Discuss 10% annual water rate increases, set public hearing for March 11

“This is kind of a shock for people, 50% over five years” – District 3 Councilman Don Freitas.

Both councilwomen absent for first meeting of the year

By Allen D. Payton

During the first Antioch City Council meeting of the new year, on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, the new mayor and two members discussed and approved a variety of matters without the input or votes of both councilwomen who did not attend. Those included an agreement with former Interim Chief Brian Addington’s consulting firm for services to the police department and fees for concealed carry weapons. The council also heard a presentation on the process for recruiting a new, permanent police chief and another from the Parks and Recreation Department entitled, “What a Year It’s Been – Celebrating Our Year 2024.”

According to City Manager Bessie Scott, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was sick and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson was in Washington D.C. for a conference.

Approves Agreement with Addington’s Consulting Firm for Police Department

After just completing his time as Antioch’s interim police chief last Friday, Jan. 10, 2025, Brian Addington’s company, WBA Consulting was hired as the consultant to the police department to comply with the City’s recent agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

As previously reported, the council was asked to hire a “consultant team that can provide support, guidance, and advice in several areas, which will supplement and enhance the Antioch Police Department’s efficiency and effectiveness. The City requires assistance with overall project management for Police Department operations and administration, policy support, and special project implementation for not only day-to-day operations, but also with compliance efforts identified in the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) settlement agreement with the Antioch Police Department and City of Antioch dated January 2, 2025.” (See related article)

WBA Consulting was mentioned as part of his background in an introductory article about Addington when he was hired as interim police chief last February.

Other than one question from District 3 Councilman Don Freitas about the items in the agreement lined through that were eliminated from the final version, without discussion, the council approved the agreement 3-0, with Councilwomen Tamisha Torres-Walker and Monica Wilson absent.

Approves CCW Permit Fees

Under agenda item 6, according to Antioch Police Captain Desmond Bitner, who provided the City staff report to the council about setting fees for handling concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits, the majority of law enforcement agencies in California use software to expedite the process. As of January, under SB2 cities can increase fees. Permits have to be renewed every two years.

“These are basic numbers we’ve assessed and consulted other agencies,” Bittner We’re not making any money on this. We’re just breaking even to cover our costs.”

Only two members of the public spoke on the item, but neither chose to serve as the proponent or opponent for the public hearing which would have afforded them 10 minutes to speak.

“I was not aware what’s really going on,” said a woman who claimed to be a local leader for Gun Owners of America. “I get a little emotional when it comes to my right to carry. I grew up in this town. I left…then I came back. I feel incredibly unsafe in this town.”

“It’s cheaper for me to fly to Texas…to get the training,” she continued. “To hear the fees for me to exercise my constitutional right to carry…is appalling.”

“Police told me the applications are stacked so high, don’t even bother,” she added. “I just want actions, and I want answers. I shouldn’t have to wait a year-and-a-half.”

Resident Greg Farina who identified himself as the president of the Contra Costa Chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association said, “I’m very happy the City of Antioch is going through this. I just got my letter from Contra Costa County. It took me 15 months.”

“Yes, it’s expensive. I’m concerned about lower income folks. I will help you do anything and help sell what you’re doing,” he added.

Freitas asked Bittner, “do we actively have applications for the City of Antioch, now?”

“As far as I know, no,” the captain responded. “We averaged about five applications per year. The sheriff’s department processed for us on average 67 per year. We can get the knocked out in 90 days. If the applicant is being diligent in getting things done, we’ll be right there with them.”

“This will not impact the General Fund?” District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha asked. Mayor Ron Bernal responded, “No.”

“We respect the citizens right to carry,” Bittner added.

The council approved the item on a 3-0 vote.

Review Water Rates Study Including 10% per Year Increases & Set Public Hearing

Under Item 7 the council adopted a resolution to set a hearing for March 11th on water rate increases. City staff presented a Water Rates Study showing Antioch has the lowest single family monthly water bills of neighboring cities and a proposed increase of 10% per year on average. The City’s ratepayers get to provide their opinion to the council.

On Nov. 12, 2025, the previous council failed to approve the rate increases on a vote 2-1-1 with Councilwomen Lori Ogorchock and Monica Wilson voting yes, then-Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe voting no, Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting to abstain and then-Councilman Mike Barbanica absent. (See Item 8 of the Meeting Minutes)

“If the council should accept these, is the funding sufficient to pay our bills on an annual basis?” Freitas asked.

“Yes,” Tom Pavletic of Pavletic Consulting responded.

The Water Use chart for Calendar Years 2023-29 shows a one percent increase in projected water use for Fiscal Year 2024 but a one percent decrease in FY2025-27 and a two percent decrease in FY2028 and 2029.
“I don’t understand for three consecutive years you’re showing a decrease,” Freitas stated.

“We put 100 new accounts per year in this model. But it’s a matter of conservation. In the past 15 years your single-family user class has reduced 15%,” the consultant responded. “Your rates are going to go up about 10% per year. That’s going to result in conservation.”

“You’ve gone from 375 gallons per year to 250 gallons,” he added.

Bernal stated, “you’re using 100 units per year. That seems a little bit low…for projections.”

“We looked at past models and past growth and that’s what comes in,” Pavletic responded. “When I do water rate studies, I never use the General Plan.”

Freitas asked, “What we’re asking is for an increase of about 10% a year?”

“Yes,” Pavletic responded.

Freitas pressed staff on the debt service for the water department on the 2019 Construction Installment Sale Agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board for the Brackish Water Desalination Plant.
“Antioch is one of the few cities with its own water plant…and we have this new state of the art facility coming online,” Finance Director Dawn Merchant stated.

“For debt service, if we fall below, it’s going to be with us for a long, long time,” Freitas stated. “This is a very dangerous thing to get to for infrastructure financing. Why did we not have rate increases for five years? I don’t get it.”

“There was a number of reasons. Initially and honestly, the water system has enough funds to continue,” said Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting. “The same time as COVID was going on and giving the residents a break for two, two-year terms.”

“This is kind of a shock for people, 50% over five years,” Freitas stated. “I think we should do things incrementally…when we review the budget.”

“Are we taking into account the entire cost of the (brackish water) project?” Bernal asked. “Yes, Buenting responded.

Asked about the City purchasing less water from the Contra Costa Water District, Buenting responded, “That should be less.”

“Since we’re so close on our ratios we don’t want to have any surprises,” Bernal stated.

“When the water becomes brackish the desalination plant will be operational,” Buenting stated.

“This year?” Freitas asked.

“Yes. This year,” Buenting responded.

“I feel like we have no choice. The consumer cannot deal with these increases,” Freitas stated and made a motion to approve with Rocha later seconding the motion.

Public Comments on Water Rate Increases

“As a consumer, I don’t like it,” said resident Melissa Case. “But Don, you’re a blessing to this conversation. Now, I know where your strengths are. It looks like we have to find to pay our water bills.”

Former Councilwoman Ogorchock spoke next saying, “The council did not approve it. It was one abstention, two yesses and one no. That was the mayor. It wasn’t cost effective for our seniors, and I look out for our seniors.”

She asked about the effect of not voting for it and the possible move of $2 million into the enterprise fund.

Resident and local business owner Jim Lanter said the council had the responsibility for, “public safety, budget. We’ve got to make ourselves fiscally smart. I appreciate the questions, the tough questions. But nobody can afford 10%. I wish we had two-and-a-half percent a year.”

“Those little changes do matter. I would encourage the City to bring forward these rate hikes…and explore rate subsidies. We just have to fill that gap. There are plenty of opportunities out there,” Freitas stated.

“If there is any alternative flexibility for our seniors on fixed incomes,” Rocha mentioned. “This got kicked down the road. So, now we have to address what didn’t get done. But if we can look at our seniors and those who face the biggest struggle.”

“It gets to be a complicated legal issue if you use the enterprise fund to provide subsidies as it is a tax on other ratepayers,” Freitas mentioned.

“I do appreciate your expertise from your experience in the water industry,” Rochas said to Freitas who served on the CCWD Board for 16 years. “We probably should have taken action in 2023. But it is what it is and we have to address it.”

“I just want to make sure General Fund money has not been used to prop up the water fund,” Bernal asked.

“No,” Buenting responded.

“I think that 1.2% needs to be mentioned up front. For the public to understand,” Freitas added.

“I’d like to see something in the staff report to reflect what happens if we don’t pass this,” Bernal said to City Manager Bessie Scott.

The council then approved the process 3-0 which will include Hearing Notices being mailed out to account holders who get to provide input on the proposed rate changes. If written protests against the proposed rate changes are presented by a majority of the parcels or accounts, the city council will not enact the proposed changes. If a majority don’t protest, the council will then vote on a resolution to adjust rates and charges.

If approved, the new FY25 rates will begin May 1st and on Jan. 1, 2026, the new rates for FY 26 will be implemented. Then on July 1st of the following three fiscal years the rates for those years will be implemented.

Meeting Extended for Up to an Hour

The council then voted 3-0 to extend the meeting until midnight, one hour past the normal ending time of 11:00 p.m.

Discusses Annual Financial Reports

Under Item 9 the council considered the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024, inclusive of the City of Antioch Single Audit Reports for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024.

“We were deficit spending for the past several fiscal years. We broke even this year. Do we have reserves or are they decreasing? Are we in a financial bind?” Freitas asked.

“As of today, we are not in a financial bind,” Merchant responded.

“We are putting together the 2025-27 budget. I think we will still have that deficit. We are still pulling together the numbers. We will be drawing down on our reserves. The budget stabilization fund which are using the fill the gap should only be used one time,” she continued.

“The ARPA money from the pandemic that ends in April, right?” Freitas asked.

“They had to be obligated by the end of December. But we have until 2026 to spend them. There are some programs that end, like Opportunity Village, that contract ends in April,” Merchant responded referring to the homeless motel on East 18th Street. “We have to look and see how much was allocated to that to continue. Once the money is spent from ARPA it’s gone.”

Freitas asked about claims during the campaign of a $90 billion reserve fund.

“That money is there but you can see $46.4 million of the Budget Stabilization Fund is committed. You really need to look at the $36.5 million,” Merchant stated.

“That’s the really true reserve,” Freitas stated. “Not the $90 million.”

“It’s really supposed to be for one-time projects,” Merchant stated.

“As we go into the budget we have transparency,” Freitas requested of Bernal. “These are real impacts to real people. I’d like the opportunity to educate the staff…the public. If there isn’t any money those projects are in jeopardy.”

“I think lumping the two funds together is misleading,” Rocha stated. “When you look at the ARPA funds which is about 20% of our budget…that’s a significant amount. We’re going to have to look to work with the County. We have a responsibility to be fiscally solvent and spending down our reserves is not the way.

If we can continue the services to our unhoused community maybe we can take housing off the table.”
“Hearing some of the things, tonight, unless we come together and have partnerships in the region, there are going to have to be some serious cuts,” the District 2 councilman continued. “I know that’s not popular. But I didn’t sign up to be popular. We’re going to have to look at grant writing.
Bernal then mentioned amounts of the net pension liability and asked, “Can you explain what the net pension liability is?”

“Is what CalPERS calculates the ultimate liability we have to pay current employees until their descendants are no longer alive,” Merchant responded. They’re calculated on mortality rates.”

“Other post-employment benefits you provide medical…for those employees under that plan…they’re estimated we have to pay until those employees are deceased,” she added.

“Can we break out that amount…on an annualized cost?” Bernal asked. “Yes,” Merchant responded.

The council then voted 3-0 to receive and file the report.

Item 11, the proposed emergency City staffing positions, was tabled until the next council meeting.

Following comments by the city manager offering “kudos” to a variety of City staff members and committee reports by the councilmembers the meeting adjourned at 11:27 p.m.

Last of three voter-approved increases takes effect Jan. 1st; failed in Contra Costa

BATA board also voted last week to increase tolls to $11.50 by 2030 for bridge maintenance and repairs

By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

The Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) reminds drivers that tolls at the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges will go up by $1 next Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2025. This will be the third of the three $1 toll increases approved by the California Legislature in 2017 through state Senate Bill 595 and by voters through Regional Measure 3 (RM3) in June 2018 which passed by 55.07% to 44.93%. The first of these toll hikes went into effect on Jan. 1, 2019, and the second on Jan. 1, 2022. It funds $4.45 billion slate of highway and transit improvements but did not include bridge maintenance and repairs.

Regular tolls for two-axle cars and trucks (as well as for motorcycles) at the Antioch, San Francisco-Oakland Bay, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges will rise to $8 from the current $7 on Jan. 1, 2025.

Tolls for vehicles with three or more axles also will rise by $1 on Jan. 1, 2025, at all seven of the state-owned toll bridges: to $18 for three axles, $23 for four-axles, $28 for five axles, $33 for six axles, and $38 for combinations with seven or more axles.

Contra Costa Voters Opposed Ballot Measure

According to Ballotpedia, RM3 raised bridge tolls in the Bay Area—excluding tolls for the Golden Gate Bridge—by $3 over six years to fund the Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan, including a $4.5 billion slate of transportation projects. It was on the ballot for voters in the city and county of San Francisco and the following counties: Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma.

Voters in two of the counties most affected by the bridge tolls rejected RM3. The vote in Contra Costa County was 44.54% opposed to 55.465 in favor and Solano County voters overwhelmingly opposed it 30.03% to 69.97%. But voters in the other seven counties approved the measure. Alameda County where voters and commuters are also most affected by bridge toll increases passed RM3 by 53.89% to 46.11% The vote margin was closest in Napa County, where voters approved the measure 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent.

Regional Measure 3 continues the peak-period toll discount for motorcycles, qualifying carpools and qualifying clean-air vehicles crossing any of the state-owned toll bridges on weekdays from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. The discounted toll will rise to $4 on Jan. 1 from the current $3.50. To qualify for this discount, carpoolers, motorcyclists and drivers of clean-air vehicles must use FasTrak^® to pay their tolls electronically and must use a designated carpool lane at each toll plaza.

Senate Bill 595 and Regional Measure 3 also established a 50-cent toll discount for two-axle vehicles crossing more than one of the state-owned toll bridges during weekday commute hours of 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. To be eligible for the toll discount, which is to be applied to the second toll crossing of the day, motorists must pay their tolls electronically with FasTrak^®. Carpools, motorcycles and qualifying clean-air vehicles making a second peak-period toll crossing in a single day will qualify for an additional 25-cent discount off the already-discounted carpool toll. 

New FasTrak^® customers can obtain toll tags at Costco warehouse stores and select Walgreens stores around Northern California. A complete list of participating locations — as well as an online enrollment and registration feature — is available on the FasTrak^® Web site at bayareafastrak.org. Customers also may enroll in the FasTrak^® program by phone at 1-877-229-8655; by calling 511 and asking for “FasTrak” at the first prompt; or in person at the FasTrak^® customer service center at 375 Beale Street in San Francisco. FasTrak^® can be used in all lanes at all Bay Area toll plazas. 

Major projects in the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan include improvements to State Route 37 in the North Bay, freeway interchange improvements in Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano counties, the purchase of more new BART cars, extension of the BART system from Berryessa to downtown San Jose and Santa Clara, extension of the Caltrain corridor to the Salesforce Transit Center in downtown San Francisco, expansion of Muni’s transit vehicle fleet, expansion of San Francisco Bay Ferry service and more frequent transbay bus service, an improved connection between northbound U.S. 101 and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in Marin County, upgrades to the Dumbarton Bridge corridor, and extension of the SMART rail system to Windsor and Healdsburg in Sonoma County.

In Addition to Recently Approved Toll Hikes Beginning Jan. 1, 2026

The Regional Measure 3 toll hike that takes effect next week is separate from the 50 cents per year toll hikes approved by BATA earlier this month, which will be phased in over five years, beginning Jan. 1, 2026, to pay for the maintenance, rehabilitation and operation of the seven state-owned toll bridges. It will increase tolls by 2030 to $11.50 for those who don’t use FasTrak and $10.50 for those who do. BATA this month also approved updates to the policies for high-occupancy vehicles on approaches to the state-owned bridges, which will similarly go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026. (See related article)

BATA, which is directed by the same policy board as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), administers toll revenues from the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges. Toll revenues from the Golden Gate Bridge are administered by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, which joined with BATA to operate a single regional FasTrak^® customer service center in San Francisco. MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

For $2 billion in maintenance, preservation and operation of Bay Area’s seven state-owned bridges.

Contra Costa’s representatives voted in favor of 50-cent annual increases beginning Jan. 1, 2026.

By Allen D. Payton

After extending the period for public input, on Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2024, the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) Board of Directors voted 15-0-1 to approve toll increases and other toll policy changes for the Bay Area’s seven state-owned bridges beginning Jan. 1, 2026. Tolls will increase to as much as $11.50 by 2030.

According to BATA spokesman John Goodwin, the vote passed “by all 16 members present save one abstention from a brand-new commissioner, Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft, who represents the cities of Alameda County.”

The board consists of 21 members, with 18 voting members, he shared. Pleasant Hill Mayor Sue Noack, who represents the cities of Contra Costa, and Contra Costa District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover, who represents the County, both voted in favor of the toll increases.

A phased toll increase starting in 2026 is proposed to fund the Toll Bridge Capital Improvement Plan, which includes almost $2 billion of investment which will be used exclusively for the maintenance, preservation and operation of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and the Antioch, Benicia-Martinez, Richmond-San Rafael, Carquinez, Dumbarton and San Mateo-Hayward bridges.

The Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges are structurally sound and in good repair. State law requires BATA — working in partnership with Caltrans — to keep them that way.

The toll increases are separate from the $3 increase approved by Bay Area voters in 2018 through Regional Measure 3 to finance a comprehensive suite of highway and transit improvements around the region. The first of the three $1 Regional Measure 3 increases went into effect in 2019, followed by another in 2022. The last of the RM 3 toll hikes will go into effect Jan. 1, 2025, bringing the toll for regular two-axle cars and trucks to $8.

Summary of the 2026 Toll Increase

Toll rates include the last voter-approved Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) toll increase that goes into effect January 1, 2025.

To encourage electronic toll payment with FasTrak® tags, tolls and help recoup the increased costs of collecting tolls via pre-registered license plate accounts or invoices, on Jan. 1, 2027 will also rise by 25 cents for customers who pay with a pre-registered license plate account and on January 1, 2027, will rise by $1 for tolls paid by invoice.

Toll Increase: Two-Axle Vehicle Toll

The toll rate update includes an increase of 50 cents a year from 2026 through 2030 for two-axle vehicles. This phased-in approach is similar to the Golden Gate Bridge’s recent multi-year update to its toll schedule.

*HOV rate is 50% of two-axle FasTrak rate.

Toll Increase: Three-Axle or More Vehicle Toll

Tolls for multi-axle vehicles also will rise by 50 cents per axle per year from 2026 through 2030.

Multi-axle differential pricing:

• Invoices: +$1.00 per transaction starting January 1, 2027
• License plate account: + $0.25 per transaction starting January 1, 2027

A Precedent for Tiered Pricing

The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District has used a tiered pricing schedule at the Golden Gate Bridge since 2014.

Golden Gate Bridge tolls by July 2028 will range from $11.25 for FasTrak to $11.50 for license plate accounts to $12.25 for invoice customers.

Summary of the Changes to High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Policies

BATA is also making changes to HOV policies. To provide regional consistency and to support the future deployment of open-road tolling at the state-owned bridges, the changes will establish a uniform three-person occupancy requirement for the discounted toll during weekday commute periods at all seven bridges. It will also allow vehicles with two occupants to use the carpool lanes on the approaches to all bridges except the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. These two-occupant vehicles will not receive the discounted toll but will be able to use the carpool lanes to save time traveling through the toll plazas. 

BATA’s existing toll schedule allows vehicles with three or more occupants (HOV 3+) a discounted toll (half-price), with a two-person (HOV 2+) occupancy requirement for the discounted tolls at the Dumbarton and San Mateo-Hayward bridges. To provide regional consistency and to support the future deployment of open-road tolling at the state-owned bridges, the new policy will establish a uniform three-person occupancy requirement for the discounted toll during weekday commute periods at all seven bridges. The discounted toll rate is available weekdays from 5 to 10 a.m. and from 3 to 7 p.m. 

The policy changes will also allow vehicles with two occupants to use the carpool lanes on the approaches to the Antioch, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges. These two-occupant vehicles will not receive the discounted toll but will be able to use the carpool lanes to save time traveling through the toll plazas. There will be no change at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, where volumes of vehicles with three or more occupants are much higher than those at other bridges. Use of the carpool lanes on approaches to the Bay Bridge will still require a minimum of three occupants. 

In addition to establishing region-wide consistency for the carpool toll discount, the policy changes are designed to: 

• Improve safety on the toll bridge approaches by minimizing “weaving” between lanes. 
• Optimize lane configurations as now-obsolete toll booths are removed as part of the bridges’ transition to open-road tolling. 
• Increase person-throughput by prioritizing access for buses and carpools. 

See 2026 Toll Increase Proposal Fact Sheet.

Read more about the BATA toll increases, here.

See BATA Board meeting agenda items 24-1571 through 24-1575. Watch meeting video.

By Contra Costa Health, Housing and Homeless Services

What is the Point in Time Count?

The Point-in-Time (PIT) Count provides a comprehensive snapshot of individuals experiencing homelessness—both sheltered and unsheltered—on a single night in late January. Mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), this annual count requires Continuums of Care to account for sheltered individuals who are in emergency shelters, transitional housing, and safe havens, as well as unsheltered individuals who live in places not meant for human habitation like cars, parks, sidewalks, and abandoned buildings.

As a result, the Continuum of Care (CoC) must submit PIT Count data to HUD. This data is collected across the country to estimate homelessness and provide information about the demographics of people experiencing homelessness.

This information is used to decide how much funding communities get to help with homelessness. 

Data collected from the Point-in-Time Count helps identify

• The causes of homelessness
• Create better policies, programs and funding allocations
• Track progress in reducing homelessness 

What Am I Being Asked To Do? 

• Be part of a one-day, county-wide project to count unsheltered people in Contra Costa 
• Work in a pair [with someone you know or we can pair you with someone] 
• Either drive (if you have a car) or capture data on an iPhone-based app with someone else while they drive 
• Choose the area where you will do the count (with some limitations) 

When Do You Need Me? 

• The week of January 13th for one (1) two hour IN PERSON Volunteer Training. You will select when/where you want to do the training when you register 
• Thursday, January 30th from 5:30 am – 9:00 am for the actual count!

How Do I Sign Up? 

• Click here:  Volunteer Registration 

How do I learn more about the Point in Time Count?

• Click here to learn more

How do I tell my friends and family about this volunteer opportunity?

• Download and share this flyer with them!

Volunteers must follow these three steps!

• Register: Complete Volunteer Registration Form
• Train: Check Out Training Dates
• Count: Kick-Off Site Locations

Questions? 

• Email contracostacoc@cchealth.org or call/text (925) 464-0152.

While working to increase ridership currently averaging on weekdays about 40% of pre-COVID figures

By Bay Area Rapid Transit District

As BART strives to increase ridership, which is averaging about 40% of weekday pre-COVID figures, BART fares will increase January 1, 2025, to keep pace with inflation so that the agency is able to pay for continued operations and to work toward restoring financial stability. BART’s current funding model relies on passenger fares to pay for operations. 

Fares will increase 5.5 percent on New Year’s Day. The increase is tied to the rate of inflation minus a half-percentage point. It’s the second such increase – the first took effect January 1, 2024.

The average fare will increase 25 cents, from $4.47 to $4.72. BART’s fare calculator and Trip Planner have been updated with the new fares for trips with the date 1/1/25 and beyond. Riders can learn how the increase will affect their travels by entering a 2025 date for their trip.

“We understand that price increases are never welcome, but BART fares remain a vital source of funds even with ridership lower than they were before the pandemic,” said BART Board Vice President Mark Foley. “My Board colleagues and I voted in June 2023 to spread necessary fare increases over two years rather than catching up all at once. At the same time, we voted to increase the Clipper START means-based discount from 20 percent to 50 percent to help those most in need.”

The fare increase is expected to raise about $14 million per year for operations. Combined with the previous year’s fare adjustment, BART will use this $30 million per year to fund train service, enhanced cleaning, additional police and unarmed safety staff presence, and capital projects such as the Next Generation Fare Gates project. 

Discounts available for those who are eligible

The regional Clipper START program is an important resource for low-income riders of BART and other Bay Area transit systems. The program is for adult riders with a household income of 200% of the federal poverty level or less. Administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, program participants receive a personalized Clipper card that cuts half the cost of fares on more than 20 transit systems.

• Limited income riders get 50% off with Clipper START.
• Youth 5-18 years old get 50% off with a Youth Clipper card. 
• Seniors 65 and over get 62.5% off with a Senior Clipper card. 
• The RTC Clipper card is a version of Clipper created for passengers under 65 with qualifying disabilities to provide 62.5% off.  

Regular, predictable increases a long-term strategy 

January’s fare increase is the latest adjustment in a strategy to provide BART funding while providing riders predictable, scaled changes to the costs of riding. In 2004, BART first implemented this inflation-based fare increase program that calls for small, regular, less-than-inflation increases every two years, allowing fares to keep up with the cost of providing reliable and safe service. 

BART is also much less expensive than driving on a cost per mile basis. The Internal Revenue Service standard mileage rate for driver is 67 cents per mile; BART riders pay an average of 27 cents per mile, 60% less than the cost of driving.

Outdated funding model

BART’s current funding model relies on passenger fares to pay for operations. Even with the fare increase, BART is facing a $35 million operating deficit in FY26 and $385 million in FY27. Since BART’s outdated model of relying on passenger fares to pay most operating costs is no longer feasible because of remote work, the agency must modernize its funding sources to better match other transit systems throughout the country that receive larger amounts of public funding. BART needs a more reliable long-term source of operating funding and continues to advocate at the federal, state, and regional levels for the permanent funding needed to sustainably provide the quality transit service the Bay Area needs.  

Addressing BART’s ongoing financial crisis will take a variety of solutions including securing new revenue and continuing to find internal cost savings. BART costs have grown at a rate lower than inflation, showing we have held the line on spending. We have implemented a service schedule that better matches ridership, and we are running shorter trains, reducing traction power consumption and maintenance costs.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Marc Joffe

As if the $1 toll hike on January 1, 2025, is not enough, commissioners at the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) plan to approve a series of five fifty cent increases starting in 2026. By 2030, tolls on the Bay Area’s seven state-owned bridges will reach $10.50 for FasTrak users and $11.50 for drivers paying by invoice. Included in the increase are these four bridges with landings in Contra Costa County:

• Antioch (Senator John A. Nejedly) Bridge
• Benicia-Martinez (George Miller) Bridge
• Carquinez Bridge
• Richmond-San Rafael Bridge

Aside from toll hikes, motorists are facing a gasoline price increase arising from the California Air Resources Board’s recent imposition of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. According to a research center at the University of Pennsylvania, LCFS could cost drivers up to 85 cents extra per gallon. And this is on top of California’s highly elevated fuel prices, driven by taxes that rise annually under SB1 (2018).

Despite increasing maintenance costs, the Bay Area bridges are quite profitable. BATA expects total revenue of $1.058 billion this year. The costs of operating the bridges, running FasTrak, and paying debt service are projected to total just $757 million, leaving $300 million to spare.

As BATA admits in its own FAQ on the toll increase, $3.00 of the current $7.00 toll is already being siphoned off for purposes other than bridge operations, maintenance, and seismic safety (this will increase to $4.00 of $8.00 on January 1). For example, almost $6 million is diverted annually to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority to operate its empty bus terminal and to pursue its hopeless plan to bring high-speed rail trains into the Salesforce Transit Center. Bridge toll money is also being used to subsidize Bay Area ferries, SF Muni, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and the NAPA Vine bus service.

The toll hike on the Antioch Bridge is especially egregious. BATA is charging the same tolls on all its bridges despite their vastly different lengths. The Bay Bridge is 8.4 miles long while the Antioch Bridge is just 1.8 miles long. Also, unlike all other Bay Area bridges, the Antioch Bridge has just one lane in each direction.

And then there is the question of income. While many Bay Area drivers are wealthy enough to easily absorb the toll hike, that is less true of people living near the Antioch Bridge. According to Census Reporter, Antioch’s per capita income is only 56 percent of the average for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metro region. Rio Vista, the first sizable community on the north side of the bridge, clocks in at just 67 percent of the metro area’s income per person.

At minimum, BATA should exempt the Antioch Bridge from its planned toll hikes. But better yet, the Authority should shelve its entire toll increase plan, stop siphoning off toll money for other purposes, and live within its means.

Marc Joffe is President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

Until Dec. 18

Board considering increasing to as high as $11.50 to pay “exclusively for bridge preservation and operations” in spite of three voter-approved $1 increases

“A Thanksgiving/holiday season decision is a hide the ball strategy. Not good.” – State Senator Steve Glazer

By John Goodwin & Rebecca Long, MTC

November 20, 2024 update: The public comment period on the Bay Area Toll Authority’s proposed toll increase and HOV policy changes is extended through the end of public comment heard on the agenda item for BATA’s December 18, 2024 meeting.  All public written and oral comments provided through that time will be incorporated into the record. However, in order for comments to be summarized and published in the agenda packet and distributed in advance of consideration of this item at the December 11, 2024, BATA Oversight Committee meeting, they must be submitted by 5 p.m. December 3, 2024. 

BATA — which is required by state law to fund projects to preserve and protect the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges — today heard again a proposal for a toll increase that would be used only to pay for the maintenance, rehabilitation and operation of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and the Antioch, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges. If approved by BATA at its December 18 meeting, the toll increase would be phased in over five years, beginning Jan. 1, 2026. 

The toll increase proposal includes a tiered rate structure aimed at encouraging more customers to pay electronically with FasTrak® toll tags, as this form of payment carries lower administrative costs than payment through a license plate account or returning payment with an invoice received by mail. Under the proposal, customers would pay a premium for using a pre-registered license plate account or for invoiced tolling. To give customers ample time to sign up for FasTrak, this premium would not begin until 2027. 

The proposed toll hike is separate from the $3 increase approved by Bay Area voters in 2018 through Regional Measure 3 to finance a comprehensive suite of highway and transit improvements around the region. The first of the three $1 Regional Measure 3 toll increases went into effect in 2019, followed by another in 2022. The last of the RM 3 toll hikes will go into effect Jan. 1, 2025, bringing the toll for regular two-axle cars and trucks to $8.

The proposal heard today by BATA calls for tolls for all regular two-axle cars and trucks to increase to $8.50 on Jan. 1, 2026. Tolls for customers who pay with FasTrak tags would then rise to $9 in 2027; to $9.50 in 2028; to $10 in 2029; and then to $10.50 in 2030. Tolls for customers who use a pre-registered license plate account would rise to $9.25 in 2027; to $9.75 in 2028; to $10.25 in 2029 and to $10.75 in 2030. Invoiced tolls would rise to $10 in 2027; $10.50 in 2028; $11 in 2029; and $11.50 in 2030. The Golden Gate Bridge has used a tiered pricing schedule since 2014. Golden Gate Bridge tolls by July 2028 will range from $11.25 for FasTrak to $11.50 for license plate accounts to $12.25 for invoice customers.

Under the proposed toll increase, tolls for large freight trucks and other vehicle/trailer combinations with three or more axles would rise by 50 cents per axle each year from 2026 through 2030. 

“I’m sensitive to the overall cost of living in the Bay Area,” acknowledged Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza, who also serves as chair of both BATA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). “Working families really feel the impact, not just in transportation but back at home with utilities, groceries, children. This one is hard. But it’s the right thing to do.”

BATA and MTC invite members of the public to weigh in on the proposed toll increase during a comment period that begins Monday, Nov.4, and continues through the end of BATA’s Dec. 18 meeting. Comments may be sent via email to info@bayareametro.gov. As part of its regular November meeting, BATA today held a public hearing in San Francisco to receive testimony about the proposal from Bay Area residents, businesses and other interested parties. 

Today’s presentation by BATA and MTC staff also proposed updates to the policies for high-occupancy vehicles on approaches to the Bay Area’s state-owned toll bridges. These updates would take effect Jan. 1, 2026, concurrent with the proposed toll increase. BATA’s  existing toll schedule allows vehicles with three or more occupants (HOV 3+) a discounted toll, with a two-person (HOV 2) occupancy requirement for half-price tolls at the Dumbarton and San Mateo-Hayward bridges. BATA and MTC staff propose to establish a uniform three-person occupancy requirement for half-price tolls during weekday commute periods at all seven bridges. Carpool vehicles at all state-owned bridges must use a dedicated carpool lane and pay their tolls with a FasTrak Flex toll tag set to the ‘3’ position to receive the 50 percent discount available weekdays from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The proposed carpool policy changes also would allow vehicles with two occupants and a switchable FasTrak Flex toll tag set to the ‘2’ position to use the carpool lanes on the approaches to the Antioch, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges. These two-occupant vehicles would not receive the 50 percent carpool discount but would be able to use the carpool lanes to save time traveling through the toll plazas. Use of the carpool lanes on approaches to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge still would require a minimum of three occupants.

The new carpool policy proposals are designed to improve safety on the toll bridge approaches by minimizing ‘weaving’ between lanes and to increase person-throughput by prioritizing access for buses and carpools. The policy change also would optimize lane configurations as now-obsolete toll booths are removed as part of the coming transition to open-road tolling.  

BATA, which is directed by the same policy board as MTC, administers toll revenues from the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges. Toll revenues from the Golden Gate Bridge are administered by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, which joined with BATA to operate a single regional FasTrak customer service center in San Francisco. MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

In response to a post of the link to this press release on X/Twitter on Wednesday, Nov. 30, State Senator Steve Glazer, who represents most of Contra Costa County, protested the proposed toll hikes writing, “Why was this need not identified and incorporated during the last toll increase in 2018? You don’t buy a boat and a new car when you don’t have the $ to fix the roof! A Thanksgiving/holiday season decision is a hide the ball strategy. Not good.”

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Approve double-time for Antioch Police officers as part of Violence Reduction Initiative

New city manager withdraws request for second assistant city manager position

Agree to move forward proposed Sycamore Square police substation

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, November 12, 2024, the Antioch City Council agreed to spend $1.3 million on improvements to the police department and Animal Services. It was the second to last regular meeting for both Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock, as well as District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica, who was absent due to a family medical emergency. The council also approved double-time pay for Antioch Police Officers who choose to work extra hours to supplement the currently depleted force, voted to accept the $6.8 million state grant to clear out homeless encampments, agreed to pursue leasing the lot on Sycamore Drive to develop something there in the long-term and a community garden in the meantime, as well as directed staff to pursue leasing space at the Sycamore Square shopping center for a possible police substation.

Before public comments and council discussion on the budget-related item, it was announced City Manager Bessie Scott, who was also absent, withdrew her request for a second assistant city manager position, and would be brought back at a later, more appropriate time, according to Economic Development Director Kwame Reed who was sitting in for her during the meeting.

Budget Savings and ARPA Funds Allocation

The $1.3 million were from item #10 on the agenda entitled, “Appropriating Expenditures for Encumbrances and Project Budgets Outstanding to the 2024/25 Fiscal Year Budget and Approving Other Amendments to the 2024/25 Fiscal Year Budget.”

For the use of the remaining one-time federal ARPA funds for COVID relief which have to be allocated or contracted for by Dec. 31st, the council, instead of using it to help local need meeting organizations in the amount of $25,000 each as suggested by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe they instead moved them to the General Fund to pay for government services.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker wanted instead to “Go through a grant making process then those organizations could apply,” she said. But Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock supported transferring the funds to the General Fund for future use by the next council.

The council than approved that on two motions which passed 4-0.

Approve Double-Time Pay for Antioch Police Personnel in Violence Reduction Initiative

After approving the Violence Reduction Initiative last month, allocating up to $500,000 for overtime pay and costs for the assistance of police and equipment from outside agencies, under item #11 the city council approved “a resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to pay double the standard hourly wage (“double-time”) to Antioch Police Department Sergeants, Corporals, Officers, Community Service Officers, and Dispatch personnel for working extra shifts in designated areas of the City to reduce violence.”

“I do think we need to approve that. But we can’t rely solely on outside officers,” said Interim Police Chief Brian Addington. “Nobody knows this area…better than our Antioch Police Officers.”

“These officers would be over and above the regular patrol officers,” he stated. “We don’t want our officers overworked and working fatigued. I’m not asking for any more money. You already allocated $500,000. I believe that will be sufficient. I believe it would benefit us all as a community we spend these funds up front…rather than after the fact. It is a short-term solution. We need a wholistic approach. We need to work with our faith-based organizations, our community-based organizations.”

Torres-Walker flipped her position from the previous vote on the initiative saying, “I do support this…knowing officers will be well-rested. Because I’ve been told by other chiefs that it would be difficult to provide their officers. I’m going to go ahead and support this.”

Following the motion by Ogorchock and seconded by Torres-Walker, it passed 4-0.

Accept $6.8 Million State Homeless Encampment Cleanout Grant

The council also adopted “a resolution accepting the Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development (HCD) Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF)” Round 3 award in the amount of $6,812,686. The proposed project will clear out a homeless encampment located near the intersection of Sunset Drive and Devpar Court. As one of the City’s two large encampments, it has been prioritized for resolution due to the vulnerability of its 30-40 residents and the hazardous conditions present at the site.

“I understood the site was not selected,” Ogorchock stated and asked about the Economy Inn.

“When we first wrote the grant we were looking at a couple options and no one said they were interested except Economy Inn,” said Tasha Johnson, Director of the Public Safety and Community Resources Department.

The council approved the motion to accept the grant on a 4-0 vote.

Approve Rescinding City Attorney Oversight of City Clerk’s Office

Under agenda item #13, the council approved outgoing City Clerk Ellie Householder recommendation to rescind a previous resolution, “Approving the City Clerk’s Request for the City Attorney to Provide Managerial Oversight of the City Clerk’s Department in Cooperation with the City Clerk.”

“This resolution will transfer back the responsibility to the city manager,” said City Attorney Thomas L. Smith.

The motion to approve passed on a 4-0 vote.

Lease of Lot on Sycamore Drive

The council also considered, at Torres-Walker’s request, leasing the vacant property across from the Sycamore Square shopping center on the corner of Sycamore Road and L Street, or space in the center.

According to resident and former councilman Ralph Hernandez, the empty lot was formerly the location of a gas station. He questioned whether it was cleaned up and for the council to consider any environmental hazards.

Resident and affordable housing advocate Andrew Becker said, “That lot has an R-20 zoning designation. So that city has plans for housing on that property.”

“That lot definitely does need some funding put into it. Not City of Antioch General Fund. That property is in an Opportunity Zone. It’s in one of the lowest income areas of the city. You submit it to the state…you go to the front of the line,” he stated. “You land-lease this property. You create a viable development plan and you target those funds and I’m happy to help along the way.”

“Before we buy the property, we made sure it was clear,” said the lot owner named Mike. “There was a gas station there in 1974.”

Torres-Walker then said, “I connected Andrew to Mike. In order to do things like that you have to show interest as the City to move forward. Even Mike said, ‘we could lease this lot for a dollar.’ After 30 years this city would finally be willing to invest in their community.”

“There’s nothing to vote on tonight. We either have to put up or shut up and stop complaining,” she added.

“It’s not been closed since 1974,” Ogorchock pointed out.

“I didn’t say it’s been 30 years since it was a gas station. I’m saying it’s been 30 years of neglect,” Torres-Walker responded.

“I think this is something that could be a land-lease,” Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson stated. “I definitely want to hear more about this.”

Hernandez-Thorpe mentioned a “community garden there. The long-term plans are the long-term plans. In the meantime, a community garden is what she’s asking for.”

Lease of Space at Sycamore Square for Police Substation

Regarding a police substation inside a space at the Sycamore Square shopping center Torres-Walker explained, “A police substation is not a mini police station.”

“In fairness to Mike, he already reserved the space two years ago,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated. “This is not a new idea. The unfortunate circumstances of what happened made it difficult.”

Commissioner Leslie May said, “I think that would be a good idea as long as the Community Engagement Committee of the Police Oversight Committee could be in there working.”

Ralph Hernandez said, “I just don’t see it. The community already has security in the Contra Loma Estates, the cameras there and you still have the violence. It’s an illusion…that’s going to create some kind of security for the community. “How many police buildings are patrolling and keeping our city safe?” he asked. “You’re not going to get more safety by having a substation.”

“I like her idea, of having a community room with non-police,” he continued referring to Ms. May’s idea. “I know what’s going on there. You just don’t know the game, there.”

Another resident, who the mayor referred to as Ms. Smith said, “I was born and raised in Antioch on the old Sycamore, William Reed Drive. I’ve noticed since we have patrol officers sitting over there in Sycamore Square, I feel safe. It’s not an illusion.”

“The bullets started flying. A shell casing was found in a neighbor’s yard. Real estate agents were showing a house then the 50 shots,” she stated. “I’m all for the substation. When the police are there, it’s quiet. Sycamore has always been bad. It’s never been this bad.”

Increased policing is not the intent, here. It’s not going to solve the community’s problems. Increased presence,” Andrew Becker said. “It’s to provide a space to show that community they’re not forgotten. That the City is invested in them 24/7. Be more ambitious. Be more bold.”

He then suggested pursuing federal grant funds for electric vehicle charging stations at the shopping center to attract people to it.

“This is a step in a process of steps that have already been taken,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated.

“This is not giving up on community-based violence solutions,” Torres-Walker said. “Antioch’s never done that before. The approach has been police response, police response, police response. What I would like is for the city manager and the police chief to meet with the owner of Sycamore Square…what can we do in three months, what can we do in six months.”
“We’re all agreeing with the direction? Is the direction clear?” Hernandez-Thorpe asked.

Property owner Mike said, “When the police show up it was better. I do everything that I’ve been asked. I’ve been trying to help the community. This is something beyond, out of my hands. If we can work together.”

“The security guards don’t feel safe. These are armed security guards,” Torres-Walker stated. “The HOA feels so safe…they move to…Brentwood. We need to do something.”

Council Communications

During the Council Communications portion of the meeting, Torres-Walker said she wanted to bring back to a future meeting a discussion of, “What is the mayor’s office and how do we get rid of it?” She also asked, “To change the name of the Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program to something more suitable for sustainability.”

“You do realize all that sounded like a dig towards me,” Hernandez-Thorpe said.

“It’s not a dig. I just want to have a discussion about it,” Torres-Walker responded with a laugh.

“The $20,000 for each council members’ districts. We need to have guidelines on them,” Ogorchock then requested.

The council then voted to adjourn the meeting at 11:23 p.m.