Following years of delays, unfair treatment by City, County staff

Also, hiring firm for grant writing and legislative advocacy;
Flying Pan-African Flag at City Hall during Black History Month in February;
Rescinding policy for hiring outside legal counsel; and
Funds for Marchetti Park playground replacement.
Will receive Transit-Oriented Communities Policy presentation

By Allen D. Payton

During their next regular meeting tonight, Tuesday, January 28, 2025, the Antioch City Council will consider approving the Albers Ranch Project, more than 30 years after the local, female immigrant developer purchased the land.

They will begin with a Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. to discuss three real estate matters, including leasing space at city owned properties followed by the regular open session at 7:00 p.m.

Albers Ranch New Home Development
On almost 100 acres, the 47.4 acre-project will include the development of 294 non-age restricted single family units, future development of an assisted living facility and neighborhood commercial development, upon issuance of a future Conditional Use Permit, and leave the remaining 49.1 acres of the site as open space. It’s a project that so far no one in the Antioch or environmental communities has opposed. Two local unions spoke in favor of the project during the Nov. 20, 2024 Planning Commission hearing on the project.

Due to the restrictions for the design of the project, including hillside grading, Albers says she was only able to include less than 300 units. However, other developers were able to grade their land and design their projects with fewer restrictions, maximizing the use of their property for more homes per acre.

At that meeting, local developer Lucia Albers, an immigrant from Guatemala, shared her frustrations about the delays through the years from and unequal treatment by City and County staff. (See 18:25 mark of video) That included requiring her to pay for a different biologist than was used by most of the other developers in the Sand Creek area, whose report claimed she had over 10 acres of wetlands on her property and claiming a species that doesn’t exist, making the project unaffordable to build.

The report also required Albers purchase five acres for each acre she planned to develop for mitigation. As a result, the buyers interested in her property at that time withdrew their interest. Now, the requirement is for the purchase for two acres of habitat and wetlands for each acre developed, as required of all the other developments.

“It made my land worthless and delayed the project for five more years,” she stated.

Albers then hired the same biologist as the other developers, whose study showed there are only 2,000 square feet of wetlands, a claim backed up by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

In addition, Contra Costa County Flood Control forced Albers to change the access road to the project. It was supposed to be directly connected to Sand Creek Road at Rigolato Drive where a four-way signalized intersection is located. While the conditions of approval require her to still help pay for the signals, there, the project must now connect off of Hillcrest Avenue through the neighboring Creekside Vineyards housing development. That’s due to Flood Control eminent domaining Albers’ land and building a berm, where the original access road was to be built, for a detention basin north of the property.

Flood Control low-balled the offer for her land at about 10 cents on the dollar for what Albers paid forcing her to take them to court. The settlement paid her a fairer price per acre and required Flood Control to cooperate with her on the access road. But they went ahead and built the berm blocking her access road.

Yet, Albers is required to pay for both the signalized intersection which will not benefit her project as well as a portion of the cost of the Hillcrest Avenue extension south of Sand Creek Road which will provide access to her project.

The over 200 conditions of approval also require her to pay for the sewer line from Sand Creek Road. But the Planning Commission waived that if her project doesn’t use it. The commissioners also removed the requirement for the project to include curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the Emergency Vehicle Access road off of Deer Valley Road, just requiring her to provide it on one side. Yet, Albers argues that it will cost over $1 million and is not necessary because it will be maintained by the CCR’s of the homeowners’ association for the project, not the City. “And it may never be used,” she added.

The Planning Commission, with one vacancy and one member absent, voted 5-0 to approve the project with the various conditions. Some of them are still too expensive, reducing the value of her land, Albers claims. She will be asking for the council members to remove them from the conditions of the project before voting to approve.

Albers, who purchased the property in 1994 and whose husband Monte passed away last year, previously exclaimed to this reporter, “We started this when I was a young woman! Finally, I’ll have a chance to see it approved. We’ve had multiple interested buyers in the past, but the delays and increased costs proposed by City staff caused them to pull back their offers.”

Albers was referring to the fact that she is not the home builder to which the land will be sold, once she can again find another who will purchase it.

After 30 years, City staff is willing to give Albers two five-year extensions to her development agreement, which she views as positive. Because without them the builder who buys her land would have to start construction within two years. However, City staff want to charge her $630,000. Yet, she claims none of the development agreements for the neighboring projects east of Deer Valley Road were required to pay monetary compensation to the city for their development agreements, which allow for extensions.

Even after the approvals, when she sells the land, Albers says she will only be able to recuperate all the costs that were put into it.

Transit-Oriented Communities Policy Presentation
At the beginning of the regular meeting, the city council will be given a presentation on Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). TOCs feature housing and business development that is near to transportation, putting public transit in reach for more people and improving the quality of life in the Bay Area.

It’s part of the Advance Plan Bay Area 2050 implementation which has Four Goals:
• Increase affordable housing supply in transit areas;
• Increase density for commercial office development;
• Prioritize transit and active transportation near stations; and
• Create equitable transit-oriented communities.

The TOC Policy was adopted by the MTC Board in September 2022 and applies to areas within a half-mile of Regional Rail transit stops and stations, such as BART stations, as is located in Antioch and ferries, as planned for the City’s waterfront.

Approving the policy to fulfill the goals expands eligibility for some MTC discretionary funding for the City and opens consideration for future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding revisions and investments, the presentation explains. So far, across the three OBAG rounds, Antioch has received $4,946,000 in funds. Applications for OBAG Round 4 were due in November and Antioch requested a total of $850,000.

In order to comply, the City of Antioch must do the following:
• Density – Increasing residential and commercial densities around station areas;
• Housing – Adopting housing policies from the 3Ps framework (production, preservation and protection);
• Parking – Adjusting minimum and maximum parking ratios as well as transportation demand management policies; and
• Transit Station Access & Circulation – Planning for station access that includes active transportation uses and mobility hub infrastructure.

According to the MTC, Mobility Hubs offer access to many different ways of getting around. MTC coordinates, funds and provides technical assistance for new Mobility Hubs to support first and last mile connections through access to multiple travel options.

Mobility hubs are places in a community that bring together public transit, bike share, car share and other ways for people to get where they want to go without a private vehicle.

Built around frequent and high-capacity transit, mobility hubs offer a safe, comfortable, convenient and accessible space to seamlessly transfer from one type of transportation to another.

Mobility hubs can be located where transit services already come together, or in communities and locations where transportation is needed the most. MTC has prioritized pilot investments for regionally significant mobility hubs.

Once awarded, City Council must adopt a Resolution of Local Support to receive the grant funds and develop a work plan to:
▪ Update the Hillcrest Station Area Specific Plan to comply with the TOC policies
▪ Identify and plan to adopt feasible affordable housing policies
▪ Eliminate parking minimums and adopt parking maximums
▪ Complete any outstanding station access and circulation requirements

Consent Calendar
Under the Consent Calendar, the council will consider amending the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement and Operating Budget in the amount of $325,000 from the Park-In-Lieu Fund for the playground replacement purchase at Marchetti Park.

Flying Pan-African Flag for Black History Month
The council will also consider under the Consent Calendar voting on flying the Pan-African Flag at City Hall throughout the month of February 2025 in recognition of Black History Month in the City of Antioch.

Hiring Grant Writing and Legislative Advocacy Firm
Also, under the Consent Calendar, the council will vote on hiring Townsend Public Affairs for $12,500 per month in an Amount Not to Exceed $62,500 for a term ending June 30, 2025, for Grant Writing & Management and Legislative Advocacy Services. In addition, in the event both parties agree to extend the services, the additional services would be provided through June 30, 2027, and up to $300,000, and will be included for consideration in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

Rescinding Policy for Hiring Outside Legal Counsel
Under agenda Item 8, the council will consider rescinding the 2021 council resolution which consolidated the hiring of all outside legal counsel in the City Attorneys Office. According to the city staff report for the item, “The rescission of Resolution No. 2021/26 will result in a decentralized approach to the budgeting and payment of legal services. Under the current policy, all legal service costs are managed within the City Attorney’s Office General Fund budget. Rescinding the resolution will shift the responsibility for budgeting, processing, and evaluating legal services invoices to individual departments.” In addition, “By rescinding this resolution, the City will no longer have a formal policy governing the selection, approval and payment process for legal services beyond the general provisions of the Antioch Municipal Code.”

Meeting Details
The council meeting will be held 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 at https://www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings/live/ or on Comcast Cable channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99. See the entire meeting agenda at www.antiochca.gov/fc/government/agendas/CityCouncil/2025/agendas/012825/012825.pdf.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

For Fiscal Years 2025-27

By Allen D. Payton

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

“We do not collect or share information about your immigration status unless required by state or federal law or a court order.” – Contra Costa County

Amid recent changes and concerns about federal immigration policies following executive orders signed by President Trump this past Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, Contra Costa County wants to reassure you about our unwavering commitment to all members of our community, regardless of immigration status.

Entitled, Protecting The American People Against Invasion – The White House, the president’s E.O. reads as follows:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. Over the last 4 years, the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States. Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws.

Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans. Others are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities. Many have abused the generosity of the American people, and their presence in the United States has cost taxpayers billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. The American people deserve a Federal Government that puts their interaests first and a Government that understands its sacred obligation to prioritize the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans.
This order ensures that the Federal Government protects the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people. Further, it is the policy of the United States to achieve the total and efficient enforcement of those laws, including through lawful incentives and detention capabilities.

Sec. 3. Faithful Execution of the Immigration Laws. In furtherance of the policies described in section 2 of this order:

(a) Executive Order 13993 of January 20, 2021 (Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities), Executive Order 14010 of February 2, 2021 (Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework To Address the Causes of Migration, To Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and To Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border), Executive Order 14011 of February 2, 2021 (Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families), and Executive Order 14012 of February 2, 2021 (Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans) are hereby revoked; and

(b) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take all appropriate action to promptly revoke all memoranda, guidance, or other policies based on the Executive Orders revoked in section 3(a) of this order and shall employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all inadmissible and removable aliens.

Sec. 4. Civil Enforcement Priorities. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to enable the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to set priorities for their agencies that protect the public safety and national security interests of the American people, including by ensuring the successful enforcement of final orders of removal. Further, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the primary mission of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations division is the enforcement of the provisions of the INA and other Federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of aliens in the United States and the enforcement of the purposes of this order.

Sec. 5. Criminal Enforcement Priorities. The Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall take all appropriate action to prioritize the prosecution of criminal offenses related to the unauthorized entry or continued unauthorized presence of aliens in the United States.

Sec. 6. Federal Homeland Security Task Forces. (a) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to jointly establish Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) in all States nationwide.

(b) The composition of each HSTF shall be subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, but shall include representation from any other Federal agencies with law enforcement officers, or agencies with the ability to provide logistics, intelligence, and operational support to the HSTFs, and shall also include representation from relevant State and local law enforcement agencies. The heads of all Federal agencies shall take all appropriate action to provide support to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that the HSTFs fulfill the objectives in subsection (c) of this section, and any other lawful purpose that fulfills the policy objectives of this order.

(c) The objective of each HSTF is to end the presence of criminal cartels, foreign gangs, and transnational criminal organizations throughout the United States, dismantle cross-border human smuggling and trafficking networks, end the scourge of human smuggling and trafficking, with a particular focus on such offenses involving children, and ensure the use of all available law enforcement tools to faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States.

(d) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to provide an operational command center to coordinate the activities of the HSTFs and provide such support as they may require, and shall also take all appropriate action to provide supervisory direction to their activities as may be required.

Sec. 7. Identification of Unregistered Illegal Aliens. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to:

(a) Immediately announce and publicize information about the legal obligation of all previously unregistered aliens in the United States to comply with the requirements of part VII of subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 8, United States Code;

(b) Ensure that all previously unregistered aliens in the United States comply with the requirements of part VII of subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 8, United States Code; and

(c) Ensure that failure to comply with the legal obligations of part VII of subchapter II of chapter 12 of title 8, United States Code, is treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority.

Sec. 8. Civil Fines and Penalties. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Treasury, shall take all appropriate action to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties that the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized by law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States, including aliens who unlawfully entered or unlawfully attempted to enter the United States, and from those who facilitate such aliens’ presence in the United States.

(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to the President regarding their progress implementing the requirements of this section and recommending any additional actions that may need to be taken to achieve its objectives.

Sec. 9. Efficient Removals of Recent Entrants and Other Aliens. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action, pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I)), to apply, in her sole and unreviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II). Further, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly take appropriate action to use all other provisions of the immigration laws or any other Federal law, including, but not limited to sections 238 and 240(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1228 and 1229a(d)), to ensure the efficient and expedited removal of aliens from the United States.

Sec. 10. Detention Facilities. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources or establish contracts to construct, operate, control, or use facilities to detain removable aliens. The Secretary of Homeland Security, further, shall take all appropriate actions to ensure the detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending the outcome of their removal proceedings or their removal from the country, to the extent permitted by law.

Sec. 11. Federal-State Agreements. To ensure State and local law enforcement agencies across the United States can assist with the protection of the American people, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, and with the consent of State or local officials as appropriate, take appropriate action, through agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary of Homeland Security determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal performance of these duties. To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Homeland Security may structure each agreement under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) in the manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws in that jurisdiction.

Sec. 12. Encouraging Voluntary Compliance with the Law. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, and subject to adequate safeguards, assurances, bonds, and any other lawful measure, to adopt policies and procedures to encourage aliens unlawfully in the United States to voluntarily depart as soon as possible, including through enhanced usage of the provisions of section 240B of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1229c), international agreements or assistance, or any other measures that encourage aliens unlawfully in the United States to depart as promptly as possible, including through removals of aliens as provided by section 250 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1260).

Sec. 13. Recalcitrant Countries. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to:

(a) Cooperate and effectively implement, as appropriate, the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), with the Secretary of State, to the maximum extent permitted by law, ensuring that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include the foreign states’ acceptance of their nationals who are subject to removal from the United States; and

(b) Eliminate all documentary barriers, dilatory tactics, or other restrictions that prevent the prompt repatriation of aliens to any foreign state. Any failure or delay by a foreign state to verify the identity of a national of that state shall be considered in carrying out subsection (a) this section, and shall also be considered regarding the issuance of any other sanctions that may be available to the United States.

Sec. 14. Visa Bonds. The Secretary of Treasury shall take all appropriate action, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a system to facilitate the administration of all bonds that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may lawfully require to administer the provisions of the INA.

Sec. 15. Reestablishment of the VOICE Office and Addressing Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to take all appropriate and lawful action to reestablish within ICE an office to provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens, and those victims’ family members. The Attorney General shall also ensure that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3771 are followed in all Federal prosecutions involving crimes committed by removable aliens.

Sec. 16. Addressing Actions by the Previous Administration. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly take all appropriate action, consistent with law, to rescind the policy decisions of the previous administration that led to the increased or continued presence of illegal aliens in the United States, and align any and all departmental activities with the policies set out by this order and the immigration laws. Such action should include, but is not limited to:

(a) ensuring that the parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is exercised on only a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual alien demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from their particular continued presence in the United States arising from such parole;

(b) ensuring that designations of Temporary Protected Status are consistent with the provisions of section 244 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1254a), and that such designations are appropriately limited in scope and made for only so long as may be necessary to fulfill the textual requirements of that statute; and

(c) ensuring that employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with section 274A of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1324a), and that employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United States.

Sec. 17. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to the maximum extent possible under law, evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds. Further, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall evaluate and undertake any other lawful actions, criminal or civil, that they deem warranted based on any such jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.

Sec. 18. Information Sharing. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly issue guidance to ensure maximum compliance by Department of Homeland Security personnel with the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644 and ensure that State and local governments are provided with the information necessary to fulfill law enforcement, citizenship, or immigration status verification requirements authorized by law; and

(b) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to stop the trafficking and smuggling of alien children into the United States, including through the sharing of any information necessary to assist in the achievement of that objective.

Sec. 19. Funding Review. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Immediately review and, if appropriate, audit all contracts, grants, or other agreements providing Federal funding to non-governmental organizations supporting or providing services, either directly or indirectly, to removable or illegal aliens, to ensure that such agreements conform to applicable law and are free of waste, fraud, and abuse, and that they do not promote or facilitate violations of our immigration laws;

(b) Pause distribution of all further funds pursuant to such agreements pending the results of the review in subsection (a) of this section;

(c) Terminate all such agreements determined to be in violation of law or to be sources of waste, fraud, or abuse and prohibit any such future agreements;

(d) Coordinate with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that no funding for agreements described in subsection (c) of this section is included in any appropriations request for the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security; and

(e) Initiate clawback or recoupment procedures, if appropriate, for any agreements described in subsection (c) of this section.

Sec. 20. Denial of Public Benefits to Illegal Aliens. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take all appropriate action to ensure that all agencies identify and stop the provision of any public benefits to any illegal alien not authorized to receive them under the provisions of the INA or other relevant statutory provisions.

Sec. 21. Hiring More Agents and Officers. Subject to available appropriations, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall take all appropriate action to significantly increase the number of agents and officers available to perform the duties of immigration officers.

Sec. 22. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this order to the maximum extent possible to advance the interests of the United States. Accordingly:

(a) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and

(b) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the failure to follow certain procedures, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.

Sec. 23. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Contra Costa County’s Approach:

1. No Discrimination: Contra Costa County does not single out individuals based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status.
2. Privacy Protection: We do not collect or share information about your immigration status unless required by state or federal law or a court order. Safeguarding your personal information is one of our most important priorities.
3. Access to Services: Everyone in our community should be able to access essential services, including healthcare. Recent federal actions will not affect how the County provides these services.

We recognize that fear and uncertainty can prevent people from seeking County programs and services, but we want to assure you that our services are here for you. You have the right to feel safe and secure in your community, and our longstanding policies are designed to uphold your safety and trust.
Contra Costa County stands united in creating a welcoming, inclusive environment where everyone has the support they need to thrive. We encourage you to reach out for assistance without hesitation, knowing that our commitment to serving and protecting all residents is steadfast.

For more information: Immigration Resources & Public Charge Information visit Immigration Resources & Public Charge Information | EHSD

El Condado de Contra Costa Responde a las Recientes Órdenes Ejecutivas

En medio de los cambios recientes y las preocupaciones sobre las políticas federales de inmigración, el Condado de Contra Costa quiere asegurarle nuestro compromiso inquebrantable con todos los miembros de nuestra comunidad, independientemente de su estatus migratorio.

Nuestro Enfoque:

1. No discriminación: El Condado de Contra Costa no señala a las personas en función de su raza, etnia, origen nacional, religión, género o identidad de género, orientación sexual o estado migratorio.
2. Protección de la privacidad: No recopilamos ni compartimos información sobre su estado migratorio a menos que lo exija la ley estatal o federal o una orden judicial. Salvaguardar su información personal es una de nuestras prioridades más importantes.
3. Acceso a los servicios: Todos los miembros de nuestra comunidad deberían poder acceder a los servicios esenciales, incluida la atención médica. Las acciones federales recientes no afectarán la forma en que el Condado proporciona estos servicios.
4. Reconocemos que el miedo y la incertidumbre pueden impedir que las personas busquen programas y servicios del Condado, pero queremos asegurarle que nuestros servicios están aquí para usted. Usted tiene derecho a sentirse seguro y protegido en su comunidad, y nuestras políticas de larga data están diseñadas para mantener su seguridad y confianza.
   El Condado de Contra Costa se mantiene unido en la creación de un ambiente acogedor e inclusivo donde todos tienen el apoyo que necesitan para prosperar. Lo alentamos a que busque ayuda sin dudarlo, sabiendo que nuestro compromiso de servir y proteger a todos los residentes es firme.

Para más información: Recursos de Inmigración e Información de Carga Pública | EHSD

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Kristi Jourdan, PIO, Contra Costa County Office of Communications & Media

(San Ramon, CA) – An economic outlook, a discussion of upcoming capital projects, and a presentation on economic development initiatives will be the primary focus of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors at their annual retreat on Tuesday, Jan. 28, at San Ramon City Hall, 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road, in San Ramon.

“The retreat provides an opportunity to assess economic factors and significant upcoming projects so we can think about how to allocate resources strategically to ensure our services have the greatest positive impact,” said Board Chair Candace Andersen, District 2 Supervisor. “By thoroughly examining current and projected economic trends, we can make informed decisions about how to best support the needs of our residents.”

Supervisors will receive an economic forecast from Christopher Thornberg, Ph.D., founding partner of Beacon Economics as well as presentations on capital planning and budget development considerations, among others. In the early afternoon they will be presented with an overview of economic development initiatives taking place in Contra Costa.

The Board of Supervisors sets the direction of County government and oversees its $6.0 billion budget to serve the 1.2 million residents of this diverse East Bay County, which holds a “AAA” bond rating.
The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. It will be accessible in person at San Ramon City Hall. The meeting will also be televised live on Comcast Cable Channel 27, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99, and Astound Channels 32 & 1027. Additionally, the meeting can be viewed live online at www.contracosta.ca.gov or www.contracostatv.org.

For more information about Contra Costa County and the Board of Supervisors, visit the County’s website at www.contracosta.ca.gov or their webpage: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7283/Board-of-Supervisors.

Promoted from Economic Development Director

By Allen D. Payton

Antioch City Manager Bessie Scott announced Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, that Economic Development Director Kwame Reed, a former interim city manager, has been appointed as the new Assistant City Manager, calling him “a dynamic and proven leader”.

“Many in our community are already familiar with Kwame Reed in his roles as Acting City Manager and Economic Development Director. Kwame has a proven track record of success and understands the dynamics of our city,” said City Manager Scott. “Our city is fortunate to have Kwame serve in this new role to help us achieve new milestones and lead us into the future.”

In a press release the city manager wrote, “In this critical role, Reed will work closely with the City Manager and City department heads to promote and advocate for economic growth, innovation and public safety. Reed brings more than 29 years of leadership and operational experience across local and regional government agencies.

“As Acting City Manager for the City of Antioch, Reed oversaw a $147 million budget and led a team of more than 300 employees across nine departments. He selected the Acting and Interim Police Chiefs for the Antioch Police Department in 2023-24 and worked closely with state officials to obtain assistance from the California Highway Patrol to enhance public safety efforts.

“As Economic Development Director, Reed established the Reinvest Antioch Action Plan and distributed small business grants and resources to help businesses recover from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. His ability to excel in both roles, highlights his expertise in project management and his capacity to lead teams while managing multiple priorities simultaneously.

“Born and raised in the East Bay area, Reed has deep-rooted connections to the community. Beyond his professional accomplishments, he takes great pride in his personal life. He has been happily married for 27 years and is the proud father of three wonderful children.”

When reached for comment about his new position Reed said, “I am truly excited, honored and grateful for the opportunity to continue serving the Antioch community and supporting the organization as Assistant City Manager.”

According to Scott, his compensation includes a $240,000 annual salary plus benefits. While Reed was promoted from within the ranks of City staff, Scott said she will conduct a nationwide search for the other department head positions, including Public Works Director-City Engineer and Community Development Director, and now, Economic Development Director.

“But, first will be a new police chief,” Scott added.

According to his LinkedIn profile, prior to working for the City of Antioch, Reed worked as a Senior Analyst for the City of Brentwood from Nov. 2004 through June 2018, Associate Planner for the City of Oakley from July 2002 through August 2004 and as a Planner for the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission/ACE Train from July 1999 through July 2002.

He earned a B.S. degree in City/Urban, Community and Regional Planning in 1995 from Cal Poly State University-San Luis Obispo and while there was a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.

Hiring interim and search firm for permanent position

By Allen D. Payton

The Antioch School Board has called a special meeting for Friday afternoon, Jan. 24, 2025, to discuss two matters related to the superintendent. First, during Closed Session beginning at 1:00 p.m., the Board will discuss Public Employment of an Interim Superintendent. Then, during open session beginning at 2:30 p.m., the Board will discuss Superintendent Search Services and Goal Development Consultation Services.

According to the staff report, the District solicited proposals for search firm services for the position of District Superintendent and/or consultation services to assist the Board of Trustees with goal development. Three responsive firms selected by the Board during the December 18, 2024, Regular Board of Education meeting will present their proposals.
• Education Leadership Services – ELS proposal
• Leadership Associates – LA proposal
• McPherson Jacobson – MJ proposal

Meeting Details

The meeting will begin and the open session will be held in the District Office Board Room, 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic downtown. It can be viewed livestream on the District’s website and on the District’s YouTube channel.

Scales-Preston first African American woman elected to the Board

Re-elected Andersen, Burgis elected Chair, Vice Chair

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors convened its annual reorganization meeting Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025, at the County Administration Building, ushering in a new era of County leadership and milestones. District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen was sworn in as Chair, and District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis became Vice-Chair. Additionally, Shanelle Scales-Preston took the Oath of Office as the new District 5 Supervisor, becoming the first African American woman elected to the Board.

Supervisor Andersen represents Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, San Ramon and Walnut Creek, along with the unincorporated communities of Alamo, Blackhawk, Canyon, Diablo, Parkmead, Saranap and the Tassajara Valley. She was first elected to the Board in June 2012 and was most recently reelected in March 2024. Chair Andersen serves on 28 local and regional boards and commissions, addressing planning, land use, transportation, pensions, mental health, healthcare, reuse and recycling, economic development, and public safety.

“Community safety, fiscal responsibility, and ensuring that all residents have a good quality of life are at the heart of my work. I am honored to serve as Chair and remain dedicated to ensuring County programs and services reflect our residents’ values and aspirations for a thriving future,” said Supervisor Andersen.

Supervisor Burgis serves the 222,000 residents of District 3, which includes Antioch, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, and Oakley. She was first elected to the Board in 2016 and most recently reelected in 2024. She serves on over 30 Board and regional committees, including as Chair of the Legislation Committee, Internal Operations Committee, and the Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee. As Chair of California’s Delta Protection Commission, she also represents the Commission on the State’s Delta Stewardship Council.

“This year I want to continue enhancing public safety by strengthening fire protection and law enforcement coverage, ensuring our communities feel secure and supported,” Supervisor Burgis said. “Everyone deserves a safe and stable place to call home, and we are prioritizing addressing homelessness and the housing affordability crisis. I am also committed to bringing more services and jobs to East County, where our population is growing the fastest.”

In a groundbreaking moment, Shanelle Scales-Preston was sworn in as District 5 Supervisor, becoming the first African American woman elected to the Board of Supervisors. Her district includes Alhambra Valley, Antioch (North), Bay Point, Briones, Clyde, Concord (North), Crockett, Hercules, Martinez, Mt. View, Pacheco, Pittsburg, Port Costa, Reliez Valley, Rodeo, Tormey and Vine Hill. She succeeds former Supervisor Federal D. Glover, who chose not to run for a seventh term.

Scales-Preston was elected to the Pittsburg City Council in 2018 and served as Mayor in 2023. She is Chair of the Board for Marin Clean Energy (MCE), a local electricity provider.

“This moment is about building bridges—bridges to equity, community safety, economic opportunity, and a brighter future for all,” said Supervisor Scales-Preston. “Together, we will strive to ensure that every voice is heard, every neighborhood thrives, and every family has the opportunity to succeed.”

Supervisors Andersen and Burgis will lead the five-member elected body that sets the direction of County government and oversees its $5.9 billion budget to serve the 1.2 million residents of the diverse East Bay county with a “AAA” bond rating. For more information about Contra Costa County and its Board of Supervisors, visit: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/9970/Board-of-Supervisors.

For more information about Supervisor Candace Andersen, visit her County webpage at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4668/District-2-Supervisor-Candace-Andersen.

For more information about Supervisor Diane Burgis, visit her County webpage at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/6437/District-3-Supervisor-Diane-Burgis.

For more information about Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston, visit her County webpage at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/781/District-5-Supervisor-Scales-Preston.