Antioch District 3 Councilman Don Freitas questions City Manager Bessie Scott and Finance Director Dawn Merchant as his fellow council members listen, during the council meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. Video screenshot
$6.7 million more than last June’s projections, total could be $51 to $58 million; will reduce the City’s reserves to less than 3%
Freitas questions use of ARPA funds, Crisis Response Team stats, deficits
By Allen D. Payton
According to the staff report for the Antioch Council’s study sessions on the budget for Fiscal Years 2025-27, provided over the past three weeks, the City’s near-future finances appear bleak. The report reads, “The total deficit over the next two years is $32,883,691, and if the deficit reduction measures City staff has proposed are added back to the draft budget, the cumulative deficit would increase to $51,158,875.” It will reduce the City’s reserves from 36.52% to just 2.94%.
The projected budget deficit for the current fiscal year, 2024-25, which ends on June 30th will be $5,358,842; $15,666,448 for 2025-26 and $17,583,418 for FY 2026-27. Those are increases from last June’s budget update to the city council. At that time, according to the General Fund Projections for 2023-2028 presented to the city council on June 11, 2024, the General Fund was projected to run the following deficits: $12,995,259 in FY 2025-26 and $13,561,074 in FY 2026-27. That’s an increase in the two-year deficit of $6,693,533. Last year’s budget projections also showed a $14,855,649 deficit in FY 2027-28. (See related article)
Budget Summary showing deficits through Fiscal Year 2026-27 highlighted in yellow. Source: City of Antioch
However, Finance Director Dawn Merchant explained that the projected deficit for this fiscal year is only $405,014, as the majority of the $5.358 million was rolled over from the previous fiscal year. (See below)
Freitas Wants Details on Success of Homeless Hotel, Crisis Response Team
District 3 Councilman Don Freitas questioned staff about the report on homeless services including the Opportunity Village motel on E. 18th Street, as well as the Crisis Response Team statistics and what feedback staff is looking for from the council.
During the Oct. 11th budget study session he asked, “What specifically are you looking for feedback from the council on these items?”
“Because, frankly, I’m still waiting for the data, you know, to come forward,” he continued. “So, I’m not quite sure what it is that you’re asking council.”
“I’m not asking the council anything,” City Manager Bessie Scott responded. “I think you all wanted these budget study sessions as we get ready to prepare our next biennial budget. I want to first start off by saying thank you to our (Finance) Director (Dawn Merchant) and her team. They’re able to do a lot for our community with very little.”
“I want to make sure that the data elements that you would like us to bring forward outside of these presentations are here,” she continued. “So, any specific data or presentations that you have, please feel free to ask us. I think that as we go forward the questions are actually for you to set budget and policy.”
Freitas then directed his questions to Public Safety and Community Resources Department Director Tasha Johnson.
“Earlier you said data shows that you’ve been successful. This as regards to ARPA funding. How is it measured as successful? What were the criteria? Particularly, the Opportunity Village. They’re not the only one. Cal VIPS, the Rubicon Program.”
“When I looked at the Angelo Quinto (Crisis Response Team) and I saw the 8,363 dispatches were made, it seems like an extraordinary number,” the councilman continued. “So, for me the question is out of that, how do you count a dispatch? Are there repeats? Are they all new? I have no idea what that number really, truly means. As well as the 3,149 welfare checks. Again, are these repeats? Are they singular? We need to be able to break down and try to measure,”
“I’m assuming with any program that the City has funded in the past, it was articulated what the goals, objectives and what success was,” Freitas stated. “I’d like to see when the program was discussed and approved by the past city council, what were those and did we meet them? If we were deficient then why were we deficient and are we addressing them moving forward?”
General Fund Budget DeficitsCould Total $55-$58 million
Freitas then asked about the General Fund and projected budget deficits saying, “The other issue that I would have. All of these programs are deserving. But we have a terrible challenge in front of us and before I say what I think the number is, Ms. Merchant, I want to be clear in my mind. Now, this is in regards to…some of the funding and I noticed that in the report for General Fund expenditure reductions, this is for…Fiscal Year ‘26 and ‘27 that you have already talked to a lot of these departments and you’ve already cut the number in Fiscal Year ‘26 to $8.6 million and FY ‘27 to $9.4 million. I rounded up.”
“Mmm, hmm,” Merchant responded.
“But you also indicate that we have a deficit at the end of this year of $5.4 million,” the councilman continued. “And it’s anticipated next year to be $15.7 million, and we have a deficit in Fiscal Year ‘27 of $17.6 million. So, if I add the 8.6, the 9.4, the 5.4, the 15.7, the 17.6 we come up with a deficit, basically of $58 million. Is that right, wrong?”
Merchant responded, “I just would like to clarify as I did mention before for Fiscal Year 2024-25, that $5.358, that really isn’t a true deficit spending because encumbrances and purchase orders were rolled over, were not spent in Fiscal Year ’24. So, it was re-budgeted although the money was received in the prior fiscal year. It was re-budgeted into Fiscal Year ’25, essentially inflating the expenditure number. That’s why you’ll see the Budget Stabilization transfer is only $405,014 which you account for the money being rolled over from the prior year. The deficit remaining is only the $405,000 versus the $5.3.”
“But otherwise, yes,” she continued. “If you cumulatively add up the 15.6, the 17.8 and you account for what we’ve already backed out of the 8.6 and the 9.3, yeah.”
“So, roughly, still that leaves about 55 or 58 million?” Freitas asked.
“Yeah,” Merchant responded.
“As we move into years ’26 and ’27, those are true deficits,” the councilman stated. “So, they have no encumbrances, correct?”
“That is correct,” the Finance Director said.
Mayor Ron Bernal thanked the staff for “Building into the presentations, answers to my questions. So, 99% of my questions were answered.”
He then asked about the Crisis Response Team, that it “had been scaled up from what it had originally started as to where it is, today. I would like to know what it was before it was scaled up and what that cost is, and what the coverage of that program was, so we can see the two of them.”
Program will empower a Northern California nonprofit with up to $39,000 in grant funding
By Michelle Sabolich, AVP, Corporate Communications, Travis Credit Union
Travis Credit Union Foundation announces the application deadline has been extended for its 2025 Financial Coaching Grants program until March 31. This initiative is an opportunity for one Northern California nonprofit organization to access $30,000 in unrestricted funding and up to $9,000 to train its staff to become financial coaches. Those interested in applying can start here.
“Our hope is that through this grant, we can create a ripple effect of positive financial behaviors that will benefit not only the individuals directly involved but the broader community,” said Damian Alarcon, president of Travis Credit Union Foundation. “Financial stability is a cornerstone of a thriving community, and we are committed to making a lasting impact.”
Eligibility requirements are: • Organizations benefiting people in Napa, Solano, Yolo, Contra Costa and Merced counties. • Organizations classified as public charities. • Organizations with the ability to reach diverse communities, including those that are unbanked/underserved. • Organizations that do not discriminate by race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender expression, age, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or military status. • Organizations with the capacity to allocate time and resources for two staff members to become financial coaches (self-study) and provide 10 or more one-hour financial coaching sessions to beneficiaries each month. • Organizations that are willing to promote their participation in the Financial Coaching Grant Program and acknowledge funding received from Travis Credit Union Foundation in traditional and social media.
Those who apply and are selected as coaches will undergo comprehensive, three- to five-month long, self-study training through the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) and/or Financial Counseling for Empowerment Program (FICEP). Upon completing the course, coaches will be equipped to address a wide range of financial topics, from summarizing saving principles to educating community members about credit reports, credit scores and the wise use of tax refunds.
The TCU Foundation is committed to supporting nonprofits throughout the grant’s lifetime, ensuring that financial wellness outcomes are achieved. The foundation will monitor financial coaching goals, metrics and outcomes related to reduced debt, increased savings and established and/or improved credit scores. Renewal preferences are given to nonprofits with a demonstrated record of coaching more beneficiaries.
The grant application will close on March 31 at 11:59 p.m. PDT.
About Travis Credit Union Foundation The Travis Credit Union Foundation supports financial education and wellness initiatives and is the philanthropic arm of Travis Credit Union. The Foundation is committed to making a positive impact in the communities it serves through financial education, charitable giving, and community support. Travis Credit Union generously funds the administrative costs of the Travis Credit Union Foundation, allowing for 100% of funds raised to go back to the community. To learn more about the Travis Credit Union Foundation’s mission and how to participate in all it’s doing to build financial wellness in the communities it serves, visit tcufund.org.
The Foundation is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). Tax ID #82-4159040
A complete Antioch Council met for the first time since Dec. 10th for a Budget Workshop Monday night Jan. 27, 2025. Video screenshot
Discusses final 6 months of 2-year budget ending this June
Agrees to eliminate council slush funds of $20K each
Without new source of funding Crisis Response Team to end Oct. 31
By Allen D. Payton
Without any public comments, Antioch City Finance Director Dawn Merchant delved right into her report to the Antioch City Council during their meeting on the budget study session held Monday, January 27, 2025. She called it, “A high-level overview for closing the books for 2024-25.” The council learned Opportunity Village, referred to as the homeless hotel on E. 18th Street will run out of funds to operate as of April 30th, as will the City’s crisis response team as of Oct. 31st and chose to eliminate the $20,000 per member slush fund the previous council majority approved.
“The numbers presented this evening are subject to change,” she added. “Department heads are already developing their budgets for Fiscal Years 2025-27” two-year budget which begins July 1, 2025.
It was the first meeting of the entire five-member council since the oath of office meeting on Dec. 10th.
Following her presentation, which was written in the staff report for the agenda, the council asked a variety of questions. Mayor Ron Bernal chose to review the staff report page by page.
Reserve Funds, Make Budget Easier to Understand
“This is a preview of future attractions, so to speak,” District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said. He then asked about the City’s two reserve funds saying “Are they the same? Why aren’t they combined?”
“Because when this was established in 2018, we had an accumulation of fund balance from staff vacancies. City Council wanted to set aside the funds in a separate funds so it didn’t appear we had all these funds to spend on ongoing expenditures…and so we would have a safety net,” Merchant said.
“The public and members of the council get very confused with the transfers-in and transfers-out,” the councilman said. “I think we should combine the reserve funds. I want someone in high school to be able to look at the budget and understand it.”
“I would like to look at possibly establishing a policy on how set-aside funds can be utilized in the future,” Bernal added.
“I agree,” Freitas responded. He also wanted to see a reserve in the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) budget.
“Making this as easy as possible for folks to understand,” Bernal stated about his desires for the budget document.
Investment Funds and Policies
Freitas then asked about the investment policies and “million decreases in building activities. That’s a red flag to me.”
“The County will have to re-examine the Urban Limit Line,” he continued. “There might be an interest in the County in limiting more growth in the cities. That could have a dramatic impact.”
“If we had all those vacant positions filled, would we have any money in the budget?” Freitas then asked. Merchant laughed. “There’s a lot of income there. City Council needs to take a realistic view…not have positions approved that have not been filled for two or three years.”
“We’re looking at all of that…the length they’ve been vacant and why,” Merchant responded.
“On that note with the vacancies what’s the timeline to fill those vacancies? One year or two years?” asked District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha.
“Instead of guessing we can get those actuals,” Merchant said. “The department heads are looking at that and preparing it. So, we can’t answer that, tonight.”
Asking about the investment funds, District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked if the investments can be changed mid-year.
“City investments are governed by the government code. Funds are supposed to be safe guarded,” Merchant stated. “The City is on a two-to-three-year benchmark. If we have excess funds…we will transfer those funds to the custodian…then to PFM” who handles the City’s investments.”
“We can go out to another investment firm, but they would be governed by the same code,” Merchant responded.
“Over a 20-year term? I’ll be making a recommendation,” Freitas said.
“It seems like our investments went from $1.1 to $2.7 million last year,” Bernal pointed out.
“The interest rates were really high for a while,” Merchant stated.
“It would probably be good to come back with a single study and go over all of how that works,” Bernal said.
Freitas suggested top staff have a meeting on a quarterly basis, to review the City’s investments.
Source: City of Antioch
Request Corrected Budget Figures
“We have a $95 million base not a $100 million base when we take out all the ARPA money,” Bernal stated.
“When the budget comes back and we’re going into ’26 an ’27 the budget will show what we’re expecting then…and have the one-time funds broken out,” Merchant explained.
“I think what we’re talking about is transparency, showing $95 million instead of $100 million,” Rocha stated.
Transfers In
Freitas asked about the 10% for Transfers In saying, “Is that normal?”
“It was a little bit higher in 2024-25 because of the ARPA funds and the Bicycle Garden,” Merchant shared.
Source: City of Antioch
Sales Tax Versus Property Tax Amounts
“I think it would be interesting…to understand the various categories of sales tax,” Freitas said. “It’s a lump sum and it doesn’t give us the ability to make any policy decisions going forward.”
“If property taxes are the largest revenue, what are we doing as a City to improve property values?” he asked.
However, Sales Tax including the City’s 1% sales tax generates 49% of taxes to the General Fund, while Property Tax generates 36% of taxes.
Wilson spoke of the Transient Occupation Tax, the 10% tax on hotel and motel bookings. “Not all our operators pay when they’re supposed to,” she stated. “I think that’s something council should take a serious look at.”
Freitas asked about when Measure W’s one-cent sales tax ends. “20 years…in 2037,” Merchant said.
“It was going to be 80-10-10 but we had to fight to get 20 for youth,” Wilson said about the split of the use of revenue from Measure W.
“Under investment income and rentals…do you have an idea what that’s going to look like over the next several years,” Bernal asked.
“I’m going to look at that,” Merchant responded.
Legal Costs Questioned
Referring to the $1.3M increase in outside legal costs for several on-going litigations mentioned in the staff report, Freitas requested, “I’d like to know how much we’ve spent last year and this year on outside legal counsel and per firm.”
City Hall & Marina Parking Lots
Regarding City Hall, “is the parking lot sinking and are the trees being removed?” Freitas asked. “If there’s a problem with the parking lot, which brings in the issue of the marina parking lot.”
“Yes, the marina parking lot does move,” Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting said. “It’s because of the underlying issue of the Bay mud. We try to eliminate the ponding as much as possible.”
“The eucalyptus trees are being removed. We are installing some EV charging stations,” he added. “It’s not moving like an earthquake. It’s moving slowly.”
“If there was an earthquake, I guess it’s called liquefaction. What would be the worst-case scenario?” Freitas asked.
“There’d be no liquefaction there, as the parking lot is on bay mud,” Buenting responded.
Lone Tree Golf Course Funds
Regarding questions on the funds for the Lone Tree Golf Course, Merchant said, “The golf course agreement that’s been in place for several years, now, that they pay us about $20,000 per year and they pay for the rest.”
Wilson said, “Mr. Mayor I want to remind you that you and I sit on the golf course committee.”
On the Transfer Out Bernal said, “these seem to be increasing each year.”
Source: City of Antioch
Unfunded Liabilities
About “unfunded liabilities of $166 million that seems like a lot of money” the mayor stated.
“So, the total costs that we’re paying toward this black hole is about $20 million per year?” he asked. “It’s more than 20% of our revenues. So, it’s a huge cost to the citizens of Antioch.”
“That’s just in the General Fund. There’s also an amount in the Water Fund,” Merchant stated. “They take our overall liability and subtract the value of assets”
“This is $167 million exposure…I think we need to come back and revisit this. It’s like a credit card and only paying interest,” Freitas stated.
“We are paying part of the unfunded liability,” Merchant said.
“I think we should be paying it,” Freitas responded.
“Then you’d have to decide what you don’t want to pay for in the General Fund,” Merchant responded.
Crisis Response Team May End Oct. 31
“Under ARPA…we spent $5.7 million…for the crisis response team,” Freitas pointed out. “This was ARPA money…one-time money. Has there been any discussion if this is going to continue how we’re going to come up with $6 millon?”
“No. Not at the council level,” Merchant said.
“That’s not true. It has always been stated it won’t be covered by the General Fund because it’s not sustainable,” District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker stated. “That’s why we need to start looking at state and federal funds.”
“As for the…crisis response team and Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program, there are grant funds out there…to keep funding those programs,” she added.
“So, by Oct. 31…is the crisis response team ending?” Freitas asked.
“In our discussions with the county are you looking at a strategy…and look at collaborating with the County and our neighboring cities?” Rocha asked.
“This has helped…reduce police calls for service,” Torres-Walker argued.
“I think having a crisis response team is good,” Freitas stated. “It’s the ability to finance it.”
“Thank you for acknowledging the work that does need to happen,” said Public Safety and Community Resources Department Director Tasha Johnson. “There are some possible grant funding opportunities. We do have some funds in our budget for a grant writer.”
“The community response team has done tremendous work in the community,” she continued. “They help with our unhoused residents. We are looking to sustain that with outside funding.”
Opportunity Village Homeless Hotel to Run Out of Funds April 30
“With Opportunity Village to end April 30th, this year…we are working with the County to set up that program. The state funding can only be used for encampment residents. We’ve identified the one of Devpar Court. It’s down in a ravine. You can’t really see it.”
In response to a question from Freitas about the funds and residents at Opportunity Village, the homeless hotel on E. 18th Street, Johnson responded, “For now, the encampment resolution funds will shift the focus to those residents.”
“We have a meeting with Felton to discuss the sustainability of the program,” she added in response to a question about the operator and what the City will do for the residents there.
“So, April 2025, we will no longer be operating Opportunity Village?” Freitas asked.
“Correct,” Johnson responded.
CalVIP Grant funds
Bernal asked her to speak about the CalVIP grant.
“We received approximately $1.8 million to reduce gun violence…in our community,” Johnson stated. “With that grant we were able to identify individuals who perpetrate gun violence. There are currently 13 fellows in the program. We offer all kinds of services to stabilize their lives. The operator is One Day At a Time. This program is roughly $800,000 per year. So, the $1.8 million is for two years.”
“This program is impactful. But we’re looking to grow it…for two years,” she added.
“When we first applied it was a 100% match,” from the City budget. “But this time around there is no match. So, that’s hot off the press,” Johnson.
Freitas asked for more details about the program at a future council meeting.
“A lot of this work is new. I would appreciate the opportunity to present,” she added.
“These are actually three-year cycles,” Torres-Walker shared. “The application was done jointly with the police department. Antioch could have gotten more than $1.8 million. But we need a pilot. This next cohort I’m looking to get more. The City of Richmond has been doing this for 20 years and she got $6 million.”
She also spoke of wanting to “increase the public-private partnership.”
“What I’m looking at are what are the measurable goals…when the presentation comes back,” Freitas requested.
“We’ll be asking for the council to continue the program,” City Manager Bessie Scott.
Council Budget – Agree to Eliminate $20K Slush Fund for Each Member
Under the city council budget, Freitas said, “I’m opposed to each city council member having $20,000.”
“I never spent any of the money anyways,” said Torres-Walker. “I actually raised more money in my district that exceeds this amount annually.”
Both Bernal and Rocha agreed.
“I’d rather see those funds go toward…the needs of our community,” the District 2 Councilman said.
“Each council member should have a meeting in their district. I think its appropriate on the controversial issues, especially,” Freitas said. “I think each council member can come to the council and say, ‘I want to have a meeting in my district’ and request the funds.”
“You can do a community meeting in your district without using any of these funds,” Torres-Walker stated.
“That’s where we disagree,” Freitas responded.
“On the Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program, I’d like to rename that the Antioch Apprenticeship Program or Director Johnson can come up with a catchy name,” Bernal stated.
Freitas asked about a few items in Attachment A, the General Fund Revenue Summary.
Bernal then asked about the programs based on ARPA funds. “That will give us a lot of work to do,” he stated.
Water Park Repair Funds
Wilson asked about the Water Park and the repairs needed there.
“The city council did allocate money for those repairs,” Merchant responded.
Parks & Recreation Department Director Brad Helfenberger shared, “There was an allocation of approximately $1.7 million. We are in the process of allocating that. The biggest project…will be resurfacing two pools and the deck. That will use $1 million.”
Capital Improvement Program Funds
“I know the CIP comes later in the program, but it would be good to bring it sooner, this year,” Bernal stated.
“I think we need to take a very close look at what’s in the CIP and if it’s not going to be built…it gets deleted,” Freitas requested. “I think we should deal with reality than have wish lists.”
Staff Vacancies
Bernal and Rocha then requested more details on the vacant positions and how many the city staff expects to fill and by when.
“If it’s realistic that only 20 to 25 officers and support staff can be hired, I don’t know why we would include in the budget all the vacant positions,” Freitas stated. “I think that will free up some of the money. I don’t think it’s responsible to continue allocating funds when we know realistically, we will never fill those positions in that year.”
“Agreed,” Merchant responded. “We try to do that in the budget.”
“It would be helpful to know how many police officers go out on disability,” Freitas requested.
“I’d like to know and hear about a list of infrastructure projects we can have,” Wilson requested.
Next Budget Workshop
It was agreed that the city council’s next budget session will be held on Tuesday, March 4.
Torres-Walker was concerned about when the meetings would start, “because some of us work full time” she stated.
“With everybody’s schedule, it’s hard to coordinate,” Scott responded.
“That means for the rest of the departments we’re going to have to hustle through the rest of them,” Bernal said about the schedule.
“Thank you for your work tonight and helping us move forward being productive,” he then said to city staff.
On Monday, Jan. 27, the Antioch City Council will hold a special meeting for a Budget Session to discuss development of the Fiscal Year 2025-27 budget. They will hear from the city manager and staff then provide feedback and direction.
According to the City staff report on the item, “The purpose of this discussion is to understand where we are in closing out the current budget cycle for FY25 and does not include policy discussions as we embark on the next two-year budget cycle which will revise the FY25 budget and adopt the FY26 and FY27 budgets. As a kickoff to this budget cycle, a preliminary review of the projected revised FY25 General Fund budget is being provided this evening as well as items to consider as we move forward building the proposed budgets for the next two fiscal years.”
As previously reported last October, the City is facing double-digit deficits for each of the next three fiscal years. According to the General Fund Projections for 2023-2028 presented to the city council on June 11, 2024, the General Fund was projected to run the following deficits: $12,995,259 in FY 2025-26; $13,561,074 in FY 2026-27; and $14,855,649 in FY 2027-28.
The first two are expected to be covered by transfers from the Budget Stabilization Fund, but it will only cover $1,253,902 in the third year of what could be Hernandez-Thorpe’s second term as mayor if he’s re-elected because that Fund will be depleted in FY 2028. That would result in a projected net deficit for the City of $13,601,748 by June 30, 2028, which would be covered by the General Fund reserve leaving it with an Ending Balance of just $17.4 million or 17.06% in reserves versus over 31% and 32% for the previous fiscal years.
The City staff report also shares, “As a refresher for the public and the governing body, the General Fund is the main operating fund of the City and accounts for the majority of essential services provided, other than water. The General Fund is divided into separate cost centers depending on the purpose served which are referred to as departments with sub-groupings of divisions within each department. The departments supported by the General Fund are: • Legislative & Administrative (City Council, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, City Manager, Economic Development) • Finance • Non-departmental (this category is for general revenues to be spent on City services and accounts for expenses not specific to a department or division) • Public Works (other than water/sewer) • Police (includes Animal Shelter subsidy) • Community Development • Public Safety and Community Resources (other than Community Development Block Grant, Housing Successor and Environmental Services which are accounted for in individual Special Revenue Funds) • Recreation Services (subsidy to Recreation Fund)
“While there are fees, charges and permits that fund a portion of departments directly within the General Fund, the majority of revenues that the General Fund receives are general purpose and offset the remaining cost of operations not covered by targeted revenues. These general revenues include property taxes, sales taxes, business license taxes and franchise fees.
“A budget should be balanced, meaning that the expenditures in any given fiscal year should not exceed revenues. In 2018, the City established a Budget Stabilization Fund When established, the purpose of this fund was to provide a means of handling unexpected General Fund budget variances, unanticipated projects and/or expenses, and unfunded liabilities.”
The staff report further includes the following:
Reserve Policy
“The City has an adopted reserve policy that the General Fund unassigned (not committed for other purposes) fund balance will be a minimum of 20% of General Fund operating revenues. The percentage for the revised fiscal year 2025 budget is shown at the bottom of Chart A.
Source: City of Antioch
General Fund Budget Summary
“Chart A provides revised FY25 General Fund budget figures as compared to the current udget based on projections and estimates by departments. The numbers may change as we proceed through this budget process. Chart B and B1 immediately following breaks down the General Fund projected FY25 revenues by category and Charts C, C1 and C2 outline the expenditures by department and category.
“The budget in Chart A reflects three commitments of fund balance:
Compensated absences – The purpose of this reserve is to fund the City’s mandated liability for unused vacation and/or vested sick leave benefits paid upon employee separation. The reserve level is set at 5% of the total compensated absences liability for General Fund employees. It was established to meet accounting best practices.
Litigation Reserve – The purpose of this reserve is to ensure the General Fund has money on hand for unanticipated litigation and other insurance deductible costs not covered by the City insurance. The reserve level is set at ten times the City’s self-insured liability retention, which is $50,000, representing a $500,000 reserve.
Community Development fees – This represents the accumulation of General Plan maintenance fees and Technology fees collected which can only be spent for these purposes. It is adjusted annually for fees collected and/or spent.
“The deficit of $5,358,842 listed above after the Budget Stabilization transfer is due to FY24 encumbrances (purchase orders) and project budgets that were unspent and rolled over and budgeted into FY25 for spending. The true deficit is anticipated to be $1,418,515, in the Budget Stabilization Transfer row above, after accounting for the budget rollover.
“The transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund is being reduced $3,198,628 from the budget of $4,617,143 due to the inflow of ARPA funds in the current fiscal year reducing the need from the Budget Stabilization Fund to balance the budget.
“The General Fund will meet the reserve unassigned fund balance policy in FY25…projected overall ending General Fund balance of $37,899,927. The projected balance of the Budget Stabilization Fund at June 30, 2025 is $38,512,955.
“It is important to note that some one-time monies are included in Chart A in the Transfers In and Revenue from Other Agencies rows…which will leave a lower starting base to evaluate FY26 and FY27 revenues.”
For more details from the staff report on the budget see the meeting agenda.
Meeting Details
The council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers inside City Hall at 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The meeting can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website.
The Antioch City Council sans two councilwomen hear from a consultant on proposed water rate increases during their meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025. Video screenshot
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.
Source: City of Antioch
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.
The John A. Nejedly Bridge in Antioch. Photo: BATA
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.
Source: Ballotpedia
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.
