Includes $741,000 for Tri Delta Transit, $352 million for BART

Funding distribution still is subject to state approval

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2023, approved an emergency transit operations funding plan that, if approved by the state, will use state and regional funds for transit operations to address Bay Area transit agencies’ most dire funding shortfalls and help them avoid service cuts. 

Today’s action by the Commission approves the principles informing the funding distribution, the funding distribution framework, and regional accountability measures for funding from the Transit and Intercity Rail Program (TIRCP), Zero-Emission Transit Capital Program (ZETCP), and various regional funding sources according to the guidelines described in Senate Bill (SB) 125. The resolution also makes the transit agency boards’ acceptance of the accountability guidelines a requirement for receiving the funds. The actual distribution of the funds is subject to the submittal of these documents to the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and CalSTA’s approval of the documents.

Distribution amounts will be reassessed annually to respond to changing conditions, and the disbursement of operating funds will be contingent upon transit agencies meeting or making significant progress toward a set of accountability requirements, including customer experience and efficiency enhancements. 

For all agencies receiving emergency operating money, the accountability requirements will include participation in ongoing Transit Transformation Action Plan initiatives, and implementation of schedule coordination and real-time transit data improvements. Other accountability requirements are specific to individual operators and focus on safety and security, fare evasion reduction, and comprehensive service improvements.

Under this plan, MTC will contribute an additional $300 million in regional funds to help address the funding shortfall and to keep transit operational. 

MTC will distribute funds according to the following framework:

MTC will distribute funds according to this framework.
Agency	FY24-25	FY25-26	Total ($)	Total (%)
SFMTA	$99,477	$209,328	$308,805	40%
BART	$58,211	$293,837	$352,048	45%
AC Transit	$4,000	$28,569	$32,569	4%
Caltrain	$0	$25,449	$25,449	3%
Golden Gate Transit	$2,838	$38,263	$41,101	5%
Other Operators	$4,661	$9,574	$14,235	2%
ACE	$1,777	$1,829	$3,605	n/a
ECCTA (Tri Delta Transit)	$503	$238	$741	n/a
LAVTA	$897	$1,392	$2,289	n/a
NVTA	$1,485	$966	$2,450	n/a
SolTrans	$0	$2,036	$2,036	n/a
WestCAT	$0	$3,113	$3,113	n/a
Regional Network Management	$2,000	$0	$2,000	0%
Bay Area Total	$171,187	$605,020	$776,207	100%

Amounts shown in thousands ($1,000)

In June, Gov. Newsom signed into law California’s fiscal 2023-24 state budget, which includes $1.1 billion in flexible transportation funding to help support transit operations. The state investment will help transit agencies avoid a near-term ‘fiscal cliff’ that has resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and associated changes in travel patterns and that likely would have led to deep service cuts as early as this year by Muni, BART and other agencies whose fare revenues remain well below pre-pandemic levels.

SB 125 also requires that MTC collect and summarize data from transit operators on a variety of topics, including expenditures on safety, opportunities for enhanced coordination and improvements, and monthly ridership statistics. MTC by June 30, 2026, must submit a Long-Term Financial Plan that demonstrates the implementation of ridership recovery strategies and provides a five-year operating funding outlook.

In order to meet the December 31, 2023, deadline to submit materials to CalSTA, staff will return to the Commission in December to request adoption of the Short-Term Financial Plan. MTC will receive FY2023-24 SB 125 funds no later than April 30, 2024, and will be eligible to receive FY2024-25 funds early in that fiscal year, pending CalSTA’s review of MTC’s allocation package.

BART is seeking applicants to serve as public members on its Audit Committee, which assists the Board of Directors in providing oversight for financial management, operational effectiveness, ethics and regulatory compliance. 

The Audit Committee is comprised of five voting members, including three Board Directors and two public members with governmental financial expertise. It meets at least four times per year, with authority to convene additional meetings as needed.

Criteria for the position include:

• Expertise: Have expertise in governmental accounting, financial management, or Performance auditing, or conducting investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse;
• Technical Knowledge: Have technical knowledge of accounting, financial or performance auditing, financial reporting, and internal controls, including an understanding of and ability to apply the Government Auditing Standards, accounting standards issued by the Government Accounting Standards Board, and a recognized internal control framework;
• Professional Certification: Possess a relevant professional certification, such as Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, Certified Fraud Examiner, Certified Inspector General, Certified Internal Controls Auditor, Certified Information Systems Auditor, or a similar certification. Relevant experience may substitute for such certification in the Board’s discretion; 
• No conflicts/recent affiliations: Within the past 10 years and other than in their role as a committee member, have no affiliation with the District or with a firm that has done business with the District.

Public members serving on the Audit Committee must be appointed by a majority of the full Board of Directors through this application process. Public members must possess the independence, experience, and collective technical expertise necessary to carry out the duties of the Audit Committee. Public members must be residents within the District’s boundaries and are subject to conflict-of-interest laws.

The application process has two phases. In Phase 1, all applications will be reviewed to meet all requirements and qualifications, letters of recommendations and any supplemental documents. In Phase 2, selected candidates will be invited to appear before the Board of Directors to briefly explain their interest in serving on the committee, followed by a Board vote.

Download the application form, Audit Committee Public Member appointment rules, and the  Audit Committee Charter.

Please contact the Office of the District Secretary with any questions via email at boardofdirectors@bart.gov.

Assembly Bill 39 will establish a licensing process for crypto exchanges and provide consumers with needed protections. Senate Bill 401 will establish safeguards for crypto kiosks. 

(SACRAMENTO, CA) – On Friday, Oct. 13, 2023, Assembly Bill 39, authored by Assembly Banking and Finance Chair Timothy Grayson (D-Concord) and co-authored by Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego), Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Chair Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara), and Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. AB 39 will establish a licensing program for crypto assets within the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to protect Californians from bad actors and foster responsible innovation. The bill represents a major victory for responsible innovators and California consumers.

AB 39’s lead author, Assemblymember Grayson, released the following statement:

“Today California is taking the necessary step to regulate a market that is volatile, risky, and, in some cases, deliberately rigged against everyday consumers. Because of today’s action, Californians can be confident that crypto businesses, like any other company in financial services, must follow reasonable rules that will protect consumers and their money. Thank you to Governor Newsom for helping ensure that our state leads in fostering responsible innovation.”

Assembly Bill 39 is a companion bill to Senate Bill 401 (Limón and Atkins), which will set a regulatory framework for crypto kiosks, a part of the crypto industry rife with fraud and abuse. Crypto kiosks are ATM-like machines that allow consumers to purchase cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. However, these machines charge exorbitant fees and are hubs of criminal activity, scams, and consumer fraud.

“With the important frameworks established by AB 39 and SB 401, California will begin the challenging task ahead of us to regulate cryptocurrency and ensure that no Californian falls prey to scams, investment related fraud, or high-fee asset withdrawal schemes,” said California Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins. “Failures in crypto markets in recent years have emphasized the need for regulatory frameworks that have the backs of consumers, and Assemblymember Grayson and Senator Limón have led the way in doing just that.”

“California is taking a step in the right direction to protect California consumers from fraud, unnecessary risk, and potentially criminal activity with the signing of SB 401 and AB 39,” said Senator Monique Limón. “I am grateful that Governor Newsom sees the benefits to establishing a clear framework that allows for innovation without harming California consumers.”

Senate Bill 401 was signed into law, along with Assembly Bill 39. 

“The Consumer Federation of California thanks Governor Newsom for signing these two important bills protecting consumers in the crypto marketplace,” said Robert Herrell, Executive Director of Consumer Confederation of California. “California now retakes its rightful position near the top of states protecting consumers in the crypto market. We also profoundly thank Assemblymember Grayson and Senators Limón and Atkins for their perseverance on these issues. Consumers will be better protected in crypto thanks to these new laws.” 

With the Governor’s signature of these measures, crypto companies and crypto kiosk operators must obtain or apply for a license by July 1, 2025, to continue doing business in California. Additional information and the text of both bills can be found here. 

Includes projected deficits of $10.2 million in 2023-24 and $15.4 million in 2024-25; also approves $226.6 million 5-Year Capital Improvement Program budget

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 13, 2023, the Antioch City Council adopted a $237.5 million annual budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and $226.2 million budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 with $10.2 and $15.4 million deficits, respectively. The council also unanimously approved the $226.6 million 5-Year Capital Improvement Program budget and spending up to $2.1 million for police dispatch and records management software upgrade over five years.

Approves Two-Year Budget

The council approved the two-year budget for Fiscal Years 2023-25 using less than $3 million from Budget Stabilization funds for the General Fund, according to Finance Director Dawn Merchant. The 2023-24 Fiscal Year Operating Budget projects a total $10.2 million deficit with $227,370,716 in revenue, including$91,854,602 to the General Fund and $237,524,285 in expenditures, including $92,698,366 from the General Fund. In Fiscal Year 2024-25 the deficit is projected to be $16 million with $210,736,707 in revenue, including$97,314,672 in the General Fund and total expenditures of $226,163,010, including $100,314,672 from the General Fund. (See below)

Over half of the General Fund pays for police, including $50,741,523 in FY 2023-24 and $54,670,183 in FY 2024-25.

Approves 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Budget

The council also unanimously approved the $226.6 million 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Budget with the largest amount of $69 million to be spent on the Brackish Water Desalination Plant. The budget also includes $55.4 million for Roadway Improvements, $47.1 million on the City’s water system, $21.6 million on Community Facilities, $16.4 million on Parks and Trails, $12 million on the Wastewater and Storm Drain System and $4.4 million on Traffic Signals.

Approve $2.1 million for Police Department Software Upgrade

The council approved a five-year contract not to exceed $2,123,744 to develop and maintain a Police Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) and Records Management System (“RMS”) from June 1, 2023, to July 1, 2028, authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute a purchasing agreement with Sunridge Systems.

Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker was the only council member to speak on the item.

“Increased police response times is literally a matter of life and death in this community,” she said “Three minutes versus 10 minutes when you have a loved one bleeding out in the street… response times matter. Until we can create this other world, this utopia where we don’t need these systems, we need to make them work. Our police department is way behind 21st Century Policing. I definitely support this, and I can make the motion,” which she then did.

Seconded by District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica, the motion was adopted on a 5-0 vote.

From Board of Directors President Janice Li and General Manager Bob Powers:

BART is thankful for the recent action taken by the California State Legislature to restore $2 billion for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The program is vital in funding transformative capital improvements to modernize public transportation systems such as BART.

The fate of transit operating budgets, however, presents a do-or-die decision point.

Each day BART moves closer to plunging off the fiscal cliff if the State does not provide short-term financial aid to fund transit operations.

One-time federal funds are dwindling even with BART’s stringent cost controls and will be exhausted by early 2025. If transit operations funding is not included in this year’s State budget, BART must begin making severe cuts to service and staffing, as early as this year. The State has the opportunity – and the power – to sustain BART or let BART and the Bay Area economy fail.
Here’s how failure looks:

• Trains only once an hour.
• No trains on weekends.
• No trains after 9 p.m. on weeknights.
• Reduced service to San Francisco International and Oakland International airports.
• Some stations closed.
• Entire lines potentially shuttered

Those who will pay the biggest price for these severe cuts are those who can afford it the least. Sixty-seven percent of BART riders identify as non-white. Forty-four percent do not have a vehicle. Thirty-one percent have an income of $50,000 or lower. Seven percent are disabled. If the State fails to act, those who rely on BART as a lifeline will be stranded.

Everyone will pay the price if BART fails – even those who don’t use it. Traffic stands to drastically worsen across our already congested roadways and bridges, and regional greenhouse gas emissions will increase, further fueling climate change. Just one trip in a car emits the same amount of C02 as thirty trips taken on BART.

Businesses will struggle to move their goods with thousands more vehicles on already strained roads. BART service cuts to SFO and OAK will make tourism and convention travel unpalatable.

The Bay Area is an economic engine for the entire state, which represents the fourth largest economy in the world. But the regional economy isn’t ironclad. It needs effective public transit – BART, Muni, and other agencies – to thrive.

BART staff, labor partners and Board are focused on increasing ridership by improving the system.

Some highlights:

• Adding eight to 18 additional police officers to patrol trains each shift in addition to BART’s unarmed safety staff of Ambassadors, Crisis Intervention Specialists and Fare Inspectors on trains.
• A September schedule change means no rider will wait more than 20 minutes for a scheduled train, including nights and weekends. 
• More than doubling the Clipper START discount for eligible low-income riders.
• A project to install 700 new fare gates at all stations by 2026 to deter fare evasion and increase safety. 
• Thorough cleaning of train car interiors twice as often.
• Increasing the number of deep-clean teams by 66% to scrub heavily used stations.

These hard-earned gains for riders would be wiped out by severe service cuts. It’s a recipe for a death spiral.

If the State fails to act, not only will BART fail, but Bay Area public transit will fail. Ninety percent of all transfer trips in the Bay Area involve a connection to BART.

For BART and the Bay Area we know and love to survive, we need State help NOW.

A 5.38% increase over current year

By Allen D. Payton

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will discuss the $5.515 billion Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Recommended Budget at 9 a.m. on Monday, April 24.

New this year is an updated online version, which increases accessibility through easier navigation, interactive content, additional performance measures, and customizable PDF printing options. 

“This structurally balanced budget continues to reflect years of careful, comprehensive, and continuing review and refinement of our operations to cope with economic challenges.” said County Administrator Monica Nino. “At every opportunity, we continue to make changes to deliver services that residents need and expect from County government in ways that are more efficient and less costly.” 

According to Nino’s report to the Board, “It is anticipated this year will be one of status quo in the delivery of services besides those program enhancements that are in the startup phase from the benefit of the Board-allocated Measure X funds for specific purposes. The increase in salaries and benefits totals $126.3 million, largely due to the second year of a 5% cost of living increase for over 80% of the County workforce received as part of a four-year labor agreement.

The Recommended Budget includes funding for 11,127.6 full-time equivalent positions (FTE), of which 6,836.4 are in the General Fund. The recommendation includes 85.4 new (60.0 General Fund) positions to be added for the fiscal year 2023-2024 (FY23-24). To structurally balance the budget, a number of our General Fund departments continue to have vacancy factors built into their recommended budget allocations. A vacancy factor accounts for cost savings related to personnel vacancies occurring within departments during the fiscal year. During the development of the Recommended Budget, there were approximately 2,013 vacant FTE positions, totaling $305.0 million, of which 1,395 FTE totaling $204.9 million are General Fund supported. Due to difficulties in recruitments, retention, and normal turnover, the following nine departments are maintaining vacancy factors totaling $101.5 million: Health Services, Sheriff-Coroner, Employment and Human Services, District Attorney, County Clerk-Recorder, Probation, Public Defender, Animal Services, and Assessor. We have continued the process of eliminating vacant/unfunded positions with the goal of more easily identifying funded vacant positions requiring recruitment during the fiscal year.

General Purpose Revenue for FY23-24 totals $725.1 million, an increase of 9.3% over the prior year budget of $663.6 million. Of the major revenue sources, property taxes are the largest category and total $496.9 million, based on an assumed 4% growth over current year projected collections. The next largest sources are Measure X sales tax at $118.2 million, interest income at $30 million, and sales and use taxes at $22.2 million. Interest income is projected to be received close to double in FY22-23 of what is budgeted for FY23-24; this is as a result of increases in interest rates. This economic benefit is projected not to last and actual interest earnings will be monitored during the new fiscal year in the event an adjustment is necessary.

The following items are potential pressures to the recommended spending plan.

• Persistent high inflation and economic uncertainty;
• Unanticipated impacts from the Governor’s May Revised Budget proposal and shortfalls in Federal allocations;
• Decreasing County revenue growth;
• Disallowed FEMA reimbursement related to COVID-19;
• Labor contract negotiations for agreements expiring June 30, 2023; and
• Limited qualified workforce to fill job vacancies

The majority of the budget ($2.876 billion) is funded from State and Federal revenues. This means that for the majority of the programs funded, a program cut would also result in a loss of the revenue associated with the program. Salary and Benefit costs are broken out to show the growth, which consumes 37% of the County budget.”

Among the recommended budget highlights provided by Supervisor Diane Burgis’ office are:

• Adds 26 positions in the Employment and Human Services Department to improve children and family services; youth programming and workforce development; In-Home Supportive Services case management; senior nutrition programs; CalAIM implementation; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and associated programs. 
• Adds three full-time Animal Services Officers to increase beat coverage and improve response times to dangerous animal cases and an additional two full-time positions focused on transfer partner and adoption programs and lost and found programs.
• A $10 million allocation toward developing a new Bay Point Library branch. The branch is a new 10,000-20,000 square-foot space constructed in partnership with an affordable housing project. 
• $10 million in capital funding to provide a local match for grants that would allow the County to leverage state and federal funds for large infrastructure projects, such as roads and bridges, as part of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

The Board discussion is tentatively scheduled to continue at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 25, if additional time is needed. The Board is scheduled to adopt the final budget on Tuesday, May 23.

City has 83 vacancies; will restructure Police Crime Prevention Commission; Thorpe claims Barbanica, Ogorchock, others are siding with racism for opposing direct hire of police chief

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday night, April 11, 2023, the Antioch City Council discussed the budget for Fiscal Years 2023-25 and the majority of members agreed to pursue a new ordinance for directly hiring the police chief. The council also decided to “reframe” the Police Crime Prevention Commission rather than disbanding it.

Budget Workshop

During the Budget Workshop before the regular meeting, Acting City Manager Forrest Ebbs reminded the council “the City is facing a $6 million deficit in the coming fiscal year.”

Finance Director Dawn Merchant said that there were “83 vacancies citywide” in staff, providing savings for the budget.

The council directed staff to return with three options for using Budget Stabilization Funds of zero, $3 million and $4 million to balance the budget.

Police Crime Prevention Commission to Be Reframed

Rather than disband it the council decided to “reframe” the Police Crime Prevention Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker volunteered to help lead the discussion. The matter will be brought back to the council for future decision.

Moves Forward With Directly Hiring Police Chief

During public comments on the matter of the council directly hiring the police chief, one resident spoke in favor, another, Melissa Case, said she was torn since the mayor has “a tendency to micromanage”.

Sandy Hartrick said she was concerned about the “checks and balances” if the council hires the police chief. “With that, no one group has all the power. If you take over the hiring and management of the police department you will have all the power.” She also shared concern that the council is moving away toward a Charter City form of government.

“Chief Ford is doing a great job. He’s working hard to change the culture,” Hartrick continued.

Another resident, Ron Mohammed said, “I’m not quite clear…in terms of the authority and how that would look. Communication between the council and the chief would be great. But I think it’s wrong Chief Ford has to fall on the sword for all the things that happened before. The micromanaging is not said when they talk about…the city manager.”

Resident Ralph Hernandez spoke next saying, “definitely, no. I do not agree with the change that is proposed. Unfortunately, tonight, you have a lot of people that have a misunderstanding of law enforcement. In fact, the council majority are too busy in their lives…they voted to take on secretaries. Now, they want to take on hiring the chief. You need to be very specific with the city manager when hiring the police chief comes up, and what you’re looking for.”

“Taking it away from the city manager. What’s next, taking away the Public Works Director, the Recreation manager?” he asked.

“I’m here to celebrate democracy. We the people elected you,” Patricia Granados said. “I would feel confident and trusting in our city council making decisions like this. Maybe even some federal oversight to put in their two cents in what is the reasoning for getting hired and getting fired.”

“I do want to clarify…in 2020, we agreed to changing the hiring process for the chief of police,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe said. “I was a huge advocate that the contract was ratified by the city council. The City Attorney said we can’t do that. It’s either one or the other.”

“Every decision made in this room is made by three. Quit believing what the blogs are telling you. It’s trash,” Thorpe said, while raising his voice. “This is not about Chief Ford, it’s about a process that started back in 2020. So, stop personalizing it.”

“OK. Bring it down a notch,” Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker said with a laugh. 

“I do remember discussing this in detail,” she said. “It’s just been my experience working in public policy for the past 14 years, city managers are not the check and balance…which is their job. The chief of police runs a department that is to be managed and sometime micromanaged by the city manager. And when the city manager fails for over a decade…is what got us here. It is within the authority of this body to make this change. We won’t be running the police department because we hire the police chief. We will be managing directly the individual who is supposed to be running the police department for transparency and accountability sake which has not happened for over a decade.”

“When we hired Cornelius Johnson, I didn’t want to give him the authority to hire and fire. But we have to give each person a chance. We gave Chief Ford a chance,” Torres-Walker said. “This isn’t the only move in light of transparency we need to make. I hope that Chief Steven Ford agrees to stay because this is necessary.”

“I think this is a mistake…because the police department is not an extension of a political arm,” said District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica. “The city manager needs to be a buffer between politicians and enforcing law. This won’t be just this council it will set policy for years and years to come. It’s not about Chief Ford it’s about the office of the Chief of Police. I think this is a mistake and I do not support it.”

“Yeah, and it’s that buffer that got us to where we are, today,” District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson shot back to applause from the audience. “A couple weeks ago I was on the fence about this. But in light of events over weeks…and today with the texts, it’s obvious there needs to be that line with the Chief of Police. Because that buffer didn’t work.”

“I’ve been through five city managers and the buffer is not working,” she added.

“If this is the will of the council majority how will this affect Chief Ford,” District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock asked City Attorney Thomas L. Smith.

“If you want to give direction to change the structure, we would come back with an ordinance,” Smith responded. “Once the ordinance is passed…the impact it has on an individual police chief…if there is a contract in place, we would have to look at how that would interact with the ordinance.”

“I am not for this,” Ogorchock said. “We’ve never had the accountability with the police chief, before. I’m for that type of vision before anything else.”

“Even if you got a report every six months you wouldn’t have any authority,” Torres-Walker responded.

Thorpe spoke last saying, “I’m for this. I’ve always been for this. The choice is really simple. Either we do this or stay on the side of racism. Come back with an ordinance please.”

Largest amount spent to defend city against lawsuit by natural gas pipeline companies

By Allen D. Payton

In an attempt to determine the reason the Antioch City Council voted to place City Manager Con Johnson on paid administrative leave during their meeting Tuesday night, March 14, 2023, which was finalized in a revote on March 17, a review of the past three months of Council Warrants, which are the City’s expenses per department the council votes on was conducted. Between Dec. 1, 2022 and March 2, 2023, almost $321,000 was spent on outside legal counsel and over $5,000 on a personnel investigation. Antioch City Attorney Warrants 12-01 thru 12-29-22     Antioch City Attorney Warrants 12-30 thru 01-12-23    Antioch City Attorney Warrants 1-13 thru 2-2-23    Antioch City Attorney & Human Resources Warrants 2-2 thru 3-2-23

On Tuesday’s meeting agenda it shows in the Council Warrants report Feb. 2-March 2, 2023 under the City Attorney category, $96,252.37 was paid for Legal Services Rendered to 11 law firms, and under the Human Resources category $5,166.25 for Investigative Fees paid to Barry Aninag Investigations. Mr. Aninag’s LinkedIn profile shows his company “offers independent, impartial, and thorough investigations into allegations of employee misconduct, harassment, and hostile work environments.”

The Council Warrants on the Feb. 14, 2023 agenda for Jan. 13-Feb. 2, 2023 show $41,118.43 for legal services; the Jan. 24th council meeting agenda shows $41,930.76 in legal services for Dec. 30, 2022-Jan. 12, 2023 and the Jan. 10th council meeting agenda shows $141,472.97 paid for legal services incurred Dec. 1-29, 2022.

That’s a total of $320,774.53 in legal services plus the cost of the personnel investigation in the past three months for a grand total of $325,940.78.

Questions for City Attorney, Acting City Manager

That information and questions were sent Wednesday to City Attorney Smith and Acting City Manager Cortez, and copied to the council members, City Finance Director Dawn Merchant and City Treasurer Lauren Posada asking for what cases are the expenses and if any of them or the investigation is related to Johnson. Smith and Cortez were also asked if it is normal for the City to spend over $100,000 per month on average for outside legal counsel.

Councilman Barbanica, who said he spoke with City Attorney Smith who said, “the bulk of this ($108,248.82) is to Meyers Nave to defend the City against the litigation on the CRC natural gas pipeline from the 3-2 council vote to deny the renewal of the franchise agreement.”

“Which I voted against, by the way,” the councilman added.

“The payments to Hanson Bridgett are for ongoing labor and employment investigations and the Telecom Law Firm is for dealing with leases related to cell towers and other telecommunications in the city,” Barbanica continued.

The total over the past three months paid to Hanson Bridgett LLP was $74,132.59 and $9,101.50 to Telecom Law Firm PC. In addition, $64,362.70 was paid to Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. According to their website the firm “provides unparalleled education, training, litigation and advisory services to California’s public agencies, educational institutions and nonprofits.”

Smith was asked which of those services they are providing to the City of Antioch.

“A city our size has an understaffed attorney’s office with two attorneys and one assistant. So, a lot of this has to be farmed out because of that. If you look at Vallejo and Richmond, they have more than double the number of attorneys and assistants than we do,” he added. “It’s a lot of money.”

Smith did not respond by publication time. Please check back for any updates to this report.