Postpones, will study resuming security services for downtown

“This is one thing that unites people that don’t usually get together.” – resident Frank Sterling about support for the proposed downtown park

“We do not have $250,000 to spend to maintain this park. If we do, every other park is going to have a reduced level of maintenance.” – Mayor Ron Bernal

Freitas envisions a hotel with conference center on the former Beede Lumber Yard site

By Allen D. Payton

In spite of impassioned comments from a broad spectrum of residents in favor of using state funds for a new park on the site of the former Beede Lumber Yard in downtown, to their chagrin, during the regular meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-1 to apply for the grant to benefit City Park. Only District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha voted against the motion. Most of the public speakers spoke in favor of the proposed, new downtown park, including representatives of two groups of residents, one wearing blue shirts with the message, “Rivertown Square Yes!” printed on them and the other from Rising Juntos wearing green shirts, and others who aren’t usually allied on the same side of major issues. (See related article)

During Council deliberations on the matter, both Councilmembers Tamisha Torres-Walker, in whose District 1 both sites are located, and Don Freitas hemmed and hawed in their willingness to support the Rivertown Square project before ultimately voting to pursue the funds for City Park, instead.

Public Comments

Before the vote on item #8 on the agenda, members of the public spoke mainly in favor of using the state grant funds for the Rivertown Square.

“I’ve watched cities that have grown their downtowns…and I think, ‘why not us? Why not Antioch?’” said one downtown resident. “Downtown once had a green space at Barbara Price Marina Park and we were promised a replacement.”

“Please choose the Yard,” she added.

“This is our neighborhood. I have been fighting for The Yard…this is one of the longest fights I’ve been doing,” said resident Frank Sterling. “This is one thing that unites people that don’t usually get together. I feel like you all should be bold. I’m in favor of The Yard being our downtown…community space.”

Resident Michael Simpson, wearing one of the blue shirts compared it to Concord’s Todos Santos Plaza, Oakley’s Civic Center and Brentwood’s downtown City Park, as well as Pittsburg’s Old Town park.

“We should…create something for future generations,” he stated.

Barbara Price Marina Park was six acres, and the Beede Lumber Lot is just under two acres, one third the size, so, the maintenance costs will be less, another resident pointed out.

“We have waited long enough. This community has spoken. Please don’t let maintenance be the issue. Please honor the commitment. Please apply for the grant to be at the Rivertown Square,” she concluded.

“Antioch shouldn’t be the city people drive through but the city people drive to,” another resident wearing one of the blue shirts in support of the Rivertown Square stated.  

Former Planning Commissioner Kerry Motts, also wearing a blue shirt in support of the project for which his sister, former councilwoman and current District 1 council candidate, Joy Motts has helped lead the effort, said, it “would provide for enhanced economic vitality of Rivertown. This has been a stated goal…for 40 years.”

A leader of Rising Juntos East spoke “in support of developing the Beed Lumber Yard park.”

“Please vote yes for the families of north Antioch,” she added.

“Children and families need safe spaces to thrive,” another representative of Rising Juntos said in support of the Rivertown Square. “We envision not just a park but a cultural hub.”

“Why is it taking so long?” she asked. “Making the lot a park would make the downtown more walkable and enjoyable. It’s right across the street from the Senior Center. They could enjoy it.”

Another member of Rising Juntos said, “City Park needs investment and our community absolutely needs to see it improved. But one park should not be sacrificed at the expense of another.”

Alexander Broom, Vice Chair of the Antioch Parks and Recreation Commission, said, “I think it should be Beede Lumber Yard or bust. I believe we should put all of our eggs in this basket.

District 4 Council candidate and local homeless advocate Andrew Becker spoke last with a completely different idea saying, “My concern is that the intent of Prop. 4 is to…preserve or create open space for individuals and I keep hearing, tonight it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. In the 1940’s, homes were built along Cavallo (Road). There’s still no parks within a-half a mile.”

Council Discussion & Decision for City Park

During council discussion Acting Community Development Director Steve Scudero was asked by Mayor Ron Bernal about the vacant downtown lot, “How is that property zoned?”

“Mixed use which allows for commercial residential and public spaces,” Scudero responded.

“If we wanted to sell that property as a surplus property…” Bernal began.

“We would have to make it available to an affordable housing builder…giving a sixty-day notice of availability… before selling the property,” Scudero stated.

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha spoke next saying, “Both parks are important. I believe City Park does need investment. But we have a downtown area that many of us…for enrichment would see where people could come together and bring some economic development.”

“It’s unfortunate we have to pick just one. It looks like both projects meet the criteria for the process,” he continued. “Whatever we decide tonight won’t determine what would happen to the other.”

“Probably the one thing I’ve been most impressed with…over the years I’ve heard about The Yard, the Town Square,” Rocha stated. “I’m inclined to support The Yard because of the engagement that’s bringing people together. This may be four years down the road even if we get the funding.”

“I understand the value of bringing people together. I could support both. But I’m going to support the Beede Lumber Yard because of all the engagement,” he added. “I don’t think there’ll be a problem with getting the people behind you.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “Both are good. But I want to put one in that’s most competitive and going to get the dollars.”

Alex Gibbs, Grants Director of Townsend Public Affairs, the City’s consultant on the grant process, said, “There will be a lengthy process…that will include site visits from the state…most likely in April next year. You’re looking at really a difference of five or six points. There are fewer people living near the Yard…given the location of the lot near the river. But the state takes that into consideration. That’s the reality we’re living in. I’m confident that either case…we can write a very competitive application. The only thing you’re going to lose out on is the number of people living in poverty and nearby park land.”

Wilson asked about the Cavallo Road area saying, “That space we don’t own. It’s not a park,” referring to an empty, privately-owned lot on the southeast corner of Cavallo Road and E. 18th Street.

“I’m not aware of any land we own in that area,” Scudero stated.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, participating remotely from a resort and spa in Santa Cruz, then said, “I keep saying, don’t put housing there. I also don’t agree that housing should be the priority for this site.” She then said, “I keep hearing, it’s been 15 years they’ve had the commitment to replace the Barbara Price park that they lost. That seems to be a theme I continue to hear…that people have been waiting…for something.”

“I definitely want us to award whatever can bring revenue to the City of Antioch and I’m hearing the Beede Lumber Yard could bring revenue and even cover its maintenance costs,” Torres-Walker continued. “This is potentially an $8 million grant. We could submit one application or two applications.”

“Anything is possible,” said Recreation Department Director Shahad Wright. “Whatever money we have…we’ll make sure the contingency fund will be enough to cover.”

“It will be a city park not a neighborhood park so it would include restrooms,” Torres-Walker stated.

“That will be part of the design process,” Wright responded.

“If Beede Lumber lot is selected tonight, there will be a design phase, a community engagement phase, restrooms. What would be the follow up for City Park?” she asked.

“I will pivot and figure out how to fix the rest of the parks in the city,” Wright stated. “You have up to four years to spend the grant funds.”

The councilwoman then mentioned “downtown business owners” dealing with “parking issues and unhoused folks who actually live along the waterfront” and giving enough time for the City to deal with those issues.

District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said, “We’ve talked a lot about history. Some of us have intimate knowledge of history. I want to go back to 1978 and 1979. I was the Executive Director of the Antioch Chamber of Commerce and most of our members were in downtown. Because at that time it was still one of the economic hubs of the community.”

“I told them, ‘the downtown could survive if we had residents moving into the downtown and…sustained economic development,’” he continued.

“We needed to improve the circulation pattern in the downtown area. As mayor…from 2000-2008, whe number one project was to finally connect A Street to Second Street,” Freitas stated. “That was probably one of my greatest achievements as mayor. Because downtown finally had circulation.”

“So, on the issue of the Beede Lumber Yard…and this has been an issue for over 40 years, my vision for Beede Lumber was that we need to make downtown a destination, and we needed to generate revenue,” he explained. “I’ve seen many people say on social media that Freitas wants to build apartments. Freitas has never been for building apartments” on the vacant lot.

“My vision was to build a Sheraton Inn like in Concord…that Antioch would own the property and reach out to owners of hotels…two to three stories with a rooftop garden,” Freitas shared. “I wanted to have a situation where we would have a 35-year lease. I never wanted to sell that property…and each and every year we would generate revenue.”

“We have more than 118,000 people in this town. There is no hotel in this town for us to offer conferences or seminars or anything. So, part of my argument was, let’s build one,” he continued. “If you’re there for two to three days, what are you going to do? You’re going to walk up the street. We could have a jazz lounge. We would have restaurants there.”

“You say you’ve been disappointed for 15 years. I’ve been disappointed for over 50 to 60 years,” Freitas exclaimed. “You say this is going to produce revenue. To do that you’d have to be using this facility every day. That’s not going to happen. Excluding the 4th of July, you’re going to get a couple hundred people. Very few people come out of District 3 to the downtown because there’s nothing there for them.”

“We have Williamson (Park). What’s the problem? There’s no parking,” he asked and answered. “If Beede goes through, the problem is going to be parking.”

“I have seen your schematics. Very interesting. But it’s not going to sustain itself,” Freitas stated. “But you’ve done a very good job coming together and advocating. I think I can count the votes. I think we’re going to probably engage Beede. But be under no delusion. The best bet is not Beede. The best bet in my opinion is City Park.”

“But I’m going to challenge every single one of you here. There’s going to be community meetings. You’ve said, ‘we can raise money through non-profits…through other means.’ Don’t wait,” he said. “That’s been the problem with this city. I challenge you, start figuring out how to pay for this on a long-term basis.”

“We are in a deficit. We’ve reduced it dramatically,” Freitas pointed out. “Your organization is great…you have another part of the job. Don’t abandon us. Stay with us. I challenge you. Where are all these other monies going to come in? Because the city doesn’t have it.”

Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next reiterating Freitas’ last point saying, “The Council chose to remove this project from the Capital Improvement process because we didn’t have the funds for maintenance. If this goes through, we still won’t have the money for maintenance. We do not have $250,000 to spend to maintain this park. If we do, every other park is going to have a reduced level of maintenance.”

“We have deferred maintenance coming out of our ears,” he stated. “I am not in favor of adding another expense…as much as people would love to have this park built in downtown,” he continued.

“We’re talking about one point being the difference in getting this funding. We don’t have five points,” Bernal explained. “And that (City) park won’t be improved and we won’t have Beede, either.”

“The new areas are fully paying for the maintenance of their parks. The downtown area parks, the General Fund is paying for their maintenance,” he continued.

“We do need to improve our downtown…have places for people to gather. I’m for all of that,” Bernal said. “This is an example of everyone coming together. But we don’t have the…wiggle room in this process. So, I’m going to be in favor of City Park.”

Torres-Walker than said, “I didn’t hear that we only had to submit one application. I heard we could do two applications. Was that correct?”

Gibbs of Townsend said, “That is correct. There is no limit to the number of applications the City can submit.”

“Would the Council be against submitting two?” she asked.

“I would be opposed to that,” Freitas said. “I think Townsend has made the case not to do that.”

“I think there would be a staff issue in running two processes. How well would you be able to run two processes?” Bernal asked.

“It’s a heavy lift,” Director Wright said. “We’re already understaffed and two facilities down. How well can we do in this small timeframe?”

Freitas asked, “What is in the best interest of Antioch?” then said, “I’m going to move that we do apply for this grant for City Park.”

Bernal seconded the motion.

Torres-Walker than stated, “For Townsend said, ‘this takes a while to bring this process around.’ I’ve been for bringing grants to the City. Do you see there will be opportunities in the future…can there be a commitment to pursue grant funding for parks?”

“I can commit to purse the best grant application as possible…I commit to not leaving any stone unturned…be it state, federal or other,” Gibbs said.

The motion then passed on a vote of 4-1 with Rocha voting against.

In response, one member of the audience could be heard yelling out, “There are elections coming up.”

Postpones Resuming Downtown Security Services Until September to Study Issue

Two residents spoke during public comments on the item, #9 on the agenda, local homeless advocate and District 4 Council candidate Andrew Becker said, “I managed a private security company…for years. I think…the biggest question is…what’s very alarming is staff puts out the report that includes the security logs. But there’s no results. ‘We as staff are doing a good job…that the work should continue in downtown.’ It’s staff’s responsibility to monitor and maintain contracts.”

“I went through all of the security logs,” he continued. “It speaks to a high volume of emergency calls…I think you see four or five very low instances in the hundreds of logs put out. The contract is for City-owned parking lots. If that’s the case, then why are the photos…of properties the City doesn’t own in downtown? Or pictures of properties that aren’t even in downtown….a shopping center in a newer development? Where are these guards and who are we paying and what is the relationship of this company to the City?”

Keith Butler, CEO and Founder of Elite Defense Security Solutions said he had, “ties to prior law enforcement. I’m a retired law enforcement officer of 18 years.”

“Without getting into the particulars of the current company…it’s not who’s providing the security, it’s what does the security look like. You need to look at what that security can do,” he continued.

“I have to agree with the previous speaker,” Butler stated. “There were a lot of items on there that don’t look to be parking lots.”

He then offered to help the City draft a new RFQ (request for quote).

Council Discussion & Decision to Postpone After Meeting with Downtown Businesses, City Staff

During Council discussion, Freitas spoke first saying, “I think that when we initially did this, we did focus on the City-owned property. If we want to put together a work group…we didn’t receive any input from the Police Department…Code Enforcement, the Antioch Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Antioch Association. We need to ask questions…be proactive rather than reactive.”

Rocha then said, “One key strategy identified…is to act as a visible deterrent…and properly report incidents to the Antioch Police Department. When you read the comments from the survey…the key strategy is to be visible when people don’t even know they’re there. Maybe this is misleading the way the key was written.”

“I think the merchants and restaurant owners are wanting to have a relationship…that didn’t happen with this particular vender,” he continued. “I do think we need to have community members meet together. I think there needs to be dialogue. I’m not prepared to approve this contract.”

Wilson then said, “We didn’t include any measurables…around patrol hours…how to communicate with the police. I think if we have this committee we figure out the performance measures. That’s the problem with the RFQ. I think we really missed it on this one.”

Finance Director Dawn Merchant, serving in the role of acting city manager for the meeting (or Acting Acting City Manager she jokingly said) then shared, “One of the difficulties I do recall being discussed was how can the City pay for extra security for businesses in downtown when they don’t for another challenged area in the City. That’s why it was focused on the City-owned parking lots. That’s how this evolved.”

Torres-Walker mentioned, “the businesses saying, ‘we need more support from the City.’ The police saying, ‘we can’t just commit officers to downtown’. We couldn’t justify doing it for the businesses. We asked if there were other City-owned parking lots throughout the city.”

“What is being often overlooked is…it just provided patrol for City-owned parking lots in downtown not the businesses,” she continued. “When I looked at this report…at least one property outlined in here that is way over by Deer Valley. How did they end up all the way over in District 4?”

“The survey was completed by seven respondents…out of fifty or more in downtown,” Torres-Walker stated. “You have 71% of the respondents said they would support the City continuing security services in downtown. It is very telling. The majority of businesses that responded felt like security services were needed for weekdays and the evenings and special events.”

“Asked how often they see security services downtown it was pretty spread out. You never had ‘never or occasionally.’ Although you had one outlier say they had seen the security company several times a week,” the councilwoman shared.

She then mentioned the only cannabis retail location in downtown and that, “they’re supposed to have 24-hour armed security.”

“I do want to add patrolling for downtown businesses,” Torres-Walker stated. “Most municipalities have a downtown overlay district where the businesses pay for additional police patrols” and mentioned using “CSO’s (Community Service Officers) driving around in marked cars.”

She concluded by suggesting forming a “police district in the waterfront.”

“This could be a collaborative effort of the City and downtown businesses that they pay for this,” Freitas said. “I think it’s in their best interest. I just think we should try to get them together…with the City Attorney. It’s an idea to move forward. Because we don’t have the services right now, the question to the police department is, are there other personnel that can be used such as VIPS. I think we need to be a little creative.”

Rocha agreed with using CSO’s.

Antioch Police Captain Matt Koch jokingly said, “In the words of Director Wright, ‘anything is possible.’”

“We’ve already increased our presence over there with officers and CSO’s during all hours of the day and night that are scheduled,” he stated. “I went 42 days before and 42 days after and there’s been a 23% increase in calls for service to the police department. It’s about three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half calls for service per day. I think having them there…with the lights flashing is a deterrence. It is a great service and a force multiplier for us.”

“There are some residences besides the businesses that are affected there,” Koch continued. “At my request they were taking pictures and providing them to the department.

“So, you see the security as a benefit overall,” Bernal asked.

“Overall, yes,” Koch responded.

“As they’re driving different routes between the parking lots there’s nothing that precludes them from making calls if they see something,” Bernal said.

“Yes,” Koch stated.

“I would like to see something done in the month of August,” Bernal stated. “I just think we need to do something quickly.”

“I do think we need to pursue another request for qualifications,” Torres-Walker added.

There will be a DAA meeting on the 19th at El Campanil Theatre,” the mayor stated. Torres-Walker said she will be attending that meeting.

Rocha said he will speak with the Chamber of Commerce. Bernal suggested Freitas do so, as well.

The council members agreed to have representatives from the Antioch Police Department, Code Enforcement meet and downtown business owners to discuss the needs for private security.

Watch council meeting video.

12-year effort by River Town Square supporters continues but City’s consultant recommends applying for funds to renovate City Park

Torres-Walker to participate remotely from resort and spa in Santa Cruz

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss using state grant funds for either a park at the former Beede Lumber Company Yard, in downtown where the Council-supported River Town Square project has been proposed, or at City Park.

District Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker will attend remote via ZOOM from the Chaminade Resort & Spa, (Seascape Room) in Santa Cruz. Unlike during the last council meeting on July 28, this time, the councilwoman’s remote location is included in the agenda as required, allowing her to participate other than calling in during public comments as she did twice that night.

State Park Grant

According to the City staff report for item #8 on the agenda, the California Department of State Parks Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS), will be administering a competitive grant funded by Proposition 4 in the next 12-18 months. This is the same agency that administered Proposition 68 grant funds, of which Antioch received a $2.9M grant for the renovation of Contra Loma Estates Park. The grant will require that there be less than three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and/or residents are below median income within a half-mile radius of a selected point within the project site.

According to the presentation by Townsend Public Affairs, there are five locations in the City that meet the criteria. They include Antioch City Park, Eagleridge Park, Waldie Plaza, Beede Lumber Yard and Contra Loma Estates Park, which was already renovated.

Council is being given two options for use of the funds, either Antioch City Park at the corner of A and W. 10th Streets or the former Beede Lumber Company Yard bordered by W. 2nd, W. 3rd and E Streets, across the street from the old Lumber Company building, that now houses Prime Vintage Realty.

History of 12-Year River Town Square Effort

For more than a decade, an effort, formerly known as Save The Yard, led by former Antioch Councilwoman and District 1 candidate Joy Motts, has been to change the lumber yard into the “River Town Square” park and event center. The City has owned the dirt lot since the late 1990’s and originally planned to build condominiums or townhouses. But neighbors on W. 3rd Street have opposed that through the years, sharing concerns that their views of the river would be blocked.

The idea was first proposed in 2014 during a joint meeting of the Antioch Planning and Economic Development Commissions on November 19th, regarding the Downtown Specific Plan. Several of the speakers were in favor of the creation of an event plaza, as opposed to construction of additional housing, downtown. Lee Ballesteros, representing Citizens for Responsible Antioch Waterfront Development, spoke about a proposal her group had submitted to the city advocating just such an idea. “Our vision for Downtown is for an active, vibrant, event plaza, as opposed to selling it and putting up homes. Events and quality of life is something that is very important to people,” she said.

Then during their meeting on June 23, 2015, the Council in approving the Downtown Specific Plan voted 5-0 for a Mixed-Use designation for the Beede site that would restrict the number of units to 18 per acre but still retain the possibility of a park, pleasing supporters of the River Town Square project. 

But during Closed Session at their meeting on Aug. 25, 2015, the Council reversed course with a vote of 4-1 to build condos on the lot instead, agreeing to sell the property along with eight other City-owned parcels to one developer. Supporters of the event center vowed to pursue a ballot measure. Two signature gathering efforts, including an initiative effort in 2016, that included fundraisers to support it, failed to garner enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. A second effort was announced later that year but did not materialize into a ballot measure.

During the Council meeting on Sept. 13, 2016, Councilwomen Lori Ogorchock and Monica Wilson offered some light at the end of the tunnel for the project when they “suggested reclassifying the lot from ‘Medium Density’ to ‘Open Space’, which would prevent the City from developing it in the near future, and clear the way for the Save the Yard movement to begin raising funds for a new event center.”

It wasn’t until the Nov. 23, 2021 Antioch City Council meeting, Motts and other Save The Yard representatives received the go ahead from the Council after providing a presentation on the River Town Square proposal. All five council members agreed to “explore” the idea, including Torres-Walker, in whose district the lot is located, who said, “yes, this should be green space.” She also mentioned people not having to “go to San Francisco for 420 fests”, which is a large, annual pot smoking event. “We should do it, here like we do all these other things,” Torres-Walker stated.

“We can begin a process for exploring a community gathering space, a green space,” then-City Manager and now-Mayor Ron Bernal said at that meeting.

That process began in July 2022, when the Council hired Mill Valley-based RHAA Landscape Architecture & Planning and approved a contract for the Rivertown Community Space Project in the amount of $350,000 for design of the former Antioch Lumber Company lot to, according to that meeting agenda’s staff report, “that will transform the area into a family friendly public space.” RHAA also designed the City’s Prewett Park Community Center.

Then, in May 2023, the City announced in a press release, “the development of a new gathering place in downtown Antioch” and invited the public, “to share your vision for the future central attraction of historic Rivertown. This new outdoor public space is uniquely situated along the Sacramento-San Joaquin River. It will benefit our diverse community by fostering a vibrant, thriving downtown.” The survey is still available on the City’s website at Antioch Rivertown Community Open Space Design Survey.

The Parks & Recreation Department currently has a page on the City’s website dedicated to the Rivertown Community Space that offers renderings of what a park, there could look like and a link to the survey.

Then in February 2024, the City held two Community Design Workshops to obtain public input on the development of the new gathering place at the former Beede Lumber Yard.

But no results of that survey or the workshops have been provided to the Council or public.

Then, at a recent Council meeting, Torres-Walker switched and said she now supports building homes there. However, because the City owns the property, any homes built there would have to be within the affordable range, which would undermine efforts to attract residents of means to the historic downtown area to live, shop and dine.

One argument offered in support of the River Town Square project is the City’s downtown hasn’t had a large park since the much larger Barbara Price Marina Park was replaced with the marina boat launch and parking lot in 2012. Concerts and community events are held in Waldie Plaza, but it’s much smaller and can hold fewer attendees than at the proposed River Town Square.

According to the staff report for Tuesday’s agenda, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed use of the grant at their meeting on February 19, 2026. The commissioners were provided with an overview of the grant program requirements, eligibility criteria and the Community Fact Finder tool https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/communities/ which assists agencies in determining project eligibility and priority status for grant funding.

Since that meeting, staff conducted a preliminary evaluation of potential project sites and narrowed the focus of the Proposition 4 grant opportunity to two locations: City Park and the Beede Lumber Yard site.

City Park was last significantly renovated more than 20 years ago and continues to serve as one of Antioch’s most heavily utilized park facilities. According to Placer.ai visitation data, City Park ranks as the City’s most visited park. The site presents an opportunity for a transformational community investment that could include improvements such as a synthetic turf field, an all-inclusive playground, renovated and fully operational restroom facilities, pickleball courts, enhanced gathering spaces, and other recreational amenities. Due to its central location, City Park also has the potential to generate income from user groups and continue to be a community hub.

The staff report continues: The Beede Lumber Yard site is currently an undeveloped property located in Downtown Antioch. Preliminary community outreach and conceptual renderings for a future park at this location were completed in 2024. Development of the site would create a new public park and gathering space in the downtown area, further supporting community activation, recreation opportunities, and economic vitality.

While development of a new park at the Beede Lumber Yard site would result in additional annual maintenance and operational costs estimated between $200,000 and $250,000, public spaces in downtown areas can provide broader economic and community benefits by attracting visitors, supporting local businesses, and creating a “third place” for residents to gather outside of home and work.

Both locations appear to meet the preliminary eligibility requirements of the Proposition 4 grant program and present significant opportunities to expand recreational amenities and enhance quality of life for Antioch residents.

Staff is seeking City Council direction regarding which project site should be advanced for further evaluation, community engagement, conceptual design and grant application development.

Renderings by both the River Town Square proponents and RHAA include a concert stage, grass, trees, benches and pathways. The RHAA renderings include an amphitheater for seating near the corner of W. 3rd and E Streets.

Consultant Recommends City Park

In the presentation by consulting firm Townsend Public Affairs, who was hired by the City to provide state and federal legislative advocacy and grant writing services, they recommend the Council choose City Park as the location for the state grant funds.

They wrote, “City Park is definitively the most competitive project site across both selection criteria (lack of park space and significant poverty). While TPA and the City of Antioch considered multiple potential project sites, other options that were able to demonstrate significant poverty were less competitive in terms of park space, primarily due to their proximity to Corteva Wetlands Preserve and other large preservation areas.”

River Town Square Supporters Continue Effort

At one point, supporters of the River Town Square project said the cost would be covered privately without any City funds. But with the potential state grant funds, the supporters have changed to asking the Council to fund it.

Since 2015 supporters have maintained a Facebook page, participated in parades including this year’s Independence Day Parade, and launched an effort on Change.org, posted by Kim Stadtler, asking for people to sign a petition until tomorrow, Sunday, Aug. 9th. So far, 836 people of the 1,000 goal have added their names. She wrote:

“The Issue

“What would a Town Square mean to you?

“For decades, residents have advocated for preserving one of the last large historic waterfront sites (at 2nd and E Streets), known as the “Yard” in downtown Antioch for a community Rivertown Square. Volunteers have organized petitions, attended meetings, participated in workshops, and contributed ideas to help shape a vision for a Rivertown Square.

“This petition continues that community-driven effort and demonstrates that residents remain committed to creating a public space that serves all of Antioch. This spacious area is not just a piece of land; it represents a precious opportunity for our community allowing seniors, families, and people from all walks of life to come together and enjoy a versatile community space.

“Once this property is developed for another use, the opportunity to create a town square may be lost forever. 

“Turning this space into a Town Square would create a hub for recreation, cultural events, farmers markets, and community celebrations. The town square could serve as a vibrant gathering place that celebrates our diverse community and enhances the quality of life for everyone in Antioch.

“To make this vision a reality, we need the Antioch City Council to choose the “Yard” in their application for the  Prop 47 grant of up to $8 million, to build our Town Square. THIS MONEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THE RENOVATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE. By securing these funds, we can ensure that the site truly reflects the needs and desires of our community, transforming it into a welcoming venue that honors our diverse history.

“Numerous cities (Pittsburg, Brentwood, Oakley, Clayton) have benefited from similar initiatives, finding that such spaces boost local business and improve public well-being. The town square would be a testament to the city’s commitment to revitalizing downtown. 

“This is our chance to build something remarkable that can be enjoyed by generations to come. To learn more:  https://www.facebook.com/Downtowneventplaza

“PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION by August 9th, 2026, and urge the Antioch City Council to seize this opportunity and use these grant funds to build our Town Square. Together, we can make a lasting difference for Antioch’s future! Take action now.”

Meeting Details

The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in historic, downtown Rivertown and can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See agenda packet.

Takes action with Torres-Walker absent who was not allowed to attend via Zoom due to apparent staff mistake

“To say there’s no plan is wrong. We are not doing nothing.” – Mayor Bernal

By Allen D. Payton

Following multiple meetings on the matter, the City being awarded nearly $35 million in state Homekey+ grant funds and voting to approve the purchase and conversion of the hotel for the program, during their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 3-1, to reject the funding and withdraw from the project. The funds would have been used to convert the 123-room Antioch Inn & Suites to 84 units of permanent supportive housing for veterans and homeless residents from Antioch and throughout the county. But it would have required a significant financial commitment from the City for five to 15 years which the mayor and two councilmen said Antioch can’t afford following two years of budget cuts and future deficits looming on the horizon.

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson was the lone vote against the motion and Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, in whose District 1 the project would have been located, was absent and unable to attend via Zoom due to an apparent staff mistake.

A new state law allows council member participation and public comments via Zoom which requires council members to submit information prior to the meeting. Earlier in Tuesday night’s meeting residents said Torres-Walker had informed her fellow councilmembers and Acting City Manager Ana Cortez she would miss the meeting and sent the necessary information to participate remotely. But something happened that prevented the councilwoman from participating in the meeting. Resident Leslie May called it, “sabotage” and as a result, she and local homeless advocate Nichole Gardner called for the agenda item to be postponed so Torres-Walker could be in attendance. But that didn’t happen and the councilwoman called in later during public comments on the matter to offer her thoughts in support of the project.

The Primary Issue: City Financial Commitment

While one of the issues was that all those housed on the property would not have been from Antioch, the primary issue for the three councilmen was the City’s financial commitment. To accept the state funding, it would have required ongoing operating assistance from the City averaging up to approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period, for a total of up to an additional $6 million. Over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could have been approximately $18.75 million, primarily from the General Fund.

On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.

Competing Views Offered During Public Comments

Following a brief staff presentation on the agenda item, #7, during public comments some residents spoke against while most spoke in favor of the project.

A woman asked, “Why Antioch? Antioch is the poster child for low-income housing. There is no guarantee it will house Antioch residents. It can go on for 55 years.”

Patrick Scott said he opposed the project, “primarily for economic reasons. This project will increase the deficits. We’ve already spent more than $25 million on homeless programs and services. In spite of these services, we still face homeless in front of our businesses, on our streets and shuttered businesses.”

He spoke of growing “encampments along the railroad tracks and in downtown.”

“Neither of our neighbors to the west or the east are experiencing the problems we have,” Scott stated.

He then spoke of the City’s projected budget deficits over the next few years and the $1.2 million annual cost for the project.

Resident Leslie May said, “The place is located in District 1. Most of the people who stand and speak against it don’t live in District 1. The railroad tracks are not the responsibility of the City of Antioch. Unless you live in District 1 and have to work with the people who are unhoused…you don’t understand what it is. It is humane to give these people a clean place.”
“Antioch residents will definitely have first choice,” she explained. “They reason they’re not in Pittsburg, Oakley and Brentwood is because they pushed them all here.”

“The City of Antioch is already spending $1.2 million a year to do these sweeps, so why not spend the money on this…up to $1.2 million,” she concluded.

“Why would the council even consider adopting the Homekey project in Antioch? It’s ludicrous,” said Evelyn Scott. “Especially with the current budget shortfalls.”

“Residents can come from anywhere in the county,” she continued. “You cannot continue to dip into reserves…especially when you’re taking prime properties.

Cielo Martinez spoke next saying, “I’m 29 years old. I’ve been homeless for almost seven years. I work myself. I don’t do drugs. I don’t do alcohol. I work every day. So does my husband. I can’t afford a home, right now. The rent out here is crazy.”

Rebecca B. said, while choking back tears, “I’ve been on the streets for 15 years. We need homes. A lot of us don’t want to be out here. This is not a choice. We’re not getting better. We’re getting bitter. A lot of us want to work but we can’t work. I’m diabetic. I don’t have teeth. I can’t get a job because you want to judge me by my teeth, by my face, by my dog. I want a home. How much more in life am I supposed to take? It’s not my duty, it’s not my job. It’s your job. Please, help us. We don’t want to be out there.”

Local real estate broker Mark Jordan spoke next saying, “This is an incredibly emotional discussion. However, the City of Antioch only has one option and that’s Option B. Because the contract price is not a realistic price…of $15.1 million.”

“This particular property has a 17% occupancy rate. This property uses revenue to determine value,” he explained.

“There’s no appraisal for this property to the public,” Jordan continued. He cited state government code that it requires one unless it’s a gift.

California Penal Code…section 424 makes it a felony if an elected official overpays for a property and commits waste. Protect yourself, protect the city. The property is in foreclosure. Buy it at the foreclosure price.”

A woman who referred to herself as a reverend said, “It’s not just a fiscal issue. Housing is the most essential thing you can spend your money on. I think you can find the money. There are grants you can apply for. The amount of money you are spending on homeless people already would be offset. We can’t tolerate what’s going on in the Bay Area anymore. Even wealthy, middle-class people are struggling to pay their rent. I pray you…make the right decision.”

Joey Flegel-Mishlove, Policy Manager for the Bay Area Housing Mission, said, “Starting from the human question of what it’s like to sleep in the cold, the heat or the rain. Homelessness…as elected officials it is the most important issue. It is a fiscally sound choice to enter into this contract.”

“How in a deficit can we turn down the largest grant the State of California has ever offered us?” he asked. “Partners have been offering to help us. I hope you can say, ‘we can get this done. We will get this done.”

Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “The Homekey thing, I don’t think we can afford it. You’re taking…something that is income generating for the community. They pay tax monies to the city.”

“I’m not saying deny the money from the state. Is there another way that it can be used?” he asked.

“Financially, the City cannot afford it and the homeless need to understand that,” Hernandez concluded.

A woman named Pastor Phillips said, “I’m for the housing…for the people to get housed. I’m praying that God touch your heart. It’s necessary. Give them somewhere to live. All things are possible through Christ. Have a heart. Help these people then you can clean up the community.”

Resident Joe W. said, “It’s very cut and dry. If you have money coming in you can help the deficit. If you give people a place to stay you help the community. You ain’t got no worry to get a felony off this.”

As members in the audience wouldn’t quiet down at the direction of the mayor, the council took a five-minute recess. Following the break, the council then voted to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.

Joe W. continued his comments saying, “You literally have the money to invest in a program. It’s a fiduciary responsibility of the committee to make a sound decision. The community of District 1 is very supportive of this. The money is there. You also need to look inside yourself. The city council is supposed to solve problem. You have wasted $25 million trying to move it away. Basically, you have a decision to invest in your people.”

Another speaker was Ankit Panchal who formerly managed and works with the owners of the hotel said, “Let’s clarify some of the false narratives. There was an appraisal that was done by the City in 2025. Cost to build a room? $300,000 for a brand, new hotel room. So, this is a bargain. This project was conditionally approved and signed by the City. If the City pulls out, will it cost the city thousands or millions?”

“The City of Antioch has a golf course,” he stated offering a funding option. “40,000 rounds of golf times four is 160,000. I believe each golfer can afford $5 extra for around of golf. That’s $800,000 per year. There’s your funding, right there.”

Former Antioch School Board Trustee Diane Gibson-Gray who said, “You’re deficit spending. So, you’re living on savings. We’re going to be sued if there’s fights.”

“What happens if the operator goes out of business?” she asked. “If you want to spend $14,500 per unit, spend it here in Antioch. I’m sure there’s some good things you could do with that money. “

Torres-Walker spoke via Zoom as a resident saying, “Wow. Tonight, has been very interesting. We have a city that is divided on a moral issue. We have months if not years to address this issue. The city invested in Opportunity Village…in clearing encampments. You have a large moral dilemma.”

She spoke of the City not having a strategy for economic development or staffing.

“I don’t know what the solution is, tonight.” Torres-Walker continued. “If I was there tonight and had the opportunity to vote, I would vote to move forward.”

Opportunity should live here in Antioch for everybody,” she stated.

“Whatever decision you make tonight…think about me and my neighbors who have to live with them every day. Support Homekey,” she concluded.

The council again voted to extend the meeting, this time for another hour until 12:30 AM. It passed 4-0.

All other public comments were in favor of the project.

Council Questions, Discussion and Decision

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was first to speak saying, “When this process started, I supported this application….because of the significant dollars from the state coming to our city for permanent, supportive housing.”

He spoke of the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that help keep people in their homes.

“I thought the $34.9 million would come to the City to offset our costs. But in time I learned that would go to the property for rehabilitation,” he continued.

“There’s no disagreement to do what we can to help our neighbors, the unhoused community,” Rocha stated. “What I think about is being a steward of taxpayer dollars.”

“I was thinking 84 beds, that would be about a third of our homeless. But the…system has a wait list throughout the county. It’s a regional problem, not just here in Antioch,” he shared. “We’re not in a position to take on a long-term commitment of taxpayer dollars,”

“What I’ve heard is partnering with neighboring communities. But that hasn’t transpired.”

“What I’m hearing from residents in District 2 and beyond, is do something with funding…but when it comes down to taxpayer dollars, that’s the part I’m struggling with.

“I don’t see money coming in to offset the deficits next year and the years that follow,” he concluded.

District 3 Councilman Don Freitas spoke next saying, “There isn’t a simple solution to many of the problems and questions asked tonight. When the council did decide to go forward it was based on the information we had at that time. We thought the information was complete and comprehensive. I voted for it. Although, unfortunately, afterwards a lot of questions came up and more and more, without answers. Our regional partners have tried to respond and give us answers.”

“A lot of speakers say, ‘it’s $35 million. What’s you’re problem? Just accept it.’ Fiscal responsibility is not a negative thing. Bankruptcy is not a wonderful thing,” he continued. “We have to make decisions individually and collectively for the 120,000 people we represent.”

“Let’s spend millions of dollars on this project knowing it’s irresponsible, knowing some future city council will have to declare bankruptcy,” Freitas stated. “We took no pleasure in cutting…and using reserves, $5 million last year, $5 million this year…and with a $15 million deficit for the next fiscal year. That’s why we’re so concerned…in August, we will begin to focus on the budget so the City will not go into bankruptcy.”

“Having receivership is not something we would welcome in this community,” he continued.

“I would love to address the homelessness in the City of Antioch. This Homekey project doesn’t guarantee it,” Freitas stated. “We can go ahead and spend $19 million for the next 15 years and the impact that we will have to spend money to oversee how we’re spending money. I just can’t understand why there’s such a fight in this community and division, and frankly, a lot of hatred…coming to us, because we want fiscal responsibility.”

“I agree with what Nichole Gardner said. ‘If not this, what are we going to do to figure this out?’ For me, Homekey+ application is not it,” he stated.

“We’re going to spend $15 million to buy a property that’s in foreclosure. Really?” the councilman asked. “We could go through all of this and not one homeless Antioch person would be helped. Not one. That is not acceptable to me. This is not the right project at the right time with the consequences. So, I believe the prudent response is the second option.”

Some in the audience then erupted into chants of “Fight, fight, fight. Housing is a human right.”

“Not helpful,” Freitas responded.

“This report, if you read it in its entirety, you’ll see it’s not a good project,” he added.

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “I need to hear from staff, particularly the city manager, why Councilwoman Torres-Walker wasn’t in this meeting tonight. She’s been the number one advocate here and we did not hear her voice, tonight and I find it very disrespectful. She let staff know over a month ago.”

“If we don’t do this, what are we going to do?” she asked “What we’re currently doing is not working. It’s a crisis on the street. We need to figure something out because people email us every day.  People call us every day. They’re concerned about homeless, because they don’t want to see it. We can’t turn our backs on this population…because other cities have pushed their problems. I refuse to be a problem pusher.”

“Somebody bought that hotel and fixed it up. But we didn’t help it. We didn’t utilize it,” Wilson continued and then mentioned it’s going to be fenced in and boarded up.

“I’m probably going to be the only one to still support Homekey,” she concluded.

Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next saying, “In 2021, the city council developed and adopted policies how we’re going to help homeless. Those still stand. In December 2023…it provided specific tactics and strategies how staff was going to help homeless in the City of Antioch. We spent $500,000 to develop those plans. To say there’s no plan is wrong. We are doing aspects of that plan, with ERF (state Encampment Resolution Funds) to help 30 or 40 homeless off the streets. We are not doing nothing.”

“Let me thank staff for doing that, because it wasn’t council,” Wilson interjected.

“Yes. It was staff,” Bernal responded.

“Other cities do not use their General Fund monies for these programs,” he continued. “When this program came forward it required General Fund monies which are very precious. We faced a $54 million budget…I didn’t think we could commit $1.2 million per year. At that time, I was the only ‘no’ vote. So, I’ve been the bad guy which is fine. Because I don’t think we can add…to our deficit. That’s with 15 vacancies…deferring all of our $4 million in roof project. We have a building across the street that’s going to cost…I don’t know why we have that.”

“We as a city do not have the resources at this time to make a long-term commitment…up to $18 million in the future,” Bernal stated.

“We have a permanent housing element that with discussion with regional opportunities…I’ve reached out to other cities and there is not an appetite…for people to commit money to what people often believe is Antioch’s problem,” he shared.

“This project is not going to solve homelessness in Antioch,” Bernal continued. “This is a very expensive proposition which is going to help people, but Antioch does not have the funds.”

“My position is to rescind the Homekey funding,” he concluded.

Bernal then made the motion to rescind the prior authorization and withdraw from the project. Rocha seconded the motion and it passed 3-1 with Wilson voting against and Torres-Walker absent.

(For more background on the project see related articles here, here, here and here).

Torres-Walker Speaks During Public Comments at End of Meeting

Torres-Walker then called in again during the Public Comments at the end of the meeting.

“In advance of the meeting, I submitted all the necessary documents to participate,” she said. “It speaks to the disfunction. This is in no way a sleight to Acting City Manager Cortez. So, I don’t blame Ms. Cortez for not posting my location within 72 hours before the meeting.”

“Ms. Scott is not coming back, and we are in desperate need of quality leadership,” the councilwoman added.

Public speakers – not all from Antioch – name four companies the City should divest from or not invest in claiming they’re part of Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza; if investments sold now there would be a loss

Work group to bring back proposed policy additions in 6 months with progress report in 3 months, as world’s two largest investment firms abandon them

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council unanimously agreed to move forward for future consideration liberal activist or “woke” practices in the City’s investment policy. The proposal was brought back after the council members failed to adopt the current investment policy on a 2-2 split vote during the June 9th Council meeting. Mayor Ron Bernal and Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas voted in favor, Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker voted against, and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was absent.

Referred to as Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing, the practice would, according to the City staff report for the item, #8 on the agenda, “filter out and exclude sectors and/or companies the City does not want to invest in. The current Policy includes two such prohibitions in Section V.3:a. which reads, ‘The City will not invest in any companies that produce alcohol for public consumption or tobacco products.’”

During the June 23rd meeting, the council directed staff to meet with a group, that has labeled itself Divest Contra Costa, to further develop proposed language, despite the world’s top two investment firms moving away from the practice that limits in which companies they can invest.

The group, which has no website, social media presences or a list of members, proposed the following language it wants added to the City’s investment policy:

“The City of Antioch will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the wellbeing of our communities and our environment, favoring investment in entities that support the needs of peacetime daily life, in companies that offer renewable energy and other climate mitigation strategies, in companies with a strong environmental, labor, and social records, or in socially responsible community projects within our City.

“The City will refrain from investment in harmful industries such as tobacco, fossil fuels, mass incarceration or immigrant detention, and weaponry of any kind, or in companies with a consistent record of direct involvement in severe human rights violations such as slavery and prison labor, war crimes, illegal military occupation, racial segregation or apartheid.”

The challenge is how each of those categories will be defined and by whom, and the effort has specifically been to divest from companies based in Israel as the Left considers that country’s actions in Gaza an “illegal military occupation.”

In addition, space related companies use fossil fuels to power their rockets, and the Left is opposed to the world’s first trillionaire, Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, which just issued its first public offering. Such a policy could prevent the City from investing in that or other similar companies and enjoying returns on investment from its growth.

According to the National and Legal Policy Center (NLPC), the world’s largest asset manager, “Blackrock was one of the pioneers of ESG investing, but in early 2025 abandoned “the ‘woke’ policies.” It was “the biggest sign yet that the vibe has shifted against liberal activism in the private sector.” In addition, NLPC reported in May 2026, “Vanguard, the second-largest index fund manager with approximately $10 trillion in assets under management, has similarly retreated in public posture while its index funds.”

According to the City staff report, while “there is no cost to adopt the draft policy attached, should the City choose to adopt an ESG investment practice, additional investment advisory fees could be incurred.

Public Comments

During Public Comments, all who spoke supported adding such language to the City’s investment policy, with some wearing black-and-white checkered Palestinian and other keffiyehs, which are traditional head scarves worn in the Middle East and North Africa. They offered more details about the companies they don’t like, “in solidarity with Palestinians” and spoke against Israel’s military actions in Gaza as well as the U.S. military industrial companies that manufacture the arms being used. Others in the gallery held a Palestinian flag and wore a shirt with Palestinian flag colors. Three people held up a large poster showing a photo of children with the words, “Stop Investing in Our Genocide.” A speaker, who said his “family came from the West Bank where they currently reside” and runs a non-profit for Palestine, claimed those in the photo were in an orphan camp in Gaza.

“As a concerned world citizen, I have an obligation to stand up to injustice,” another speaker said.

A resident, who said he was “of Palestinian decent,” spoke of “specific exclusions” and mentioned companies he claimed “are tied to harm” that include some based or with operations in California: aerospace and defense contractor Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of construction and other equipment, Caterpillar, BP (British Petroleum) and Chevron, which relocated its headquarters from San Ramon to Houston, Texas at the end of 2024, due to the unfavorable government policies and opposition from those on the Left. He said his group wants the City instead “investing in” other projects such as the Homekey homeless hotel. That project will actually cost the City money and offer no return on investment for its portfolio.

The final man to speak and for a second time on the item, said he was from Concord and implored, “I think you need to realize that the litmus test for our humanity is what’s happening in Gaza and we’re funding it as well as Israel. Antioch has the choice…the chance the lead the way.” He said the Concord City Council “voted it down right away.”

Council Discussion and Decision

Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked staff about the amount the City receives from its investments. He mentioned a little over $2.1 million that the City will be receiving from “investments and rentals” in Fiscal Year 2027.

“That’s just in the General Fund,” City Finance Director Dawn Merchant responded. “All funds have investment income. But…every month the City Treasurer submits a Treasurer’s Report that lists all the investments, the security transactions and interest for that month, and a presentation twice a year from our investment advisor that gives portfolio earnings…year-to-date and from inception.”

“So, anyone who wants very detailed information about our investments they can look at our agenda, tonight?” the councilman asked. “Yes,” she stated.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker then asked about the current investments in three of the companies mentioned during Public Comments.

“The total, I assume this is cash value…Caterpillar, Chevron and Lockheed Martin…if the investments were sold there would be a loss. What is the total amount the City is making from these three investments…would it be a significant loss?” she asked.

“That’s the market value versus what the trade value would be,” Merchant responded. “There would be a loss.”

“There are two specific holdings for Caterpillar,” said the City’s investment advisor, Justin Resuello, Institutional Sales and Relationship Manager of PFM Asset Management (PFMAM). “The par value of both is…a little over $1.6 million and those mature in August 2028 and February 2029. Those currently present losses of approximately $1,274 and $17,103.”

“The two Chevron positions…both have a part of a little over $1.3 million,” he continued. “One matures Feb. 2028 and August 2028.” If sold now the City would lose about $500.

“The last position is one holding with Lockheed Martin that matures August 2028 with a par of about $600,000 and a current unrealized loss of about $5,000,” Resuello shared.

“So, these are all in that three-year end strategy. We’re pretty close to maturity,” he explained. “Our preference is still that the holdings are not sold at a loss. But…if that is what the Council wishes to do, we’ll act on your decision.”

“These amounts can change daily,” Finance Director Merchant interjected.

Torres-Wallker then said, “I think the question is, is the loss significant enough to not consider.”

“That’s up to Council discretion,” Merchant responded. “Any loss no matter what the amount, especially in our financial position. However,..if Council doesn’t want these investments…then that’s what we’re going to do.”

Torres-Walker then asked, “Is it possible to add additional language” to the section already prohibiting investments in tobacco and alcohol manufacturers. “I think this has already come up that we will not invest in companies that are involved in war crimes.”

“For the analytics that is used by investment companies, there’s no metric to say this company is involved in war crimes,” Merchant explained. “The language…that talks about apartheid, there’s not metric where they would be able to identify that. So, that’s where it gets a little bit tricky.” She then stated that the council could add sections from the proposed restrictions to the policy.

“As explained, this is not something that happens overnight. It’s taken some agencies up to a year to dial down on these investment strategies,” Merchant shared. “So, I don’t want to assume what the council majority will decide tonight.”

“I’m not saying that would be the direction of the council because it’s been a year people have been coming…asking,” Torres-Walker responded. “Your recommendation is that we take more time to develop a p policy. People are asking we immediately divest.”

“The recommendation would be to include language that investments that…fall from an exclusions list are either held until there is no loss or maturity, whichever occurs first,” Merchant stated.

Freitas then repeated what a member of the public said, who, “articulated what I think is part of the challenge for the city council…to adopt a clear, ethical investing policy, that we need to establish standards, that we need to have accountability. The word that I would use is making it doable.”

The councilman spoke of serving on the Contra Costa Water District Retirement Committee “back then in the “70’s, 80’s and 90’s apartheid was the issue. We needed to develop a policy…that can be followed…for accountability.”
“Sometimes, one person’s opinion is not necessarily factual,” Freitas stated. “The investor needs to have clear, articulated standards so that he or she does not get crosswise with the council. Time and time again, people would come with their interpretation of some of the things. Some are very easy to understand what the situation is.”

“This is not an easy policy,” he continued. “It’s not finger pointing and saying, ‘no,’ to you and ‘yes,’ to you.’ It’s much more difficult. Because as a city council we have a legal and a fiduciary responsibility with regards to investments.”

“So, frankly, I believe…adopting a clear, ethical investing policy that has standards and accountability and from my perspective, doable…that should be the direction to City staff, to PMF (PFM) and I think Divest should identify two or three people on a periodic basis that there are discussions, so we hear some of the concerns…and those are taken into consideration…to develop a policy that we can live with.”

“I do think this is a situation that we need to take a look at. But we should not do it quickly,” Freitas stated. “I think we should do it methodically, I think it should be inclusive. I think this is a very, very important issue.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked, “Can you add to that, a working group?”

“Two weeks ago, I suggested the City Manager, the Director of Finance, PFM and representatives from Divest,” Freitas responded. “That was, to me, a working group…so, they know what’s happening, questions can go back and forth and I have to believe a good, workable policy will have to come back to the City of Antioch.”

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said, “I think the City Treasurer should be part of this collaborative.”

“I agree,” Freitas said.

“I would like to know…what makes the most sense for the City of Antioch and what aligns with what we heard tonight,” Rocha continued. “There’s the SRI option and…the ESG option. One’s more complex than the other.”
“What was suggested to me, was that we adopt the Treasurer’s Report, but that we are open to hearing, looking into and adopting some of the policies that have been discussed tonight. So, I think we would want to do a blend.”

Mayor Ron Bernal then asked City Treasurer Jorge Rojas, Jr., “to give us his thoughts on the policy.”

Rojas said, “We have the two options from PFM. We never said anything regarding potentially adopting an ethical investment policy. Pretty much Council is the one that makes that decision. We either wait for maturity dates, take the loss right now and go from there.”

Bernal asked him, “What would be your recommendation?”

Rojas responded, “My recommendation would be to adopt the policy that was recommended, last meeting, the investment policy, and like Louie was saying, take a look at it. Get back to it, revise it, perhaps…have that committee, take a look it perhaps every six months or so and then go from there.”

Torres-Walker then said, “I’m also getting the sense from the community, we’re under the gun, we need to pass this right now. I believe the council was made to believe there would be some outside penalties and that was clarified there are not any outside penalties and we do have discretion.”

“I do agree that the language we really want, and I hope the community agrees with this, and that is we do move forward with the recommendation, and we pass the (existing) policy,” the councilwoman continued. “Because it’s the City’s ordinance and we can change it any time.”

“There’s a legal requirement by the State that we have a Statement of Investment Policy with guidelines that meet State mandates,” Merchant explained.

“I do agree with putting some group together,” Torres-Walker stated. “I also agree with passing the policy as is while this group works together. But I will say government often pacifies people with ad hoc committees and work groups that lead nowhere. We can be back here in a year, two years, three years with still no…ethical investment language…no…policy and with no intent to ever have done so and that is not a process that I want to agree to tonight, if it is not something that City staff is going to commit to move forward and actually work with the community on because it would be doing a disservice to the residents and the public who showed up here, tonight.”

“So, I guess I’m curious to understand is there an intent to come back with a timeline…that things will start to move?” she asked. “So, that this is not just a way to get them out of the room.”

Freitas responded, “Let me just take a crack it” and made a motion to adopt a resolution to approve the Statement of Investment Policy, form the committee to start developing an ethical investment policy, and the council receives quarterly reports and at the end of six months, it comes back as a presentation to the city council, “where are we at, what are the issues and how do we move forward.”

Torres-Walker then asked to add to the motion, “I hear six months.”

“Quarterly, that’s what I meant,” Freitas said.

Rocha then seconded the motion.

“Select your three folks, and immediately, I mean tomorrow morning send an email saying these are our representatives that we would like to meet. Do not let this sit,” Torres-Walker implored those in the audience.

Without further discussion, the motion passed unanimously to applause from the public.

See complete Agenda Item 8.

Watch from the 3:32 mark of Council meeting video.

Before deciding to accept or reject State Homekey+ funding

City staff answer councilmembers’ questions; can only use 15% of CDBG funds to cover the up to $1.2 million annual commitment

By Allen D. Payton

As agreed to during their meeting this past Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will hold a study session Monday, June 29th, to discuss and get questions answered regarding the State Homekey+ funding for the Mahogany Housing Project at the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly Comfort Inn. It will help the council members determine whether they will vote to accept or reject the $34.9 million grant at their next regular meeting on July 28th.

The City would have to commit an initial $750,000 already included in next year’s budget, plus, up to an additional $1.2 million per year for the next five for $6.75 million total and as many as 15 years for a total City commitment of $18.75 million. The State and City funds will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the hotel on Mahogany Way, for approximately 84 units of permanent supportive housing.

On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.

However, Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked if the other 40 rooms would still be rented for public hotel accommodations. Another question asked by District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha, that City staff did not have an answer for, was what would happen if a future council chooses to not continue the program. Those are just two of the questions the council members want answered before they vote.

As previously reported, following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”

“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May, 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”

“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”

Staff Answers questions

In the City staff report for the item, SM-1 on the agenda, they answered a variety of the council members’ questions.

HOMEKEY+ AWARD STATUS

The project received a conditional award in March 2026. The Acceptance of Terms was signed by both the City and CSH on March 17, 2026.

The award letter indicates that the representations made in the application are the basis for the award. HCD has been preparing the Standard Agreement, which is the final contract document for the award. The Standard Agreement has not been presented to the City as of the writing of this staff report.

HCD TIMELINES & PROJECT MILESTONES

“One of the primary questions raised by Council was related to timelines required by HCD. To staff’s knowledge, there does not appear to be an immediate concrete deadline.

“However, HCD described a series of project milestones tied to the award letter, Standard Agreement, construction, rehabilitation, and lease-up schedule. The longer the City delays execution and project advancement, the more difficult it becomes for the project to meet the milestones contemplated in the award and the Homekey+ Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Homekey+ is designed to support the relatively rapid development of permanent supportive housing, and HCD expressed concern regarding the amount of time that has passed since issuance of the March 2026 conditional award.

In simple terms, staff understands the timeline issue as follows:

• The City has received a conditional award.
• The acceptance of award terms was signed.
• HCD is preparing or has prepared the Standard Agreement.
• Project milestones are tied to execution and project delivery.
• Delay does not automatically terminate the award today, but continued delay increases risk to the award and project schedule.

PROJECT CONFIGURATION & UNIT COUNT

“The existing Comfort Inn currently contains 123 hotel rooms. Under the proposed Homekey+ project, the property would be rehabilitated and reconfigured into a total of 85 residential units, consisting of 84 permanent supportive housing units and one on-site manager’s unit. The reduction in the total number of units does not represent unused space or hotel rooms that would continue operating for transient lodging. Rather, the rehabilitation combines multiple existing hotel rooms to create larger, code-compliant residential units while also incorporating the infrastructure necessary for permanent supportive housing, including kitchenettes, accessibility improvements, property management offices, supportive service and case management offices, community gathering space, laundry facilities, recreation areas and other resident amenities.”

PROPERTY STATUS & REPORTED LOAN DEFAULT

The staff report also shares, “Council and members of the public raised concerns regarding news reports that the

property is associated with a loan default. Since the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting, staff has received additional information directly from the lending institution regarding the status of the loan.

“According to the lender, while a Notice of Default has been filed against the property, there is currently no foreclosure or trustee sale scheduled. The lender advised that it is actively working with the property owner to facilitate the sale of the hotel for the Homekey+ project and is aware that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has awarded funding for the project. The lender further indicated that it will work cooperatively with the borrower, project partners, and the City to facilitate the transaction and is aligned with HCD’s project timeline.”

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ONGOING HOMELESS SERVICES:

The staff report also offers some other funding sources for homeless services. However, one source can’t be used, and the City can only use 15 percent of its annual Community Development Block Grant funds, which was suggested by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker.

“During Council discussion, questions were raised regarding whether existing City, State, or Federal funding sources could be used to offset the potential ongoing operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project. Staff evaluated several potential funding sources and summarized the findings below.

“Staff evaluated several existing funding sources to determine whether they could realistically offset the City’s projected operating commitment. While each funding source could potentially contribute to project operations, each carries statutory limitations or would require significant reductions to existing programs currently serving Antioch residents. Accordingly, none of the identified funding sources currently provides a complete replacement for the projected operating subsidy without corresponding impacts to existing City priorities.”

Housing Successor Funds

“The City currently allocates approximately $500,000 annually in Housing Successor funds toward homeless services, subject to available fund balance…these funds are expected to remain available for approximately two to three additional years.

“Redirecting the entire annual homeless services allocation to support Homekey+ operations would require discontinuing or significantly reducing programs currently serving approximately 2,688 homeless and at-risk Antioch residents through eight community-based organizations. It would also eliminate or significantly reduce funding for tenant-landlord mediation, eviction prevention, emergency rental assistance, legal services for tenants facing eviction, and a City staff position currently dedicated to housing services.”

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

“Federal regulations limit CDBG public service expenditures to 15 percent of the City’s annual allocation. Based on recent grant awards, this equates to approximately $127,500 annually, although the amount varies each year.

“Using the City’s entire public service allocation for Homekey+ operations would eliminate funding for the City’s competitive public service grant program during that funding cycle, affecting approximately 13 nonprofit organizations currently serving at least 1,655 Antioch residents, including programs supporting seniors, individuals with disabilities, youth, victims of abuse and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, such a change would require a Substantial Amendment to the City’s HUD Consolidated Plan, completion of a federal public participation process, and would not be available until the next funding cycle.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)

“The City receives approximately $350,000 annually through the State’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program. State requirements dedicate a significant portion of these funds to housing rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, accessory dwelling units, and administration. Approximately 55 percent of the annual allocation (roughly $190,000 annually) could potentially be directed toward homelessness-related activities through the City’s next five-year PLHA planning process.

“However, redirecting these funds would require reducing or eliminating other housing priorities currently supported through PLHA, including affordable homeownership assistance and housing rehabilitation programs. Any change would require HCD approval and completion of the City’s next required five-year planning process.

“Staff also evaluated whether the HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program could be used to finance ongoing Homekey+ operations. Section 108 is intended to finance capital improvements, including housing acquisition and rehabilitation, public facilities, infrastructure improvements, and economic development projects. It is not an eligible funding source for ongoing supportive services, staffing, case management, or annual operating expenses. As a result, Section 108 could potentially support future capital improvements but cannot be used to fund the City’s proposed operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project.”

QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE SUMMARY

1. Is the award final or conditional? Not yet. HCD has issued a conditional award of $34.9 million and the project has advanced beyond the application stage. However, the project is not yet fully finalized because the Standard Agreement has not been fully executed and other program requirements must still be satisfied before grant funds may be disbursed.

2. Has the City already accepted the award? The City previously executed and returned the Conditional Award Acceptance acknowledging the terms and conditions of the award. HCD has confirmed that this document does not, by itself, obligate the City to execute the Standard Agreement or proceed with the project. Execution of the Standard Agreement remains the action that commits the parties to the grant.

3. Does the City have to pay $1.2 million immediately?

No. The operating subsidy is tied to project operations and is not expected to begin until the project is operational, currently anticipated in 2027.

4. What happens if the City declines? If the City elects not to execute the Standard Agreement, HCD would likely rescind the Homekey+ award and the current project would not proceed under this funding allocation. HCD has advised that declining an award could be considered during evaluation of future competitive funding applications; however, any effect on future scoring would depend on the specific funding program and evaluation criteria in place at that time.

5. How does the current loan default affect the project? Based upon discussions between the City’s legal counsel, project representatives, and parties associated with the existing financing, the reported loan default appears to involve the current property owner rather than the Homekey+ project itself. While it may affect the timing or structure of the acquisition, HCD has advised that acquisition through foreclosure, receivership, negotiated purchase, or other lawful means may still be possible. The developer continues to evaluate acquisition options with the lender and trustee.

6. Is this a loan? No. HCD described Homekey+ as a grant program. The City’s obligation is related to its role as co-applicant, payee, and proposed local contributor.

7. Who receives and administers funds? HCD indicated the City is required to be the payee. Specific disbursement controls may be established through escrow or other approved structures.

8. Who gets housed? Residents would be referred to through approved eligibility and referral systems, not through open walk-in access. The final tenant selection and referral process must comply with Homekey+, fair housing, and coordinated entry requirements.

9. Can Antioch residents be prioritized? This requires additional legal and programmatic clarification. County partners have indicated that some projects have used lawful local targeting approaches, but final structure must comply with fair housing and funding requirements.

10. What public safety measures will be in place? The final operations plan should include property management, staffing, service coordination, resident expectations, security protocols, and coordination with APD and County partners.

See additional details and issues in the agenda item SM-1.

Meeting Details

A Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. will be held to again negotiate contracts with City employee groups who have been working without one since last fall including the Management Unit, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association. The study session will begin at 6:30 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.

Study Session on Monday, June 29th

Program would spend about $500K to $640K per permanent supportive housing unit

“That hotel is not going to operate as a hotel. It’s going to have a fence around it. People are going to start breaking in and…living there whether you want them to or not.” To her fellow council members: “I have no problem renting vans and dropping people off in front of your homes if we don’t get a solution.”-  District 1 Councilwoman Torres-Walker

“I cannot sit here and support committing money we do not have.” – Mayor Ron Bernal

By Allen D.  Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday night, June 23, 2026, which lasted past midnight, after receiving public comments on both sides of the issue, the Antioch City Council postponed a decision on accepting state funding for the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. The City would have to commit an initial $750,000 already included in next year’s budget, plus, an additional $1.2 million per year for the next five years. The funds will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly known as the Comfort Inn on Mahogany Way, for approximately 84 to 85 units of permanent supportive housing.

On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.

According to the City staff report for Item 9 on this past Tuesday’s agenda, “consistent with the approved Homekey+ application and prior City Council authorization, the City identified a proposed $750,000 contribution to support acquisition and rehabilitation costs associated with the project. The proposed contribution is reflected in the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. Funding for this contribution is included in the proposed FY 2026/27 Housing Successor budget.

Following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”

“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May, 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”

“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”

Public Comments

During Public Comments several residents spoke in favor and against the project.

Lynette Clark, who said she’s a 34-year Antioch resident, spoke against the project, specifically its location, regarding “the potential long-term impacts project Homekey could have on Antioch neighborhoods, quality of life and community resources.” She said it “represents a 50-year commitment” and “1.2 million per year. Those funds could be used for youth programs, community services and, yes, economic development.” Clark asked for transparency regarding the results of the “successes and failures of Project Homekey sites throughout California.”

“The proposed location could negatively impact Antioch’s efforts to attract businesses, employers, hotels and redevelopment,” she continued. “It creates a first impression. Economic development depends heavily on public perception, safety, neighborhood appearance and investor confidence.”

“Is this the best location if Antioch’s stated goal is attracting investment, redevelopment and economic growth?” Clark asked.

She mentioned “drug activity, theft, disturbances, increased law enforcement calls” at other HomeKey projects. the facility and her concerns that the Antioch project “will house individuals with significant behavioral health, substance abuse and mental health needs.”

Crystal Law said, “We already spend over $1 million just cleaning up these…encampments and yet, want to argue all this extra stuff. However, when we have people out there, dying in the streets, there’s no question, yes, we absolutely need this site. Yes, we need to do this…for people in the city and the residents of Antioch. But yet, you want to take that $1.2 million…and you want to give it to City employees and incentives. Come on, now. It will help to clean up, down here, it will help to get businesses going…get people off the street…help to get people healthy, again. They’ll have case workers…mental health workers. They’ll have the ability to actually move forward. This is permanent housing, not transitional housing, so, it’s not like they will be in and out and going all over the place.”

A man named Jay who owns the 7-11 store across Auto Center Drive from the hotel said he “invested in here about three years ago. I did everything in my mighty power to clean this place up. It’s turned over a lot, now. But I am, actually, just a little scared of the traffic it’s going to be bringing in. I’m doing everything there in my mighty power every day to stop the theft…get people off that property.” He said, “they give us a hard time” and mentioned “struggling with the turnover. Employees don’t want to work there due to those issues.”

Antioch Police Oversight Commission Vice Chair Devin Williams urged the council to support the project saying, “If we get the…$34 million we can find the solutions. It’s not a complete fix but it’s a start. To turn it away would only put us back more.” He then challenged the mayor and two council members saying, “Ya’ll ran on it in 2024” in last year’s elections. “Ron, you ran on economic development and improvement.

Joe Mitchell said he “is not in support of the project due to the City’s current financial situation” and “the 1.2 million…there’s no guarantee that will cover the support for that facility. You guys had to cut, basically do magic, last year to get the budget down to where it was. Still, we’re facing a $12 million deficit.”

“So, monies that are needed to help the City function, can’t spare anything, right now,” he continued. “Sales tax isn’t going up. Our revenue is not going to go up and we can’t overcommit. I really support efforts to help unhoused folks. But our city can’t afford it. We need a full funded police department. We’re approaching a perfect storm for disaster. So, I think it would be a mistake to make that long-term commitment.”

Both council candidate and former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair Sandra White and former Mayor Pro Tem and current Antioch Police Oversight Commissioner Manny Soliz, Jr. spoke against the project. She said, “I am here, tonight to respectfully oppose the proposed HomeKey project because of the financial and public safety challenges our city’s already facing. Antioch is already struggling to provide the level of public safety and city services that residents need.”

She said she’s concerned that, “Antioch taxpayers would pay these costs even though the project will serve unhoused individuals throughout Contra Costa County” and the challenges of the project’s residents “can increase demand on law enforcement…and other City resources.”

“The issue isn’t whether we should we help vulnerable people. The question is whether Antioch…is in the position to take on this additional responsibility, right now,” White concluded.

Soliz said, “I’m speaking on my own behalf as a citizen and long-term resident. I don’t think that the City can afford this program even though I am absolutely an advocate in trying to find a solution and I do have one.”

He suggested spending the money on “the Angelo Quinto program” referring to the City’s Crisis Response Team that’s facing potential budget cuts. Soliz was also concerned the facility wouldn’t just house individuals from Antioch as “they would be coming from anywhere in the county who can qualify to live there. If we’re going to support this as taxpayers let it be for people who are Antioch residents.”

He concluded by saying, “local businesses in the area are up in arms about this project” and “I’ve also heard that there’s a possibility the owner of the property may be having some financial difficulties. You need to look into that.”

A man named Ahmad spoke next saying, “This is a difficult decision for the community. These are the things we actually want to fund that are going to better the people that are living in the city, that are coming to live in the city. I believe people will get out of the situation that they’re in then, begin to sort of pay it forward.”
“I know there’s going to be a lot of work…I’m willing to help,” he concluded.

Additional residents, including local homeless advocates Nichole Gardner and Andrew Becker, who gave impassioned speeches, spoke in favor of the project. He concluded by saying, “Those 84 individuals represent 33 percent of your unhoused community.” Becker also offered to answer any questions from the council members saying he had been involved with and working on the project “for six years” and pointed out its developer wasn’t invited to attend the meeting nor was informed of it by City staff.

Council Discussion & Decision to Postpone

However, after hearing from residents the council members chose to postpone the item until their July 28th meeting.

During their discussion, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha-Torres Walker, who represents the part of the city the project is planned for, spoke first saying, “Whether we accept or reject HomeKey tonight, like, these political stances on poor, hurting people, it doesn’t hurt me. You’re not going to prevent me from getting a win. This is not what this is about. The biggest challenge I’m having is that we have been waiting 18 months for the mayor to come back with an ad hoc committee to talk about solutions to homelessness and it still has not come back to this council.”

“You want to show up against the solution when you don’t have none,” she continued. “There’s a claim this is not a great location. What is it going to look like for people driving into the city? I can tell you what it look like because I drove around and took pictures myself just so I could be reminded of what it looks like.”

Torres-Walker spoke of fires in empty buildings where homeless Antioch residents locate for shelter.

“No one’s being bussed in here from San Francisco. I have talked to people who said they have lived on the streets in Antioch for 30 years,” she stated. “They grew up here. They mama, here, their cousins, here, they brothers, they aunties and uncles. These are not strangers to Antioch.”

Torres-Walker then spoke of the food giveaways in Antioch to people who have nowhere to cook and it ends up on the street and residents complain about dirty streets.

She spoke of the impacts on business saying, “The business owners that’s calling me are tired of stepping over people every morning just to open up their store fronts. Having to clean feces and urine out from in front of they stores, before they can invite anybody in. They know the City isn’t going to anything about them…so, they feed them themself, they feed them themself, and they move them along so they can do business then let them come back at night because there’s no real solutions.”

“The Executive Inn, I wasn’t a big supporter initially,” Torres-Walker continued speaking of the City’s first homeless hotel. “I was also afraid it was going to create unsafe conditions in the community. But having Opportunity Village (at the hotel) on Cavallo and East 18th has actually made it better. The resources are there, the structure is there and people are getting served.”

“Schools have come here and said people are camping by the schools and we feel unsafe with all of this activity. Help us,” the councilwoman stated. “They haven’t gotten any help. Churches are asking for help as they’re helping and they haven’t gotten any help.”

She then spoke of homeless encampments being visible along the railroad tracks when people drive on L Street and then mentioned “bussing people to (Council) District 4 and District 3 and dropping them off, there so then you could see it because District 2 and District 1, we have to see it, deal with it and navigate around it and find solutions every day that aren’t even supported by this city. I’m just trying to figure it out like everyone else is,” Then speaking of the annual financial commitment Torres-Walker then said. “We have 13 months before the first payment is due for wrap-around services and it’s up to 1.2 million not even the potential of the full cost. But because you want people to fearmonger you, based on a budget rather than not having lazy politicians that don’t want to do the work to figure out how we do cover the costs while reducing the burden on the General Fund just baffles me.” Actually, the staff report reads “averaging approximately $1.2 million” but staff later clarified the amount of the City’s annual commitment.

“Because we can get creative,” she continued. “We have the CDBG (federal Community Development Block Grant fund allocations) coming up for a new five-year cycle. There’s housing and homelessness funds in there. If we can give over one million of that money to outside organizations to help with homelessness that aren’t even based in Antioch, we could give that money to this project.”

“All we’ve been hearing for 18 months is regional conversations,” Torres-Walker stated taking swipes at the mayor. “I haven’t heard one report from a regional conversation, yet where we could find out regionally how if every city is willing to kick in. But you have 13 months to do it. County conversations…you just complain about how the County doesn’t support but you never reach out to anybody in the County. You know how I know that? Because I’ve reached out to them. You know how I know the mayors of Brentwood, Pittsburg and Oakley have not been called…about regional efforts? Because I’ve talked to them.”

“You’re saying what you don’t want to see, that building is going to be blighted,” the councilwoman stated. “That hotel is not going to operate as a hotel, I’m not going to say forever, but for many years after this. It’s going to have a fence around it. People are going to start breaking in and people are going to be living there whether you want them to or not with no resources, no wrap-around services.”

“It’s not illegal to be unhoused but it should be illegal to allow people to be unhoused,” she continued. “So, this might not be the solution. But I haven’t heard one. We have people up here who got elected because they said they would address homelessness. We’ve been waiting 18 months.”

Torres-Walker then offered a suggestion from a member of the community to not reject the HomeKey+ fund but table the discussion until the next council meeting “to give those who actually want to do the work an opportunity to figure out how to relieve the burden off the General Fund.”

She then concluded her remarks by issuing a threat saying, “I’ve said this to the Council. I have no problem renting vans and dropping people off in front of your homes if we don’t get a solution.”

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha weighed in next saying, “That’s tough to follow” and asked questions of staff of “when does the actual General Fund dollars of up to 1.2  (million) have to be kicked in to move forward” and “if this city council chooses to move forward what happens in four years when another city council chooses not to?”

Community Services Department Director Monseratt Cabral responded, “The 1.2 would happen next year. Right now, we’ll use the 750,000 (dollars) to acquire and then moving forward, 1.2. Why it’s up to 1.2 is because it’s 1.2 for the first five years, then in year six it drops down to 750 or 800,000 for the next three or four years. So, it fluctuates to the maximum of 1.2 until the year 16.”

“I’ve heard there’s a timeline for construction,” Rocha stated. “One of the things I definitely have supported this from the beginning on the application not knowing where we’d be in the budgetary process. We just overcame $54 million from our General Fund over the last two years. But looking forward, it’s like we’re faced with another $54 million or so the next three. So, if we move forward with this…something has to go along the way. I’m just talking about services and programs we may not be able to afford moving forward. It’s going to come at a cost of some General Fund dollars and services. I just want to make that clear.”

Torres-Walker responded, “A lot of the programs people have been advocating for are funded by outside funds, anyway. I think what the community is saying, the concern around sleight of hand…where we’re going to say we can’t afford this 1.2 million annually for this but then we add eight more police officers to the budget…and we’re still in discussion about COLA’s (Cost of Living Adjustments for City staff).”

“HCD (CA Department of Housing & Community Development)…nobody has even talked to the state about what’s going on. We’re just ghosting the state,” she continued then reiterated using CDBG funds to cover the $1.2 million annual cost over the next five years.

“I’m just trying to look at how we can best be stewards of our General Fund and continue to strive to meet the needs of our community,” Rocha stated.

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson spoke passionately, as well, saying, “Thank you to those who have been in our ears for years. The housing alone isn’t enough. But services without stable housing are often not enough, either.”

She concluded by saying, “I’m in agreement if we pass on this the state will not look favorably on us in the future. The state’s going to be like, ‘You know what? Antioch is not that serious.’ I’m going to leave a comma there because I know this discussion is a never-ending one. But I’m going to leave it right there.”

The Council then voted to extend the meeting to 1:00 AM.

Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next saying, “This is obviously a very emotional subject because we’re dealing with…vulnerable people. There’s a need to fund whatever we do in this city. Stepping into a $54 million deficit with no regard to how we were going to sustain it, except we were going to ask for more money from some other agency. The feds aren’t giving it to us. The state isn’t giving it to us. The County has a failed bond measure because they can’t afford to do what they’re doing. (It was actually 0.625% sales tax on the June ballot as Measure B which failed). So, we’ve been working for the past year-and-a-half to get that $54 million two-year deficit…down to $4.5 million this year. When this came before us last May when this came before us, we had a $13 million deficit, and I was the only “no” vote on it…because we could not afford it. This was one more unfunded mandate that we were taking on that we couldn’t afford.”

“We’ve had a year to go talk to County, to talk to our neighbors and to everybody else and nothing has happened,” he stated. “So, here we are today saying we need to go out and talk to everybody and figure out how we’re going to get help on this thing. So, the bottom line is, we are facing next year…I’m just talking about money because that’s what this is, for me, right now. We can’t afford this.”

“Next year it goes back up to $14 million without cost of livings, getting our contracts up to date,” Bernal continued. “It’s probably close to $16, $17, $18 million deficit. That’s a million-and-a-half dollars a month we’re going negative in this city. We cannot afford or sustain that. So, to take on…up to $1.2 million per year for up to 15 years, that’s our maximum commitment. I cannot sit here and support committing money we do not have as we sit here. No matter how important the issues are, we can’t spend, I cannot, in good conscience, spend money that we do not have and hope that we’re going to get money down the road through grants and different things.”

“We spent…$6.8 million in (state) ERF…Encampment Resolution Funding, to house 30 to 50 individuals…moving them from the encampment…into the interim housing and into permanent housing with all the support services,” the mayor explained. “That’s happened in the last year. Our Point-In-Time Count numbers (of homeless residents) went from 240 to 250 last year. That $6.8 million investment did not result in our numbers coming down.”

“We are no closer to answering our financial problems,” he continued speaking of all the unfunded projects such as roofs and liabilities. “I just need to keep us focused on the finances of this. Our revenues are going up $300,000 in two years. That is not enough money to fund all the things we need to do in this community and to keep ourselves going with a vibrant staff that’s going to support all the things we want to do. It’s not going to be able to help us jump start economic development that we desperately need to do. We’re in a tough spot. I’m gonna admit that.”

“But by spending or investing up to $1.2 million for up to 15 years plus, 750 that’s going to have to come from somewhere, hopefully, CDBG, I cannot vote for that, as good of a cause as this project may be. Because I don’t’ believe we can sustain that,” Bernal concluded.

Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas spoke last saying, “I did ask for this to come back to the council for reconsideration. I voted for this and as we moved off from that original vote, the problem I have with this project is the rumors, the hearsay, the finger pointing, people accusing, people ripping us to pieces in public, making false accusations, lies, distortions and on and on.”

“After I approved it, come to find out, 85 of the units are for housing for the unhoused,” he stated. “The other 40 units…will be for retail. And so, this is a problem. Staff says one thing to us, Andrew Becker says another thing to us, and we’re standing there saying, ‘what’s true? What’s accurate? What’s factual?’ And for 18 months…we don’t know everything. How many times have we asked, ‘what is happening?’ Does it impact the grant?’ We’ve asked this question for months and we still don’t have an answer.”

“Why I brought this back is so, each and every one of us has a legal, fiduciary responsibility,” Freitas continued. “What’s the next step? And I don’t think my questions are out of line. I will not support something without knowing the facts. And I would say to each one of us on this council it is wrong to approve something.”

“We should care for the for the worst. We should provide housing and food and shelter education,” he said. “But there is something that we are responsible for and that is the budget. It looks like we are going to start July 1, 2027, with at least a $15 million budget deficit and…we only have a $100 million budget. That’s 15 percent. So, what department are we cutting out? Our quality of life will deteriorate and deteriorate.

“This is not a simple solution,” the mayor pro tem stated. “But I suggest before anybody makes a decision we have to…get the factual answers. This will not solve all the homelessness issues in Antioch. Let’s not kid ourselves. It may be a step forward but it’s not going to resolve anything. This is frustrating. We’ve been dealing with this for 18 months and frankly, I think we’re more confused with where we’re at and where we’re going. And the $1.2 million does not include all the administrative issues the staff has articulated. So, let’s be real about that.”

“If I had to vote, now I would vote not to go forward because I don’t have the answers to my questions and I am frustrated,” Freitas reiterated. “The human stories, the emotional stories, the tear-jerk stories, they’re real and I see it every day in this city.” Then choking up he continued, “and it tears my heart out. But I do not want to make a problem worse for our community. We are trying to respond to this issue as best we can and unfortunately, our best is not good enough for the last 18 months.”

“So, my issue is to give this one month and bring this issue back,” the councilman said, agreeing with Torres-Walker. “If the vote was tonight, I would vote to rescind. But I believe in hope and without hope, why live? This is not right for prime time. Let’s face it, it’s always an issue of money. I think it’s an obligation to move forward in a responsible manner and we’re not there.”

Torres-Walker then said, “There are deadlines and some we missed and the council was not informed of.” She reiterated the proposal to postpone the discussion and decision until the next meeting, which will be held on July 28th, and made a motion to that end. Before it was seconded, Freitas then asked to have an informal discussion with the developer and state representatives present and suggested a council meeting next week for a “round table”. Rocha suggested a study session. Acting City Manager Ana Cortez agreed and said she would reach out to each of the parties.

Director Cabral said there is a deadline, but Cortez said she didn’t see any deadline in the correspondence she had received.

Torres-Walker added to her motion to hold the study session next Monday, June 29th at 6:00 p.m.

She invited the property owner who was in attendance to speak.

He offered additional details saying, “The owner spent $40 million. The asset has not stabilized. After COVID it…is going downhill.”

In 2024, the property went into foreclosure. The same owner got it back with a different lender,” he explained. This property has had a history of financial challenges.”

“Interest rates for hotels are 10.5% to 12%. Insurance has trickled up. And the clientele we’re getting is not more than $100,” he stated.”

“In May 2025, once the resolution is passed by City it is awarded and the non-profit acquires. I have not heard that once it is awarded it comes back to council for approval. In December of 2025, the Comfort Inn flag was deflagged. It’s almost $3 to $4 million investment into the property again.

Right now, there is a notice of default filed. It is not in foreclosure. So, I think it will not be a problem. I can be there on Monday to answer your questions.”

“The problem is you said, ‘I think’,” Freitas said. “We need the city attorney to advise us.”

“I think there are philanthropic funds out there to get this project to the finish line,” the property owner added.

Freitas then seconded the motion to postpone the discussion and decision until July 28th and hold the study session next Monday at 6:00 p.m. and it passed 5-0.

See Mahogany Housing Project 6/23/26 agenda item details and see 4:41:15 mark of the Council meeting video.

Approves FY26-27 and Revised FY25-26 City Budgets

Then, on quick motions and votes without any member of the public wishing to speak or comments from the members, the Council unanimously approved, under Item 5, the one-year operating budget for fiscal year 2026-27 and revised the fiscal year 2025-26 budget and under Items 6 and 7, adopted the fiscal year 2026-27 budgets and revised the fiscal year 2025-26 budgets for the City of Antioch as Successor Agency and Housing Successor to the Antioch Development (redevelopment) Agency and the Antioch Public Financing Authority (APFA).

As previously reported, “the fiscal year 2026-27 General Fund budget ended with a net deficit of $4,567,879 which was offset by a transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund. According to the City staff report, the Council and staff worked to make $7,315,199 in “true” adjustments to the budget, after the City faced nearly a $12 million deficit.

According to the staff report, the Antioch Development Agency (Agency or ADA) was formed June 25, 1974, for the purpose of renovating (redeveloping) designated areas within the City limits. Project areas were designated to receive tax increment funds based on redevelopment formulas. The redevelopment funds were targeted for slum and blight areas. There are currently four former redevelopment areas in Antioch encompassing 2,082 acres, which is 11.6% of the City’s incorporated area.

According to the State Department of Finance, “As part of the 2011 Budget Act, and in order to protect funding for core public services at the local level, the Legislature approved the dissolution of the state’s 400 plus RDAs. RDAs were officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012,” and “property tax revenues are now being used to pay required payments on existing bonds, other obligations and pass-through payments to local governments.”

The City of Antioch elected to become the Successor Agency and Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency.

The APFA is a joint powers authority created between the City of Antioch and former Antioch Development Agency as a financing mechanism for real and personal property and improvements. The funds of the APFA are included in the budget document starting on page 304.

Funds of the Successor Agency and Housing Successor encompassing obligations listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules are included in the budget document starting on page 308.

See 2026-27 Budget.

The Council meeting adjourned at 12:34 AM.

Would lose money on current investments, restrict investments in more companies and industries, could cost more in advisory fees; while world’s largest investment firms are abandoning them

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will consider including liberal activist or “woke” practices in the City’s investment policy. The proposal is being brought to council after they failed to adopt the current investment policy on a 2-2 split vote during the June 9th Council meeting. Mayor Ron Bernal and Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas voted in favor, Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker voted against, and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was absent.

Both Freitas and Torres-Walker suggested the investment policy discussion take place at a future Council meeting. Further discussion resulted in direction to bring the item back with the Treasurer and the City’s investment advisor, Justin Resuello from PFMAM, present and for the Treasurer to meet with the advocates to discuss ethical investment. City Treasurer Jorge Rojas, Jr. later met with a local advocacy group to receive their proposed policy.

Under item 8 on Tuesday’s agenda, the Council is being asked by City staff to “provide direction on inclusion of Socially Responsible Investing or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing practices in the Statement of Investment Policy.” Such policies are considered “woke” as they are part of liberal activism, politicize investment practices and prevent investing in companies they don’t like for one reason or another. This, while the world’s two largest investment firms have been moving in the opposite direction over the past two years.

According to the City staff report, during the June 9th meeting, members of Contra Costa Divest spoke and requested that the City adopt what they consider to be “ethical investment practices”, with similar language to the investment policy for Alameda County. Torres-Walker spoke in support of an ethical policy, as well.

The City’s current Investment Policy requires that the City Treasurer render the Policy to City Council for review when changes are made, or at least every two years. The investment policy was last reviewed and approved by City Council in June 2024.

Current Investment Restrictions Only Exclude Alcohol & Tobacco Manufacturers

Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), would filter out and exclude sectors and/or companies the City does not want to invest in. The current Policy includes one such prohibition in Section V. 3: a. which reads, “The City will not invest in any companies that produce alcohol for public consumption or tobacco products.”

City Would Lose Money on Current Investments

According to the presentation by the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFMAM), the do-not-buy lists available through Bloomberg currently include specific industry or subindustry classifications such as firearms and ammunition, private corrections, oil & gas, coal, tobacco, wine/spirits, brewery, night clubs, etc. Furthermore, Sustainalytics has categorized each rated organization into one of over 40 industries and one of over 135 subindustries. Example classifications include oil & gas, refiners & pipelines, energy services, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, paper/forestry, etc.

PFMAM did review the current investments with Caterpillar, Chevron and Lockheed Martin that the advocacy group specifically mentioned that the City should divest from, and as of June 17th, four of the investments would be sold at a loss to the City of $25,758.93 and one investment would provide a small gain of $2,262. With either option, it is recommended that the City hold investments that would be out of compliance with any new methodology adopted until they can either be sold with no loss, or until maturity, whichever comes first.

Proposed ESG Investment Policy

Treasurer Rojas met with a representative from Contra Costa Divest to understand their position and the proposed language for the ESG investment policy is as follows:

“The City of Antioch will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the wellbeing of our communities and our environment, favoring investment in entities that support the needs of peacetime daily life, in companies that offer renewable energy and other climate mitigation strategies, in companies with a strong environmental, labor, and social records, or in socially responsible community projects within our City.

“The City will refrain from investment in harmful industries such as tobacco, fossil fuels, mass incarceration or immigrant detention, and weaponry of any kind, or in companies with a consistent record of direct involvement in severe human rights violations such as slavery and prison labor, war crimes, illegal military occupation, racial segregation, or apartheid.”

The challenge is who will define each of those categories, and the effort has specifically been to divest from companies based in Israel as the Left considers that country’s actions in Gaza as an “illegal military occupation.”

In addition, space related companies use fossil fuels to power their rockets, and the Left is opposed to the world’s first trillionaire, Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, which just issued its first public offering. Such a policy could prevent the City from investing in that or other similar companies and enjoying returns on investment from its growth.

According to the National and Legal Policy Center (NLPC), the world’s largest asset manager, “Blackrock was one of the pioneers of ESG investing, but in early 2025 abandoned “the ‘woke’ policies.” It was “the biggest sign yet that the vibe has shifted against liberal activism in the private sector.” In addition, NLPC reported in May 2026, “Vanguard, the second-largest index fund manager with approximately $10 trillion in assets under management, has similarly retreated in public posture while its index funds.”

According to the City staff report, while “there is no cost to adopt the draft policy attached, should the City choose to adopt an ESG investment practice, additional investment advisory fees could be incurred.

Any Changes Will Be Brought Back Later for Consideration and Possible Adoption

The Council must at least review and adopt the current policy by June 30th. Staff is recommending they approve the draft policy without any SRI/ESG additions to remain compliant, and staff can then move forward working on any updates should Council direct ethical investing.

If they would like to incorporate it into the City investment policy, based on that direction, the Acting City Manager and Finance Director will work with the City Treasurer and PFMAM to determine investment parameters and draft an updated investment policy, understanding that this is not a quick turnaround process and will take some time as some agencies have spent up to a year crafting an investment strategy that fulfilled the ethical investment guidelines they wanted. A draft updated investment policy will be brought back to Council for consideration once this process is complete.

See agenda Item 8.

Meeting Details

The Council meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

Despite net $7 million in budget savings City still projected to face double digit deficits for following three years; only 70% of Measure W sales tax funds to be spent on police

Will reconsider financing for affordable apartments project

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will vote on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, reconsider approving financing for the affordable Hillcrest Summit Apartments project and consider approving funding for Homekey+ Project at former Comfort Inn on Mahogany Way. 

Before the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., the Council will hold a Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. to negotiate contracts with City employee groups who have been working without one since last fall. They include the Management Unit, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association.

Annual General Fund Budget

According to the City staff report for agenda item 5. “the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 General Fund budget with a deficit of $4,567,879, to be offset by the Budget Stabilization Fund, is presented this evening. Since the budget presentation on June 9th, an additional $209,653 in vacancy and salary adjustments has been built into the draft budget.” To get to that figure the Council and staff worked to make $7,315,199 in “true” adjustments to the budget, according to Finance Director Dawn Merchant and Acting City Manager Ana Cortez.

The fiscal year 2027 budget includes a reduction of three funded staff positions “reflecting the net impact of added and frozen positions.” Sworn police officer staffing remains at 105 positions, while fiscal year 2027-28 projections include reaching a target of 117 sworn by June 30, 2028. However, as of June 10th, according to Chief Joe Vigil, there are currently 85 sworn officers on the Antioch Police force.

No COLAS (Cost of Living Adjustments), other than those previously approved for the Treatment Plan Employee Association bargaining unit, are included in the draft budget.

The proposed budget assumes the current Acting City Manager will remain in place through June 2027, and the Human Resources Manager will be filled by an Analyst, and no Assistant City Manager for six more months.

Budget Savings Highlights

The proposed budget includes the following savings:

City Manager’s Office

• Leave Assistant City Manager position vacant for six months saving $230,000. The position hasn’t been filled since last year.
• Freeze Administrative Analyst in City Manager’s office for $215,284;

Police Department

• Remove 12 Police Trainees for $631,464;
• Cancel Emergency Operations Center Improvements for $480,143;
• Update FY27 Police salaries for staffing/academy changes for $294,773;
• Reduce Police part-time help for $174,666;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings for 1 Police CSO for $55,534;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings for 1 Police Dispatcher for $70,001;

Animal Services

• Freeze 1 Animal Control Officer for $136,584;
• Add 2 months vacancy savings for 1 Animal Control Officer Police for $24,930;
• Reduction to Animal Services vet contracts and supplies of $110,000;

Public Works

• Freeze Assistant City Engineer for $262,295;
• Add 6 mos. vacancy saving Assistant/Junior Engineer for $84,221;
• Freeze Senior Civil Engineer (.25 FTE General Fund) for $47,130;
• Add 4 mos. vacancy savings Operations Supervisor for $22,630;

Community & Economic Development

• Reduction in Economic Development programs/contracts of $255,000;
• Add 6 months vacancy savings Economic Development Program Manager for $104,041;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings Senior Economic Development Program Manager for $86,415
• Freeze 1 Code Enforcement Officer for $181,981;

Recreation Department

• Underfill Recreation Supervisor with Recreation Coordinator for $45,383;
• Freeze Recreation Coordinator for 6 months for $74,402;
• Reduce Recreation part-time help for $88,636;

Finance Department

• Freeze Finance Dep’t. Business License Representative for $153,941;
• Freeze Business License Representative Finance for $153,941;
• Freeze Accounting Specialist II Finance for $166,643;

Other

• Freeze vacant Community Engagement Coordinator in Community Services Dep’t for $197,300;
• Underfill HR Manager with Analyst, freeze Specialist HR for $212,502;
• Add 6 months savings for Public Records Coordinator in City Clerk’s Office for $93,656; and
• Remove General Fund Vehicle Replacement Set-Aside for $1,776,290.

The use of Measure W 1% sales tax funds are proposed at 70% for Police, 15% for Quality of Life and 15% for Youth Services, which is out of compliance with the 80-10-10 split intended by the city council at the time the voters approved the ballot measure in November 2018.

Reserve & Budget Stabilization Funds

The minimum 20% unassigned reserve requirement is met in each fiscal year, although balancing is achieved with use of fund balance and Budget Stabilization Funds. The Budget Stabilization Fund balance is projected to be $36,249,323 at June 30, 2026; $31,681,444 at June 30, 2027; and $26,681,444 at June 30, 2028, based on current projections.

Even with this year’s budget savings, the City is projected to face double-digit deficits for the following three fiscal years. But there will be enough remaining in the Budget Stabilization Fund to cover almost all of them.

See Proposed General Fund Budget agenda Item 5 details.

California Supportive Mahogany Housing Project for Homeless

Under Item 9, the Council will consider approving a one-time capital match contribution of $750,000 for state funding of the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. It will fund the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly known as the Comfort Inn, to convert the existing hotel into approximately 84 to 85 units of permanent supportive housing with supportive services for eligible residents.

According to the City staff report, following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”

“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May, 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”

“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”

See agenda Item 9 details.

Will Reconsider Financing for Affordable Apartment Complex

As previously reported, after an impassioned effort by Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas, during the Council’s meeting on April 14, 2026, public financing for the Hillcrest Summit Apartments received a 2-2-1 vote with Mayor Ron Bernal and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha voting yes, Freitas and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting no, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting to abstain. That’s in spite of the fact the latter two voted for the Commercial Infill Housing Overlay District rezoning the parcel and Bernal complained about how the four-story apartment buildings would look.

Freitas mainly opposed the project because of the proximity to the gas station and 24-hour car wash. (See related article)

According to the City staff report for the item, number 4. on the agenda, “Following that failed approval, the Developer and City engaged in discussions regarding the City’s further consideration and the City Council provided direction to staff to bring the item back this evening for consideration.”

However, no changes have been made to the design of the project.

The Council will again conduct a public hearing on financing for the proposed extremely low, very low and low-income housing project, part of the 10 properties the City Council rezoned to a CIH Overlay Districts in 2022. While, as a result, no Planning Commission or Council decisions with public input are required to approve the projects, the public does have the opportunity to provide input on the City assisting with financing. 

Under the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the Council is being asked to approve the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) to provide for the financing or refinancing of the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of the projects.

The bonds, not to exceed $50,000,000, will benefit Hillcrest Antioch LP for the 165-unit multi-family housing project on the 4.9-acre parcel. It is planned for vacant land located behind the 76 Service Station and 7-Eleven bordered by Shaddick Drive, Harris Drive, E. Tregallas Road and Hillcrest Avenue.

The project is planned to be 100% affordable. The affordability of the units will be based on income of the tenants with 17 units at 30% of Area Median Income (AMI), 17 units at 50% AMI and 131 units, including two manager units, will be offered at 60% AMI.

However, the staff report explains that the bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Council is again being asked to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA without such, the project cannot move forward.

See agenda Item 4 details.

Meeting Details

The beginning of the Closed Session and the regular Council meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See complete agenda packet.