team provided a project overview, discussed the legal and local contexts of IHOs, presented the draft financial feasibility analysis, discussed the outreach process to date, and detailed next steps. Members of the community provided public input, however, due to time constraints, the City Council was unable to provide feedback and direction to staff.
“A second study session was held by the City Council on August 26, 2025. Similar to the prior study session, members of the public provided input and yet again, the City Council was unable to provide feedback and direction to staff due to the lateness of the hour. The City Council requested a Special Meeting for consideration of an IHO and has dedicated tonight’s meeting to this singular policy discussion.”
Staff Questions and Recommendations to Council
During tonight’s study session the staff are asking for answers from the Council on a variety of questions to develop an ordinance including:
Should staff move forward with preparation of an IHO? Staff Recommendation: Yes.
Should the IHO apply to rental projects, for-sale projects, or both? Staff Recommendation: Both
Should the IHO include specific income category breakdowns – for example 5% VLI (Very Low Income), 5% LI, 5% MI – or should the developer be able to choose any affordability or combination of affordabilities? Other breakdowns could be 5% ELI, and 10% VLI or 5% ELI, 5% VLI & 5% LI or 3% ELI, 7% VLI & 5% LI, etc. Staff Recommendation: 15% total inclusionary requirement and this should apply to rental and for-sale projects.
Should rental housing and for sale housing have different inclusionary requirements or the same inclusionary requirements? Staff Recommendation: Breakdown of specific income categories: 5% ELI, 5% VLI, 5% LI Maintain compliance with the MTC TOC Policy.
Should rental housing and for sale housing have different inclusionary requirements or the same inclusionary requirements? Staff Recommendation: All housing types maintain the same inclusionary requirements.
What should the threshold project size be to be included in the IHO? Staff Recommendation: Developments of 5 units and projects less than 5 pay an in-lieu fee.
Should the units be affordable in perpetuity? Staff Recommendation: Yes.
Should an in-lieu fee option be included as an alternative means? And should other alternative means be included? Staff Recommendation: An in-lie fee option should be included.
Should the ordinance encourage on-site construction? If so, then by what means? Staff Recommendation: Encourage on-site construction by requiring a higher inclusionary ordinance requirement when a developer pays the in-lieu fee.
Should there be developer incentives, beyond State Density Bonus Law? If so, by what means? Staff Recommendation: Waivers and fee deferrals
Challenges With IHO’s
According to the National Housing Conference, “ While advocates view inclusionary zoning as a way to increase the stock of economically integrated affordable homes at little cost to the public, critics charge that inclusionary zoning policies amount to a ‘tax’ on new development that unduly burdens developers and adversely impacts the cost and availability of market-rate homes.”
In addition, “Common opposition arguments include:
Inclusionary zoning ordinances increase the cost of new development, which may then be passed on to market-rate buyers through increased home prices.
Inclusionary zoning ordinances cause developers to build fewer units — either because developers choose to build in jurisdictions without inclusionary policies and/or because the inclusionary policies change the economics of development such that other land uses (e.g., retail) are more profitable.
By reducing the supply of new homes, inclusionary policies increase the cost of market-rate housing in the community implementing the policy and in neighboring areas (as reductions in supply in one jurisdiction may increase home prices for the whole metropolitan area by reducing the supply of housing available to satisfy the area’s demand).
Inclusionary zoning policies unfairly place the burden of economic integration on housing developers.
The possibility that units produced by an inclusionary housing program might have a negative impact on nearby home values.”
A commentary on SRQmagazine.com by Christine Robinson, Executive Director of The Argus Foundation, entitled, The Negative Effects of Inclusionary Housing reports, “According to a study on Pittsburgh’s (Pennsylvania) inclusionary zoning policies, developers often respond to mandatory affordability requirements by decreasing the total number of units they build. This occurs because the cost of providing affordable units often makes projects financially unfeasible. As developers struggle to balance profitability with affordability requirements, some may abandon projects that require affordable housing even with increased density or scale back their ambitions.”
“While inclusionary zoning policies aim to create a more equitable housing market, the negative effects seen in Pittsburgh and elsewhere demonstrate that these policies may have unintended consequences that worsen housing affordability and reduce the availability of housing overall.”
Possible Fiscal Impacts to the City
Also according to the staff report, “Should the City Council choose to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the future there would likely be a fiscal impact due to increased staffing and administrative costs to implement the ordinance. There is also the possibility of additional revenue generation for housing production should the City Council choose to adopt an in-lieu fee as an alternative means of compliance.”
City Manager, consultant refute claims “our city is, or might be, out of compliance”
By Allen D. Payton
Following a Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, for a Conference with Labor Negotiators for various employee groups, the Antioch City Council will receive presentations from the police department including the Quarterly Update with staffing stats and the U.S. Department of Justice Settlement Agreement Bi-Annual Update. Included is City Manager Bessie Scott’s Memorandum to the City Council and Police Oversight Commission dated August 18, 2025, and a letter from the outside consultant refuting concerns that the City is possibly out of compliance with the USDOJ Agreement.
She wrote, “It has come to the attention of city staff that some individuals have publicly claimed that our city is, or might be, out of compliance with the USDOJ Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). As the City Manager, I am happy to take this opportunity to address these concerns and have asked our Consultant on this matter, Manjit Sappal, to formally provide an update on the status of all elements within the MOA.”
Proclamations
The regular meeting starts at 7:00 p.m., and before the APD presentations the Council will consider approving three proclamations Celebrating California’s 175th Anniversary of Statehood, 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance, September 11, 2025, and In Honor of Hispanic Heritage Month, September 2025.
Commission Openings
The agenda also mentions the following City Commission openings for interested members of the public to apply for appointment:
Planning Commission – 3 Full Term vacancies, expiring October 2029;
Antioch Police Oversight Commission – 1 Partial Term vacancy, expiring November 2026;
Board of Administrative Appeals – 2 Full Term vacancies, expiring March 2028 and 1 Alternate vacancy, Two-year term.
Applications for the vacant positions are due Friday, Sept. 26, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Clerk’s Office. For more information see agenda item #4 and below:
Source: City of Antioch
Proposed Changes to Housing and Homeless Staff Positions
Under the only other major item on the agenda, item #7, according to the City staff report, the council will consider amending the personnel budget for the Housing and Homelessness Division of the misnamed Public Safety and Community Resources Department (which does not include police or fire services). The proposed budget change in the amount of $79,025 for fiscal year 2025-26 is to fund one Housing Manager and two Housing Services Coordinators in lieu of one Administrative Analyst I, one Unhoused Resident Coordinator, and one Housing Program Specialist.
The Department currently is led by Interim Director Monserat Cabral following the resignation of former Director Tasha Johnson.
If adopted, applications will be due Thursday, September 11
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday, August 26, 2025, the Antioch City Council will vote on the process for appointing a new City Clerk to fill the vacancy created by the sudden resignation and departure of Melissa Rhodes on July 30th. The Council had the option of holding a special election in November or making an appointment. The appointee would serve until just after certification of the November 2026 special election, consistent with state law governing resignations in the first half of an office. The remaining half of the term would be served by whomever is elected in that election.
According to the City staff report for the item, #8, on the meeting agenda, by Interim City Attorney Derek Cole, “At its regular meeting of August 12, 2025, the City Council directed that the vacancy be filled by appointment rather than by special election. State law requires that the appointment be made within 60 days of the vacancy, or no later than September 30, 2025.”
“The City last filled a City Clerk vacancy by appointment in 2011. At that time, the City Council adopted a process to ensure transparency, fairness, and public participation. That process included the following features:
1. Applications and Required Materials. Interested applicants were required to submit:
• A Letter of Interest (not to exceed 400 words) describing interest, qualifications, background, and other relevant information;
• A Nomination Paper signed by at least 20 but not more than 30 registered Antioch voters; and
• A completed Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700), as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
2. Eligibility. Applicants were required to be registered voters of the City of Antioch, consistent with the statutory qualification for an elected City Clerk.
3. Filing Deadline. Applications were required to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk by a fixed date and time.
4. Public Review. All completed applications were deemed public records and made available for public review.
5. Oral Presentations to Council. Each applicant was invited to make a brief oral presentation (no more than five minutes) at the Council meeting at which the appointment was considered. The Council had the opportunity to ask questions of the applicants.
6. Appointment at Open Session. Following applicant presentations and any public comment, the City Council deliberated and made the appointment during open session of the Council meeting.
Proposed 2025 Appointment Process
Staff recommends that the Council follow the same process as was used in 2011, using the following dates:
• Applications would be due in the City Clerk’s Office no later than 4:30 p.m., Thursday, September 11, 2025.
• The City Council would hold applicant interviews and consider appointment at its regular meeting of Tuesday, September 23, 2025.
This process balances transparency, fairness, and efficiency, and ensures compliance with the Government Code deadline for appointment at the end of September 2025.”
Closed Session, Special & Regular Meetings
The Council meeting begins with a Closed Session at 4:30 p.m. for a Conference with Labor Negotiators for the Management Unit, Treatment Plant Employees’ Association, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association.
That will be followed by a Special Meeting/Study Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on a proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.
The Council Chambers are located at City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The meetings can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website at www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings/live/, on Comcast local cable channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.
Former Antioch City Clerk Melissa Rhodes (official City photograph) and her resignation letter on July 30, 2025.
Public informed today in meeting agenda for City Council which will discuss filling vacancy created by Melissa Rhodes less than one year into her position – in April election or appointment until Nov. 2026 election.
“There are some things to learn from this and we’ll correct it.” – Mayor Pro Tem Louie Rocha
UPDATE:Freitas says a draft press release was prepared but it announced a special election this November
By Allen D. Payton
After less than a year in her new position Antioch City Clerk Melissa Rhodes resigned effective immediately on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, without explanation or announcing it to the public. Instead, it was revealed in the City Council meeting agenda for next Tuesday, which was issued today, Friday, August 8, 2025.
According to the City staff report for the item, #3 on the agenda, “Ms. Rhodes submitted her written resignation on July 30, 2025. The City Council must accordingly take action to fill the vacant council seat by no later than September 30, 2025. Effectively, this means final action must be taken by the Council’s second September meeting on September 23, 2025.”
In her letter Rhodes wrote without explanation:
“July 30, 2025
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I hereby resign effective July 30, 2025 from the seat of the City Clerk for the City of Antioch.
It has been my honor serving the constituents of the City of Antioch. I am hoping for the continued success of the City.
Respectfully,
Melissa Rhodes”
———-
The City staff report also explained, “As noted, the Council may appoint the vacant position. To ensure a fair and transparent process, the City Council may choose to solicit applications from interested individuals and conduct interviews to determine the most qualified candidate. The City Council may also consider input from the public and other stakeholders during the appointment process. The appointment would need to occur in the open session of a City Council meeting.
“But there is an important qualification. Because Ms. Rhodes has resigned during the first year of her term, the appointment would only be effective for the first half of her term. In other words, the appointment would only last through the end of next year. A special election would need to be called during the November 2026 General Election and the appointment term would end once the results of that election are certified.
“The vacant City Clerk position may also be filled by the calling of a special election” and for the City of Antioch, “the next election date is April 14, 2026.”
Efforts to reach Rhodes asking why she resigned and why she didn’t announce it to the public, since they’re the ones who elected her were unsuccessful prior to publication time.
Attempts to reach Mayor Ron Bernal, District 3 Councilman Don Freitas, City Manager Bessie Scott, Jaden Baird, the City’s Public Information Officer late Friday afternoon, asking why she resigned and why it wasn’t immediately announced to the public, also were initially unsuccessful.
However, when reached for comment about why there was no public announcement the day she resigned Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said, “I’m not sure if there was a press release. We all (council members) got notification. I think I first saw it on August 1st.”
“I don’t know about the protocol procedures of what former councils have done with such vacancies. It’s the first time I’ve been in this seat as an elected official dealing with this,” he shared and pointed out, “We have a public information officer.”
“If you’ve been watching you saw she didn’t attend the last couple of meetings,” Rocha continued. “I wasn’t aware of her reasons. There must have been something going on behind the scenes.”
“The last meeting the city clerk from Clayton stepped in to help us and at another meeting the County Clerk helped out,” he stated.
“Ron, Don and I coming in are all about transparency. There are some things to learn from this and we’ll correct it,” Rocha added.
Freitas Says Council Received Resignation Letter from Rhodes via Text, Press Release was Prepared
UPDATE: Later, when asked why the public wasn’t informed immediately of Rhodes’ resignation Freitas said, “I have no idea. The first time I learned about it was on Facebook. I got a text later on July 30th from Melissa with her resignation letter.”
“The first thing I received from Bessie was on August 1st. She was basically telling the council of a draft release ‘for your review,’” the councilman continued. “The prepared press release read, ‘The City of Antioch will hold a special election on November 4th.’”
“That was not her decision,” he stated. “I immediately told her this is a policy matter that should be on the next City Council meeting agenda for discussion.”
“My bias is not to have a special election because of the costs, and the City Council should open it up for application and appointment for about one year,” Freitas added.
He said the press release also mentioned Assistant City Clerk Christina Garcia will serve in the interim position.
UPDATE: City Manager Scott responded later with, “We added this topic to our meeting on this upcoming Tuesday, August 12th as an emergency addition. Given that there needs to be a council discussion to vote on how to proceed, we felt that it was more transparent to have this discussion in public.
We had to wait on this due to summer absences among Council and Staff. Internally our staffing levels are being increased within the Clerk’s Office as well, so the Council will also discuss who should be Acting City Clerk for now when we meet on Tuesday.”
The Council’s regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. It can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on Comcast local access cable channel 24 or on AT&T U-verse channel 99. See the complete meeting agenda packet.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Almost half of cuts from Police Department staffing, overtime savings
Plus, $165.3 million 5-Year Capital Improvements budget and $2.4 million in federal community funds
By Allen D. Payton
Following all the special budget session meetings over the past several months, the Antioch City Council, during their meeting Tuesday night, June 24, 2025, is expected to approve the 2025-26 budget with over $11.5 million in spending cuts and using $5 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund. The City was facing a $24.3 million deficit for the coming fiscal year and if the budget is approved as recommended, will have a net deficit of $7.7 million which will be covered from reserves.
Almost half of the savings, $5.5 million, will be in the Police Department budget from Vacancy Savings and Overtime Reductions. UPDATE: That’s due to the current staffing vacancies of approximately 30 sworn officers and the chief informing the council that they expect to add 15 more officers in the next year. So, instead of determining the savings from the staff vacancies during a mid-year budget review and spending the one-time funds on other City budget items, the council chose to account for it in the budget up front to reduce the deficit.
In spite of the cuts, future fiscal years still show the City facing projected deficits of $10,629,642 in 2026-27 and $25,396,400 in 2028-29.
The proposed budget also includes an allocation from the Measure W 1% City sales tax of 70-15-15 or 70% for Police, 15% for Quality of Life and 15% for Youth. (See page 6 of the Budget)
According to the City staff report for item #5, “Since March, City Council and staff have been diligently scrutinizing the budget to close a starting point fiscal year 2026 deficit of $24,270,240. Initially, staff was able to shave $8,603,792 from that number, for a fiscal year 2026 deficit of $15,666,448 as presented at the March 4th budget session. Upon further collaboration with the Council, City Manager and departments as we moved through the exhaustive budget process, and through a series of further adjustments, a General Fund budget with a net deficit of $7,737,331, after a $5M infusion from the Budget Stabilization Fund.”
In addition, under item #3 the Council is expected to approve the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program budget for 2025-2030 for Community Facilities, Parks & Trails, Roadway Improvements, Traffic Signals, Wastewater & Storm Drain System and the City’s Water System. Currently, there are $163.3 million of projects in progress which includes $6,238,209 of projects that the Council added to the list.
Finally, in other budget action, under item #4 the Council will consider approving the recommendations of the City Council’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subcommittee for a total of $2,369,318 in federal funds for the coming fiscal year. Mayor Pro Tem Louie Rocha, representing District 2, and Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, representing District 1, served on the CDBG Subcommittee for this funding cycle.
The meeting begins at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers inside City Hall at 200 H Street, in historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on Comcast Local Cable Channel 24 or on AT&T U-verse Channel 99.
