Rick Carreher in a 2021 photo the year he stepped down as executive director of the theatre. Photos courtesy of El Campanil Theatre Preservation Foundation
And for City to be ready to step in
September 10, 2026
To the Editor:
As the founding executive director of the El Campanil Theatre Preservation Foundation, I feel compelled to speak now — not only because I started this venture, but because this is the critical moment when the Theatre’s future will be decided.
The El Campanil opened in 1928 as a vaudeville house and later operated as a church before our foundation acquired it in 2003. Restoring it to working order required more than a million dollars. Since then, it has hosted community events and major stage acts, and it has remained open to the public throughout.
Source: El Campanil Theatre
In 2023, after COVID wiped out major funding, the theatre nearly went bankrupt. We honored the right of first refusal we had given the city, but the city took no action. We then accepted a bid from an out-of-state investor, and the foundation stayed on as tenant.
Now, facing closure again in 2026, the property owner listed the building. A church has made an offer, but that congregation expects to outgrow it and faces serious parking problems. Meanwhile, the city holds roughly seven million dollars earmarked for acquiring community-beneficial buildings.
We ask the church to reconsider its offer, and we ask the City to be ready to step in the moment the church finds a better fit — so this Theatre can keep serving Antioch for generations to come.
More than enough for both the Homekey+ program and Rivertown Square project
“We need to be fiscally prudent by closely monitoring expenses…and minimize General Fund subsidies to high-cost operations, such as the golf course and water park.” – then-City Manager Ron Bernal in 2017-19 Budget message
This past fiscal year, the water park received over $1.6 million to subsidize its operations, and the budget allows for $1.55 million in this fiscal year. In addition, the golf course receives almost $500,000 in debt service and water costs.
According to the City’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, “Parks and Recreation provides the City’s residents recreational, preschool, social and meeting space within the community. Recreation Programs are accounted for in the Recreation Special Revenue Fund. The Recreation Support division within the General Fund provides a subsidy to this fund to support operations.”
The General Fund budget shows Recreation Services Support (Recreation Department) receiving $4,812,031, a 12% decrease from the $5,479,935 in the Revised 2025-26 Budget. Of that amount, Recreation Services was approved to receive $1,937,164 from the City’s Measure W one-cent sales tax or 9.7% of the total revenue of over $20 million from that source. The amount makes up 40% of the total budget for the Recreation Department.
Antioch Water Park Subsidy
According to the Fiscal Year 2026-27 City Budget, the Antioch Water Park will receive $1,552,918 from the General Fund and Child Care Fund, of which $87,500 is from the latter, a 5% reduction from the subsidy of $1,627,359 in the Revised 2025-26 Fiscal Year Budget. That totals 60 percent of the water park’s revenue with the difference generated by Current Service Charges, which includes gate fees to enter the park and $111,000 in concession sales from Gator Grill and Allie’s Oasis.
According to Parks & Recreation Director Shahad Wright, “From the last supervisor report, we had over 30,000 guests but there is no breakdown for kids or adult that I can currently pull.”
Lone Tree Golf & Event Center Subsidy
Although this and last year’s City Budgets do not mention the Lone Tree Golf & Event Center (LTGEC), City Finance Director Dawn Merchant shared, “One of the transfers out to the 2015A debt service fund ($345,518 in FY26/27) is for that debt. The General Fund also pays for water at the golf course when they utilize City water (the Golf Course pays Delta Diablo directly for any irrigation water through them). We budget $150K per year, but the amount really fluctuates.”
Of the $345,518 amount, $343,500 will be used this year to pay the debt for improvements to the golf course and expansion of the event center in 2002. It’s shown in the budget as Antioch Public Financing Authority Debt Service Fund 410 (see page 45) and after this fiscal year’s payment, “the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) portion of the debt will be $1,250,000 at 6/30/27 principal and $343,500 interest outstanding. The debt schedule is on page 316 of the budget,” she added.
Over 53,000 Rounds of Golf in FY25-26
According to Wright’s Lone Tree Golf Course Annual Operations Update for Fiscal Year 2025-26 to the Antioch City Council’s Committee for the Lone Tree Golf Course consisting of Mayor Ron Bernal and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, there were 53,079 rounds of golf played between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026. (COG means Cost of Goods)
The report also shows total revenue for the year of $6,600,248 with $3,091,121 from golf, of which $570,678 was generated by the driving range, and $3,509,127 from food and beverages at the Event Center, which includes Champions Bar & Grill and the banquet facility.
Expenses include Cost of Golf at $1,137,587 and Operational at $5,189,024 for Net Income of $331,796. However, as the report points out there is, “No Capital Expense Deducted” from the total included. That would be the $345,518 for debt service mentioned above. So, the LTG&EC actually experienced a net loss of $13,722. But the $331,796 remains within the facility’s budget and is not used to reimburse the City’s General Fund.
Basically, the General Fund is providing a subsidy of over $9.00 per round of golf to those who enjoy playing the sport in Antioch.
Golf & Event Center Previously Mentioned in City Budgets
The LTG&EC was mentioned in the 2014-15 and 2015-17 Budgets, twice on page 243. That reads:
“ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) 2001 LEASE REVENUE BONDS (411)
“In July 2001, ABAG issued $6,300,000 of Lease Revenue Bonds to refund the outstanding ABAG XXV Irrigation Project Lease and to finance the construction of a new clubhouse at the Lone Tree Golf Course. The Lone Tree Golf Course reimburses the City for all debt service and other expenditures of the fund. All construction funds have been drawn down, and the final debt service payment will be made in July 2031.”
The same message on that same page was included in the FY2015-17 Budget.
Golf Course & Event Center No Longer Reimburses General Fund, Debt No Longer Mentioned in Budgets
But the debt for the LTGC/LTG&EC was no longer mentioned and the golf course only referred to twice in the FY2017-19 Adopted Budget. On Page iii of then-City Manager Ron Bernal’s budget message it reads, “We need to be fiscally prudent by closely monitoring expenses…and minimize General Fund subsidies to high-cost operations, such as the golf course and water park.”
Then on the Supplemental Information page 295 a note at the bottom reads, “ABAG 2001 Portion – Debt payments reimbursed by Antioch Public Golf Corporation.” The same note was provided on the same page of the FY2019-21 Budget. But it was no longer included as of the FY2021-23 Budget.
Merchant was asked if that is because the debt payments have no longer been reimbursed by the Golf Corporation as of FY2022.
She responded, “You are correct that the reference was removed once the Golf Course stopped reimbursing the City. The debt service payments show in the 2015A Lease Revenue Refunding bonds debt service fund. The transfer out in the General Fund is to move money to that debt service fund for payment of the debt service.”
“As you can see from the report Shahad prepared that you provided, the City’s agreement with the Golf Course only requires that they pay us a small annual fee that is escalated by CPI,” she continued. “Many years ago, due to financial stress at the Golf Course, City council agreed to take on the burden of the debt service within the General Fund and not seek reimbursement from the Golf Course for debt service, and thus the current agreement in place.”
Merchant also shared, “The expenses related to the Golf Course were discussed at the (Council’s) budget meetings held on April 21st and May 5th.”
More Questions for Merchant
Merchant was also asked since there are expenses for the Golf & Event Center from the General Fund, why isn’t it mentioned anywhere in the budget? Shouldn’t it be for full transparency to the public?
What I see is on page 306 of the Adopted Budget, entitled, “APFA 2015A LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (410) (Portion related to refunding 2001 ABAG bonds)” it reads, “In February 2015, Antioch Public Financing Authority (APFA) Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds were issued to refinance the APFA 2002 A&B Lease Revenue Bonds and the ABAG 2001A Lease Revenue Bonds. The APFA leases the police facility and animal shelter to the City under a site and facility lease and the base rental payments made by the City represent the debt service on the new bonds. This fund accounts for the portion related to the ABAG bonds and debt service is paid by the General Fund. Final debt service is May 2031.”
Then on page 307, entitled, “APFA 2015A LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (417) (Portion related to refunding APFA 2002 A&B Lease Revenue Bonds)” it reads something very similar: “In February 2015, Antioch Public Financing Authority (APFA) Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds were issued to refinance the APFA 2002 A&B Lease Revenue Bonds and the ABAG 2001A Lease Revenue Bonds. The APFA leases the police facility and animal shelter to the City under a site and facility lease and the base rental payments made by the City represent the debt service on the new bonds. This fund accounts for the portion related to the 2002 A&B bonds and debt service is reimbursed by Successor Agency to the Antioch Development Agency. Final debt service is May 2032.”
So, if all the money shown on page 306, $345,518, is spent for the Golf & Event Center debt, shouldn’t the information in the chart on that page be about the Golf & Event Center not about the police facility and animal shelter?
Also, on page 45, entitled, “Transfers By Fund”, I think it would be best that under Antioch Public Financing Authority Debt Service Fund 417 it shows “Police Facility and Animal Shelter” and under Fund 410 it shows, “Lone Tree Golf & Event Center” for full transparency to the public (and media).
Merchant Explains Debt for Golf Course, Police Facility & Animal Shelter Combined When Refinanced
In response, Merchant wrote, “The reason on page 306 (and 307) it references the police and animal shelter is because when the ABAG bonds were refinanced with the 2015A lease revenue bonds, to secure the bonds, the Antioch Public Finance Authority entered into a lease agreement with the City for the Police and Animal Shelter essentially being the security for the bonds thus providing a ‘lease payment’ as debt service for the bonds. The Golf Course provides no security for payment of the bonds.”
“I note your comment about the transfers schedule,” she added. “The titles on page 45 represent the actual fund names in the City’s general ledger accounting system, as do all the transfers listed on the schedule.”
Conclusion – It All Comes Down to Priorities
During a recent council meeting on the Homekey+ program, a resident suggested the Golf Course should raise rounds by just $5.00. If they did, that would generate another $265,000 per year, which, along with the current net revenue, would be enough to cover the costs of water and the debt payment.
In addition, while I was a council member when the water park first opened, I suggested contracting out the operations to a private company. I called one in Sacramento. They said they were interested but were in the process of opening Water World (now Six Flags Hurricane Harbor) in Concord at the time. Perhaps, another private company might be interested, now. All it takes is a phone call to start the process. If it were contracted out, that would eliminate the $1.5 million annual General Fund subsidy.
Combine that amount with requiring the Golf Course Board to reimburse the City for the cost of both the water and bond debt payment for a total of almost $500,000, and Antioch’s General Fund would enjoy almost an extra $2 million per year. That’s more than enough to cover the $1.2 million annually for the Homekey+ program and to cover the estimated $250,000 annual maintenance costs of the Rivertown Square project on the former Beede Lumber Company lot in downtown.
It all comes down to priorities. The Council can continue to subsidize the recreation of some – who don’t all live, here which was an argument about not funding the Homekey+ program – or house some of our homeless residents, reducing their impact on our businesses, police department, Code Enforcement and City budget, and add a new, long-planned park and event center in the City’s historic downtown.
I believe it’s time Mayor Bernal and the rest of the council members heed his message from when he was city manager and, of less importance, ensure the debt for the golf and event center be clearly listed in each year’s budgets for full transparency to the public.
All-gender restroom in California’s State Capitol building. Video screenshot source: CA Family Council
“The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students.”
By Greg Burt, Vice President, California Family Council
SACRAMENTO, CA — California is quietly moving toward mixed-sex bathrooms in K-12 public schools, and the state’s own Department of Education is leading the way.
A new law California Family Council opposed, SB 760, now requires schools to provide at least one “all-gender” restroom option on campus.
Passed in September 2023, the bill was cosponsored by then-State Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda). He, then-State Senator Nancy Skinner, now-State Sen. Tim Grayson and Assemblymembers Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Buffy Wicks, and Lori Wilson who represent Contra Costa County, voted for the bill.
The stated goal was to make transgender-identified students feel safer from bullying. But in the rush to accommodate those students’ feelings, lawmakers apparently gave little thought to a different safety question: what happens when boys are given access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms?
The State Is Already Building the Roadmap
The California Department of Education has an entire webpage dedicated to “All Access Restrooms,” describing it as a resource offering background information, planning and design resources, laws and regulations, and references for implementing “gender-inclusive” restrooms in K-12 schools.
The background information on that page acknowledges that “the designs of all-access restrooms have been trending in schools throughout the state, the country, and the world,” while noting there are currently no California design standards for these facilities. In other words, the trend is already underway, and the standards are still catching up.
The planning section of the CDE page is even more candid about the scope of what is being proposed. It describes “shifting from multi-user gendered restrooms and single-user all-gender restrooms to offering blocks of restroom facilities for all students;” meaning the goal is not just a single converted nurse’s bathroom tucked in a hallway. The ambition is to redesign entire blocks of school restroom facilities so that boys and girls share the same space.
What Would It Look Like?
The new all-gender bathroom designs typically eliminate urinals entirely, replacing them with individual private stalls accessible to everyone. The CDE’s resources page recommends an academic article published in the Education Sciences Journal titled “Expanding the Scope of Universal Design: Implications for Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation,” by Ellyn Couillard and Jeanne L. Higbee (2018), as a guide for implementation. That an academic paper on gender identity ideology is among the state’s recommended planning resources tells you something about the ideological framework driving these design decisions.
But keep in mind, SB 760 doesn’t require a complete redesign of a single-sex bathroom for it to become all-gender.
You Already Saw It at the State Capitol
If you want to get a glimpse of what legislators have in mind when they convert a single sex bathroom into an all gender bathroom, take a look at one of the converted male bathrooms at the state capitol, used by legislative staffers, adult visitors, and elementary school children visiting on field trips. California Family Council recently took a video of the empty bathroom located to one side of the Capitol Dome.
“I’m pretty sure most parents would object to their young children sharing a bathroom while men are using the urinals,” Burt said. “Even without the adult issue, I’ve witnessed the chaos that occurs when young boys are pouring into the same bathrooms as the girls while visiting the Capitol. The girls are not happy about it.” (Watch video tour of Capitol bathroom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okTcKcP3ACQ)
So, what should parents expect when multi-stall bathrooms are converted to all gender at their child’s school?
What the Law Actually Requires — And What It Doesn’t
It is important to be clear about what SB 760 does and does not mandate. The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students. It could be single-stall or multi-stall. It must be supplied with menstrual products starting in 3rd grade, and it must be unlocked and easily accessible. But there are no requirements that urinals be removed or that additional privacy measures be added to stalls.
Sex-separated restrooms are still permitted, and most schools will continue to have them.
Burt explained what this means in practice for families. “How each school fulfills this new requirement is entirely up to the local school board. A conservative district might simply relabel a single-occupancy nurse’s bathroom and call it done. A progressive district could use this law as a green light to convert entire multi-stall restroom facilities to mixed-sex use. Parents need to find out right now what their district is planning,” he said.
The CDE’s planning resources make clear that the broader vision goes well beyond a single-stall accommodation in the corner of the building. It points toward a wholesale redesign of school bathroom facilities, one that treats sex-separated restrooms as a problem to be solved rather than a common-sense protection for children.
The Question Nobody in Sacramento Answered
SB 760’s supporters argued the law was needed to protect transgender-identified students from harassment, but the legislature never seriously asked the parallel question: does giving boys access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms create new opportunities for harassment and assault of girls?
California has seen case after case in recent years where policies designed to accommodate gender identity have created unsafe situations for female students. The discomfort of girls sharing intimate spaces with biological males is not a lesser concern. Lawmakers who refused to weigh it have not protected children. They have simply chosen which children’s safety matters.
Parents: Now Is the Time to Speak Up
Because each school board will decide how to implement SB 760 on its own campuses, parents have a real opportunity to influence what happens at their child’s school, but that window will not stay open indefinitely. Decisions about restroom redesigns and facility changes get made early in the budget and planning process, often before most parents are even aware the conversation is happening.
If you want a say in how your district handles this new requirement, call your school board member and school administrators now. Ask them directly: how does our district plan to fulfill the SB 760 all-gender restroom requirement? Will existing sex-separated restrooms be preserved? Will multi-stall facilities be converted? Every parent deserves to know the answers.
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.
The latest election results show Contra Costa Measure B trailing with less than 43% of the vote in favor. A relatively small number of late arriving votes are unlikely to change the outcome, given the 36,562-vote gap between the NO and YES totals. Measure G is also likely to fail.
Measure B would have raised sales taxes by 0.625% around the county, would have cost consumers more than $750 million during its five-year life, and would have pushed total sales tax rates over 10% in most of the County. Measure G was yet a fourth bond measure for the county colleges, adding to our indebtedness and long-term payment of interest. The bond measures appear not to have ever been enough and with falling student numbers, huge investments make no sense.
As the official ballot opponent to Measure B, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association (CoCoTax) showed voters the deceptiveness of the proponents’ case, which included exaggerated claims about Medi-Cal funding losses, alarmism over emergency room overcrowding, and the false assertion that the tax did not apply to groceries (prepared foods, OTC medications, and non-food groceries would have been subject to the tax). For Measure G, we showed the math behind it and how the only people looking to support it with money were unions whose contracts expire this month. The unions also planned to take advantage of Measure B funds.
CoCoTax rallied volunteers to get the message out with signage, verbal appeals, videos, text messages and more. The organization made its first set of campaign finance expenditures, reporting approximately $20,000 of independent expenditures to the County’s campaign finance system. This spending paled in comparison to the $450,000 raised by the Yes on B campaign, mostly from unions seeking to maximize dues revenue.
Denise Kalm, a CoCoTax Executive Committee who agreed to serve as the group’s President Pro Tem this Spring led the successful effort against Measures B and G.
Reacting to the results, Kalm said, “Measure B would have given the Board of Supervisors another big infusion of cash; they already had burdened us in 2020 with Measure X and haven’t even found ways to spend/waste it all. And yet, they came back with a 0.625% increase in sales tax demand, purportedly to fix the healthcare shortfall they claim President Trump caused. None of it was true; none of their math added up.“
Though CoCoTax initially started only going after B, we made an effort to get G to fail, which worked.
CoCoTax welcomes more Contra Costa residents to join us and volunteer. We’re expecting many tax and bond measures in November and then again in 2028. While some may be reasonable, others, like the regional transit tax, require informed and active opposition. Neighbors who want to join us in “Fighting for Good Government at Affordable Cost in Contra Costa,” are encouraged to check out our website at https://www.cocotax.org.
The Proposed 2026 County ULL renewal map shows areas of contractions and expansions. Source: Contra Costa County
Would allow for expansion near Byron Airport, contractions elsewhereincluding next to Antioch
Will not affect Antioch’s ULL
By Allen D. Payton
On Tuesday’s Primary Election ballot in Contra Costa County is Measure A, the 2026 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line also referred to as the Urban Limit Line and Land Preservation Plan Amendment Measure. Voters are asked whether or not to extend the County’s current Urban Limit Line (ULL) for 25 more years, as well as expand and contract it, placing a net of almost 9,500 more acres outside the line.
The ballot language reads, “Shall the measure amending the Contra Costa County General Plan and the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance to continue protections to the County’s non-urban, agricultural, and open space areas by extending the term of the County’s Urban Limit Line through December 31, 2051; adopting an updated Urban Limit Line map; requiring voter approval, except under limited circumstances, to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres; and retaining the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, be adopted?”
The county’s first ULL was voter-approved in 1990 and was renewed in 2006 which lasted 20 years.
Each of the 19 cities have their own voter-approved ULL, which supersede the County’s ULL, in order to receive local street maintenance funds from Measure J, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation. The City of Antioch did that when voters there established their own line and moved the County’s line back out in 2004, after the Board of Supervisors moved it in and cut off the land previously planned for the Roddy Ranch golf course and housing development. That land was later sold to the East Bay Regional Park District and is planned for a park.
The Ginochio West property (inside yellow circle) adjacent to Antioch’s city limits (inside the blue line) would be moved outside the County’s ULL if Measure A passes. Graphic source: Contra Costa County
So, Measure A will not affect each city’s ULL, only land in the unincorporated portions of the county. But it will move outside the County’s ULL a section of land, currently outside the Antioch city limits bordered by Deer Valley and Empire Mine Roads, where long-time Antioch residents might remember the “party barn” was located, on property now known as Ginochio West in planning documents. It would be constrained to public or easement use.
Will Extend County ULL by 25 Years, Allow Expansion Near Byron Airport, Contractions Elsewhere
According to the County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of the measure,“In 2004, voters approved Measure J-2004, which extended a local transportation sales tax (Measure C-1988) by 25 years and allowed the County to receive a share of those sale tax proceeds provided the County had a voter-approved ULL.
“In 2006, voters approved Measure L-2006, which extended the term of the ULL to December 31, 2026. In order (for the County) to continue to be eligible to receive transportation sales tax proceeds after 2026, the ULL must be extended beyond 2026. This measure would extend the County’s ULL for 25 years, through December 31, 2051.
In addition, “the measure would amend the County’s 2045 General Plan and the 65/35 Ordinance to accomplish the following: (1) extend the term of the 65/35 Ordinance from December 31, 2026, through December 31, 2051; (2) require four-fifths vote of the County Board of Supervisors and voter approval to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres (except under limited circumstances); (3) provide for periodic reviews of the ULL by the Board of Supervisors and a required review involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) update and expand the criteria for moving land outside the ULL; (5) incorporate a revised ULL map that among other things delineates an area of future potential expansion near the Byron Airport; and (6) retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County’s prime agricultural land. This measure will become effective immediately if approved by a majority of the voters voting on the measure.”
The proposed County ULL would include contractions totaling 11,098 acres and expansion of 1,603 acres for net 9,495 more acres placed outside the Urban Limit Line. (See map). However, the acreage does not include the Byron Airport Potential ULL Expansion Area.
Yes on A Campaign’s Main Argument
The main argument of the Yes on Measure A campaign, paid for by Save Mount Diablo and supported by nine other organizations, is “The Urban Limit Line helps prevent traffic from getting worse. The more people have to drive, and the more cars on the road, the worse traffic gets. This election, say YES to protecting our open space and agriculture, safety from wildfire, limiting traffic, and encouraging housing where it makes sense.”
No on A Campaign’s Main Argument
The main argument of the No on Measure A campaign, paid for by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association is that “Measure A removes an additional 9,460 acres — equivalent to 14.78 square miles — from any possible urban housing use through 2051. That is larger than 10 of the 19 cities in Contra Costa County. Calling this a routine renewal misleads voters about what is actually on the ballot.”
The campaign also claims, “When Contra Costa restricts its land supply, families don’t disappear. They move — and commute back.”
Analysis: Growth is inevitable and acts much like a balloon, when it is restricted in one area, growth expands elsewhere. Such as in the Central Valley which feeds not only our state, but nation and world, and where land is cheaper and unfortunately, farmers can make more money selling to developers than farming. The result is commuters driving further to work and blowing more polluting smoke out of their tailpipes, defeating the goals of the environmentalists.
At the same time, there’s plenty of room inside the current ULL’s of the cities for more housing growth to occur, especially in East County. Plus, the measure includes a potential expansion near the Byron Airport where commercial and/or mixed-used development could occur, as the long-planned, four-lane Route 239 between Brentwood and Tracy are built, the runway is potentially extended, a fixed base operation and fuel farm are built there, and a possible transit stop located there, as well.
On June 2, Contra Costa County voters will decide whether to saddle themselves — and their children — with the largest bond debt in the history of the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD). Measure G asks for $920 million in new borrowing. With interest, the true cost climbs to $1.88 billion, with final payoff projected in 2059. CoCoTax has opposed this measure in official ballot arguments, in public presentations, and in a detailed response to a recent article in the Contra Costa College Advocate.
The case against Measure G is straightforward: it is far too much money, sought too soon given outstanding bond debt, by a district that hasn’t demonstrated the fiscal discipline to deserve it.
Already Drowning in Debt
4CD still owes on three bond measures as is: 2002’s Measure A ($120 million), 2006’s second Measure A, ($286.5 million), and 2014’s Measure E ($450 million) — totaling $856.5 million in principal alone. County taxpayers still owe nearly $727 million on those existing obligations, with the final payment on Measure E not expected until 2039. Measure G would pile $1.88 billion more on top of all that. If it passes, total bonded indebtedness reaches $2.61 billion, secured by Contra Costa County property values — with no senior exemption.
Enrollment Is Down 28% — Yet They Want to Build More
4CD advertises “nearly 50,000 students,” but that figure is misleading. California’s actual funding metric is Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES). According to the State Chancellor’s October 2025 FTES Report, 4CD’s count was just 21,940 — down 28% from 30,648 when Measure A passed in 2002. Expanding costly new facilities while enrollment trends sharply downward is the opposite of responsible stewardship.
“Deferred Maintenance” — Deferred Forever?
Roofing repairs, seismic retrofits, HVAC upgrades, and electrical work appear repeatedly in 4CD bond project lists going back to 2002. How many bond measures must pass before these basics get done? There’s a core problem: 4CD’s maintenance budget has crept from just 0.10% to 0.20% of Plant Replacement Value over the past decade, when the commercial building standard is 2–5%. Routine maintenance gets deferred so the general fund can support other priorities — including lavish administrative compensation — and then bond money pays for the fixes, with interest on top.
Executive Pay That Outstrips the Governor’s
While seeking $920 million in new principal from taxpayers, 4CD’s Chancellor drew a $404,238 salary (as of 2024) — plus $130,674 in benefits, for total compensation reaching $548,112. That salary alone exceeds the official pay of the President of the United States and far surpasses Governor Newsom’s $245,929. Vice Chancellors, College Presidents, and Directors also earn hundreds of thousands in total compensation. Lavish pay and lean maintenance are two sides of the same General Fund coin.
Who’s Funding “Yes on G”?
The pro-Measure G campaign has raised nearly $400,000 so far — with the bulk coming from the tax-exempt Contra Costa College Foundation ($100,000), the DVC Foundation ($50,000), and multiple construction unions (IBEW Local 302, Plumbers Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and others). Contractor unions have a direct financial interest in a $920 million construction program. Ordinary property-tax-paying residents have no equivalent organized voice — a textbook example of what economists call “Public Choice Theory.”
The Bottom Line
Property owners already pay an average of $13.97 per $100,000 of assessed value toward 4CD’s existing bonds. Measure G adds another $10 — and that rate could rise if the county’s assessed values don’t grow at the 4% annual pace 4CD projects, projections that, by 4CD’s own admission, “are not binding upon 4CD.”
4CD should maintain its existing buildings with its existing budget rather than repeatedly turning to taxpayers for borrowed billions. Vote NO on Measure G.
Dear Antioch Unified School District Board Members,
Given the severity of the district’s deficit, the community deserves to understand why the Board continues to authorize expensive contractors to perform work that qualified district staff are fully capable of handling. In education, sustainable improvement comes from setting clear expectations, providing support, and building internal capacity. Antioch is a resilient community filled with talented professionals. Our people deserve the opportunity and the trust to meet the standard.
It is also important to acknowledge that many of these same consultants were used in Pacifica and Sequoia, districts where the Superintendent departed in under two years amid controversy. Why would the Board select a leader without a demonstrated record of long-term, successful superintendent leadership.
Board President Dr. Jag Lathan, you are currently running for County Superintendent. If effective oversight and leadership cannot be demonstrated in a mid‑sized district like Antioch, how will you lead an entire county. Voters are watching and waiting for you to do what is right.
The district’s increasing reliance on high‑cost consultants is fiscally irresponsible and deeply concerning especially during a financial crisis. This year alone, consultant contracts are projected to exceed half a million dollars, including external providers for executive coaching, financial consulting, data analysis, and organizational climate assessments. Only a small portion of these contracts appear justified given staffing shortages. The rest raise serious questions about duplication of services, transparency, and fiscal priorities. The district already employs dedicated, effective leaders who have invested their careers and their hearts into serving Antioch’s students. Overlooking this internal capacity wastes resources and damages morale. Replacing qualified internal leaders with consultants occupying long‑term roles is unjust, irresponsible, and demoralizing. At what point will the Board accept accountability for these decisions?
There has also been a mass exodus of leadership and long‑term teachers. This exodus is directly tied to the current district leadership. Why is the Board not interviewing these long-standing, highly respected employees to understand why they are leaving AUSD?
Attorney fees have been repeatedly discussed at board meetings and often dismissed by comparing them to previous years. But this year, the number of law firms brought in under Dr. Williams has significantly increased legal costs. If the highly publicized employee bullying lawsuit from last year were removed from the comparison, would last year’s attorney fees still exceed the current year’s. That is a question the community deserves answered.
According to individuals familiar with the superintendent hiring process, community panelists were puzzled by the Board’s decision. Several candidates reportedly ranked higher among parents, staff, and students including two Latino leaders who panelists felt could more closely relate to and serve the district’s student population. Insiders state that Dr. Williams ranked last among five finalists in some community feedback summaries. Despite these concerns, Dr. Williams assumed leadership of AUSD in July 2025.
It is public knowledge that entering the 2025–26 school year, AUSD faced an approximate $12 million deficit. The CBO in place at the time who had full knowledge of the deficit and a fiscally sound plan to address it without harming student services or requiring staff layoffs was placed on leave almost immediately by Dr. Williams. It has been stated repeatedly at board meetings that the approved raises and continued 100% district‑paid health benefits did not contribute to the now $31 million deficit. That is not accurate. The increased deficit is directly tied to the raises and benefits negotiated by Dr. Williams and her attorney.
Another contributing factor is the Superintendent’s newly created salary schedule. Historically, AUSD superintendents were placed on salary schedule 734 with a 260-day work year. Dr. Williams negotiated a new 737 range with a 225-day work year 35 fewer days than her senior management team. The previous superintendent, at year six, earned $358,340 annually ($1,378 per day). Dr. Williams began at $361,165 annually ($1,605 per day) and will top out at $1,728 per day.
Despite this significantly higher, per‑day rate, district staff report that Dr. Williams is rarely present in the district office, and when she does arrive, it is often afternoon. She is not beginning her day at school sites, and her whereabouts during the workday are frequently unaccounted for. Given these concerns, why was an entirely new salary schedule created without any data demonstrating long‑term success, improved student outcomes, or consistent leadership presence. Her history shows the opposite, with districts left in turmoil.
At what point will the Board seek honest insight from current and former employees rather than relying on soundbites and publicity efforts. The community is asking for transparency, accountability, and the responsible use of AUSD funds. Every dollar spent should reflect a commitment to students, staff, and the long‑term stability of this district—not to unnecessary contracts, unchecked legal fees, or inflated administrative compensation.
Respectfully,
Amy Bettencourt, former Director of Educational Services, Antioch Unified School District and Concerned Staff, Parents and Citizens
In a note included with the emailed letter to the editor Bettencourt wrote, “I know I left Antioch USD at the end of February due to the toxicity and storm the new superintendent brought to the district, but I continue to hear from a large group of employees who are desperately trying to elevate their concerns publicly.”
A report on the 2026-27 budget, by a Contra Costa County public information officer, is essentially a tax-promotion advertisement for Measure B’s intended 0.625% sales-tax increase. It omits essential facts, to the potential benefit of the County’s already overpaid administrative staff and its 15 highly compensated employee unions. Consider the following:
1. The County’s tentative $7.248 Billion budget for 2026-2027, were it to remain unchanged at the July 1 start of new Fiscal Year 26-27, would still be a massive 60.7% higher than FY20-21’s $4.51 Billion. (See p. 8 at link.) November 2020 was when the County passed Measure X, itself a 0.500% sales tax increase. The Bay Area’s CPI inflation rate, meanwhile, has totaled 18.4% since Measure X’s passage (358.6 /302.9 = 1.184). The County’s spending increase since the end of 2020 is 3.3 x the inflation rate.
2. Measure B, on the June 2nd ballot, would add another 0.625% in new sales taxes, raising every part of the County above the statutory 2% limit on LOCAL sales-tax rates, over and above the existing statewide 7.250% rate. 7.250% + 2.000% = an effective statutory-limit total of 9.250%. If Measure B passes, sales-tax rates in the County will instead range from 9.375% to 10.875%. An additional 0.500% transit sales-tax measure is upcoming on the November ballot.
3. In bypassing the relevant statute, all the County’s tax promoters had to do was to get an on-call legislator to include Contra Costa County in an existing, illegitimate Los Angeles bypass bill (AB1768), say shazam(!) — and poof! No more 2% limit on any local sales-tax rates here. (Actually, Measure X itself took local rates in six Contra Costa municipal jurisdictions above 2%.)
4. As is, the County’s 2026 own union-member employment head count is up 4% over 2025 (slide 10) — 10,308 vs. 9,913. And 9 of the County’s 15 union contracts expire 4 weeks after Election Day. That’s a clue for the likely real purpose of Measure B.
5.As of 2024 (last year available), 4,781 County employees were already above $150,000 in salary plus benefit compensation. 3,056 of those exceeded $200,000. 1,045 of those exceeded $300,000. 278 of those exceeded $400,000, with 78 above $500,000. How many executive-level employees does the County need? How many should we pay for?
6. Measure X presented an urgent, COVID-time focus on healthcare and “life-saving services.” Now, allegedly, “lives will be lost” without Measure B (pages 33-34 of 86 in Voter Guide). In fact, Measure X’s millions have been used for multiple other purposes. And Measure B’s authorizing ordinance, like Measure X’s, again exposes this new tax as “solely for general governmental purposes and not for specific purposes.” County politicians and administrators could spend Measure B’s millions on whatever they consider “governmental” — as they’ve already been doing in Measure X’s first 5 of 20 years. Measure B could facilitate or directly bankroll the next round of employee enrichments.
7. Measure X, the template for Measure B, was supposed to collect $81 Million annually in additional new sales-tax revenues. Instead, it’s taken in over $120 Million annually (page 11 of 16), and Measure X has another 15 years to run. Meanwhile, Measure X has accumulated $263 Million in unspent funds (same page). Those dollars, rather than more new sales-tax revenue, could and should be dedicated to any healthcare deficiency that actually develops.
9. County supervisors tried to get away with an alleged $307 million ANNUAL healthcare budget deficiency, (e.g. here and here) until I and others pointed to figures stated by their own financial advisory firm (itself holding an $8 Million contract). That reality was a potentially CUMULATIVE $307 Million by FY28-29, not an annual one. Their chief financial advisor then returned with a new slide showing larger potential amounts in FY29-30 and FY30-31 — in a new presidential administration and 2 new Congresses from now. As stated in ballot arguments, Measure B is at best premature.
10. Due to some funding restoration already announced, the new budget deficiency projected in an updated County slide was a cumulative $219 Million by FY28-29 (though minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ meeting presented the amount as $239 Million). Even that is speculative; and again, Measure X could cover that amount if needed, under its originally announced purposes. And to begin with, much of the funding problem derives from withdrawal by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services of “federal Medicaid dollars to cover health care for individuals who are in the country illegally” (as “a backdoor pathway to subsidize open borders”).
11. The County’s Measure B propagandists claim elsewhere that “It exempts food, housing, and medical care, so most of the money from this tax will come from corporate or large luxury purchases.” But as the East Bay Times said (among many other factors in opposing Measure B itself), “State data indicates that the average person in the county currently pays at least $1,050 a year in sales tax.” Food/grocery exemptions? Not for prepared foods, soft drinks, beer and wine, ice, many convenience grocery store items, etc. — and not for restaurant bills. Housing exemptions? Not for materials used to build and maintain houses. Exemptions for medical care? Not for over-the-counter medicines.
12. Rather than voting to continue engorging the already vastly over-funded and overcompensated County spending apparatus and apparatchiks: attentive and fair-minded voters will vote NO on Measure B — thereby to leave taxpayers, especially those already struggling with affordability problems, with more of their own money to spend for items THEY see as needs.
Regarding the County’s self-serving Measure B scheme — and its dishonest 2020 predecessor, Measure X: the response now should be “Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us!”
