Councilmembers Monica Wilson (top) and Tamisha Torres-Walker and then-City Manager Ron Bernal participate in a council meeting remotely Feb. 26, 2021, during COVID. The practice ended in Feb. 2023. Now a maximum of two council members can participate remotely, and the public can offer comments remotely, as well. Herald file video screenshot.
Requires policy for handling technology disruptions, misconduct
Also, changes rules for officials’ remote participation in meetings and on social media, reporting of compensation for top staff
By Allen D. Payton
Just like during COVID, members of the public again have the opportunity to participate remotely in city council and other government meetings, either by phone call or online via videoconferencing. Passed in 2025 and signed into law last Oct. 3, Senate Bill 707 modernizes the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, went into effect July 1, 2026, and lasts until January 1, 2030. It requires that “all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform.” In Antioch, the law applies to all public meetings “of the City Council and all eligible subsidiary bodies as directed by the City Council,” such as commissions, boards, committees and council subcommittees.
In addition, the law requires, “an eligible legislative body, on or before July 1, 2026, to approve at a noticed public meeting in open session a policy regarding disruption of telephonic or internet services occurring during meetings subject to these provisions, as specified, and would require the eligible legislative body to comply with certain requirements relating to disruption, including for certain disruptions, recessing the open session for at least one hour and making a good faith attempt to restore the service.”
The new law also requires “that the eligible legislative body take specified actions to encourage residents to participate in public meetings.” District 3 Councilman Don Freitas suggested at the meeting on Tuesday, July 28th, that the council make an effort to inform the public of the new, remote process.
Source: City of Antioch
During their meeting on April 14, 2026, the Council was provided a presentation on SB707 (agenda Item 13) which included various changes to the state’s open meeting law.
Orderly Conduct – Mayor Can Cut Off Disruptive Remote Participants
The new law “Clarifies statutory authority to remove disruptive remote participants to maintain the orderly conduct of the meeting” for proper decorum. “The Chair must issue a specific warning before muting or disconnecting a disruptive user” to prevent “Zoom Bombers” as occurred during COVID with comments that included profanity and racial epithets by some who called in during public comments. The Council must also “Establish clear conduct rules (e.g., time limits, profanity) and apply them neutrally to all speakers.”
Technology Disruptions
The City Council approved Antioch’s policy regarding technology disruptions during their meeting on May 12, 2026 (See agenda Item 9). According to the staff report on the policy, it “ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions if the City Council finds the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.”
If a technology disruption occurs, “the meeting must remain in recess for up to one hour or until remote access is restored, whichever occurs first. If service is restored within that time, the Council will reconvene and proceed with the agenda.”
According to the April 14th presentation, technology disruptions require a:
Mandatory Pause: If remote access service fails, the legislative body must recess to attempt to restore the connection before adjourning;
Public Notification: Staff must immediately post real-time status updates on the meeting webpage and announce the delay on all available social channels.
Physical Access to Meeting Room: The physical meeting room must remain open and accessible to the public during the entire recess period.
The “Public Interest” Finding:If remote service is not restored after one hour, the Council may make a formal finding that the “public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the lack of remote access.” This finding must be adopted by a recorded roll call vote before any further business occurs.
Meetings of Other City Legislative Bodies
The presentation explains that meeting of other eligible city boards, committees, commissions and council subcommittees “include bodies that serve exclusively in advisory capacities, cannot take final action and do not have primary subject matter jurisdiction. (Example: APOC – Antioch Police Oversight Committee). These can include bodies constituted with elected officials. (Example: Cannabis Subcommittee).”
However, “the City Council must formally direct these bodies follow two-way requirements. To do so, the Council must find that circumstances justify use of two-way communication, such communication would enhance public access, and would promote attraction, retention and diversity of the bodies’ memberships. Findings would have to be made by resolution of the City Council.”
Finally, “if two-way communication is required, there must be one physical meeting location, at least one board and staff member must be present there and the present board member must appear on camera. Special standards apply if any member appears via teleconferencing.”
More Reasons & Opportunities for Officials’ Remote Participation in Meetings
SB707 also adds more reasons why public officials can participate in meetings remotely and increases from two to a maximum of five uses per year. Valid reasons labeled, “Just Cause” and “Emergency Circumstances”, now include family medical emergencies, childcare or caregiving needs, military service and contagious illness.
Members must “provide notice and public disclosure at the start of the meeting in accordance with local procedure” and
“explicitly disclose if any individuals over the age of 18 are present in the room with them, and state their relationships…during roll call.”
“The City is required to publish a member-by-member utilization report annually to ensure accountability,” the presentation added.
But a majority of the members must be present in-person to have a quorum to conduct a meeting.
Officials’ Participation on Social Media
The law also changes how public officials can engage with the public on social media. According to the April 14th presentation, officials may now engage with the public’s posts on city matters (e.g., answering questions on a resident’s post, but it includes a strict prohibition that “officials cannot respond to, like, share, or repost other council members’ content on the same topic to avoid ‘serial meetings’” of a majority of members outside the setting of a publicly noticed meeting.
Reporting of Staff Compensation Before Council Vote
Also, according to the presentation, the new law requires that the Council provide, “An oral report…in open session before taking final action on compensation” for all department heads not just for executives such as the City Manager and City Attorney. “The verbal report will include the position title, a summary of compensation elements, and any contract changes.”
Antioch Virtual Speaker Rules& Procedure
According to the Speaker Rules published in each council meeting agenda, “The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during ‘Public Comments’.
“To provide oral public comments during the meeting, please click the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar:
“You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom.
“When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to ‘raise your hand’. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
“When you are called to speak, please limit your comments to the time allotted. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted.”
Takes action with Torres-Walker absent who was not allowed to attend via Zoom due to apparent staff mistake
“To say there’s no plan is wrong. We are not doing nothing.” – Mayor Bernal
By Allen D. Payton
Following multiple meetings on the matter, the City being awarded nearly $35 million in state Homekey+ grant funds and voting to approve the purchase and conversion of the hotel for the program, during their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 3-1, to reject the funding and withdraw from the project. The funds would have been used to convert the 123-room Antioch Inn & Suites to 84 units of permanent supportive housing for veterans and homeless residents from Antioch and throughout the county. But it would have required a significant financial commitment from the City for five to 15 years which the mayor and two councilmen said Antioch can’t afford following two years of budget cuts and future deficits looming on the horizon.
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson was the lone vote against the motion and Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, in whose District 1 the project would have been located, was absent and unable to attend via Zoom due to an apparent staff mistake.
A new state law allows council member participation and public comments via Zoom which requires council members to submit information prior to the meeting. Earlier in Tuesday night’s meeting residents said Torres-Walker had informed her fellow councilmembers and Acting City Manager Ana Cortez she would miss the meeting and sent the necessary information to participate remotely. But something happened that prevented the councilwoman from participating in the meeting. Resident Leslie May called it, “sabotage” and as a result, she and local homeless advocate Nichole Gardner called for the agenda item to be postponed so Torres-Walker could be in attendance. But that didn’t happen and the councilwoman called in later during public comments on the matter to offer her thoughts in support of the project.
The Primary Issue: City Financial Commitment
While one of the issues was that all those housed on the property would not have been from Antioch, the primary issue for the three councilmen was the City’s financial commitment. To accept the state funding, it would have required ongoing operating assistance from the City averaging up to approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period, for a total of up to an additional $6 million. Over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could have been approximately $18.75 million, primarily from the General Fund.
On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
Competing Views Offered During Public Comments
Following a brief staff presentation on the agenda item, #7, during public comments some residents spoke against while most spoke in favor of the project.
A woman asked, “Why Antioch? Antioch is the poster child for low-income housing. There is no guarantee it will house Antioch residents. It can go on for 55 years.”
Patrick Scott said he opposed the project, “primarily for economic reasons. This project will increase the deficits. We’ve already spent more than $25 million on homeless programs and services. In spite of these services, we still face homeless in front of our businesses, on our streets and shuttered businesses.”
He spoke of growing “encampments along the railroad tracks and in downtown.”
“Neither of our neighbors to the west or the east are experiencing the problems we have,” Scott stated.
He then spoke of the City’s projected budget deficits over the next few years and the $1.2 million annual cost for the project.
Resident Leslie May said, “The place is located in District 1. Most of the people who stand and speak against it don’t live in District 1. The railroad tracks are not the responsibility of the City of Antioch. Unless you live in District 1 and have to work with the people who are unhoused…you don’t understand what it is. It is humane to give these people a clean place.” “Antioch residents will definitely have first choice,” she explained. “They reason they’re not in Pittsburg, Oakley and Brentwood is because they pushed them all here.”
“The City of Antioch is already spending $1.2 million a year to do these sweeps, so why not spend the money on this…up to $1.2 million,” she concluded.
“Why would the council even consider adopting the Homekey project in Antioch? It’s ludicrous,” said Evelyn Scott. “Especially with the current budget shortfalls.”
“Residents can come from anywhere in the county,” she continued. “You cannot continue to dip into reserves…especially when you’re taking prime properties.
Cielo Martinez spoke next saying, “I’m 29 years old. I’ve been homeless for almost seven years. I work myself. I don’t do drugs. I don’t do alcohol. I work every day. So does my husband. I can’t afford a home, right now. The rent out here is crazy.”
Rebecca B. said, while choking back tears, “I’ve been on the streets for 15 years. We need homes. A lot of us don’t want to be out here. This is not a choice. We’re not getting better. We’re getting bitter. A lot of us want to work but we can’t work. I’m diabetic. I don’t have teeth. I can’t get a job because you want to judge me by my teeth, by my face, by my dog. I want a home. How much more in life am I supposed to take? It’s not my duty, it’s not my job. It’s your job. Please, help us. We don’t want to be out there.”
Local real estate broker Mark Jordan spoke next saying, “This is an incredibly emotional discussion. However, the City of Antioch only has one option and that’s Option B. Because the contract price is not a realistic price…of $15.1 million.”
“This particular property has a 17% occupancy rate. This property uses revenue to determine value,” he explained.
“There’s no appraisal for this property to the public,” Jordan continued. He cited state government code that it requires one unless it’s a gift.
California Penal Code…section 424 makes it a felony if an elected official overpays for a property and commits waste. Protect yourself, protect the city. The property is in foreclosure. Buy it at the foreclosure price.”
A woman who referred to herself as a reverend said, “It’s not just a fiscal issue. Housing is the most essential thing you can spend your money on. I think you can find the money. There are grants you can apply for. The amount of money you are spending on homeless people already would be offset. We can’t tolerate what’s going on in the Bay Area anymore. Even wealthy, middle-class people are struggling to pay their rent. I pray you…make the right decision.”
Joey Flegel-Mishlove, Policy Manager for the Bay Area Housing Mission, said, “Starting from the human question of what it’s like to sleep in the cold, the heat or the rain. Homelessness…as elected officials it is the most important issue. It is a fiscally sound choice to enter into this contract.”
“How in a deficit can we turn down the largest grant the State of California has ever offered us?” he asked. “Partners have been offering to help us. I hope you can say, ‘we can get this done. We will get this done.”
Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “The Homekey thing, I don’t think we can afford it. You’re taking…something that is income generating for the community. They pay tax monies to the city.”
“I’m not saying deny the money from the state. Is there another way that it can be used?” he asked.
“Financially, the City cannot afford it and the homeless need to understand that,” Hernandez concluded.
A woman named Pastor Phillips said, “I’m for the housing…for the people to get housed. I’m praying that God touch your heart. It’s necessary. Give them somewhere to live. All things are possible through Christ. Have a heart. Help these people then you can clean up the community.”
Resident Joe W. said, “It’s very cut and dry. If you have money coming in you can help the deficit. If you give people a place to stay you help the community. You ain’t got no worry to get a felony off this.”
As members in the audience wouldn’t quiet down at the direction of the mayor, the council took a five-minute recess. Following the break, the council then voted to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.
Joe W. continued his comments saying, “You literally have the money to invest in a program. It’s a fiduciary responsibility of the committee to make a sound decision. The community of District 1 is very supportive of this. The money is there. You also need to look inside yourself. The city council is supposed to solve problem. You have wasted $25 million trying to move it away. Basically, you have a decision to invest in your people.”
Another speaker was Ankit Panchal who formerly managed and works with the owners of the hotel said, “Let’s clarify some of the false narratives. There was an appraisal that was done by the City in 2025. Cost to build a room? $300,000 for a brand, new hotel room. So, this is a bargain. This project was conditionally approved and signed by the City. If the City pulls out, will it cost the city thousands or millions?”
“The City of Antioch has a golf course,” he stated offering a funding option. “40,000 rounds of golf times four is 160,000. I believe each golfer can afford $5 extra for around of golf. That’s $800,000 per year. There’s your funding, right there.”
Former Antioch School Board Trustee Diane Gibson-Gray who said, “You’re deficit spending. So, you’re living on savings. We’re going to be sued if there’s fights.”
“What happens if the operator goes out of business?” she asked. “If you want to spend $14,500 per unit, spend it here in Antioch. I’m sure there’s some good things you could do with that money. “
Torres-Walker spoke via Zoom as a resident saying, “Wow. Tonight, has been very interesting. We have a city that is divided on a moral issue. We have months if not years to address this issue. The city invested in Opportunity Village…in clearing encampments. You have a large moral dilemma.”
She spoke of the City not having a strategy for economic development or staffing.
“I don’t know what the solution is, tonight.” Torres-Walker continued. “If I was there tonight and had the opportunity to vote, I would vote to move forward.”
Opportunity should live here in Antioch for everybody,” she stated.
“Whatever decision you make tonight…think about me and my neighbors who have to live with them every day. Support Homekey,” she concluded.
The council again voted to extend the meeting, this time for another hour until 12:30 AM. It passed 4-0.
All other public comments were in favor of the project.
Council Questions, Discussion and Decision
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was first to speak saying, “When this process started, I supported this application….because of the significant dollars from the state coming to our city for permanent, supportive housing.”
He spoke of the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that help keep people in their homes.
“I thought the $34.9 million would come to the City to offset our costs. But in time I learned that would go to the property for rehabilitation,” he continued.
“There’s no disagreement to do what we can to help our neighbors, the unhoused community,” Rocha stated. “What I think about is being a steward of taxpayer dollars.”
“I was thinking 84 beds, that would be about a third of our homeless. But the…system has a wait list throughout the county. It’s a regional problem, not just here in Antioch,” he shared. “We’re not in a position to take on a long-term commitment of taxpayer dollars,”
“What I’ve heard is partnering with neighboring communities. But that hasn’t transpired.”
“What I’m hearing from residents in District 2 and beyond, is do something with funding…but when it comes down to taxpayer dollars, that’s the part I’m struggling with.
“I don’t see money coming in to offset the deficits next year and the years that follow,” he concluded.
District 3 Councilman Don Freitas spoke next saying, “There isn’t a simple solution to many of the problems and questions asked tonight. When the council did decide to go forward it was based on the information we had at that time. We thought the information was complete and comprehensive. I voted for it. Although, unfortunately, afterwards a lot of questions came up and more and more, without answers. Our regional partners have tried to respond and give us answers.”
“A lot of speakers say, ‘it’s $35 million. What’s you’re problem? Just accept it.’ Fiscal responsibility is not a negative thing. Bankruptcy is not a wonderful thing,” he continued. “We have to make decisions individually and collectively for the 120,000 people we represent.”
“Let’s spend millions of dollars on this project knowing it’s irresponsible, knowing some future city council will have to declare bankruptcy,” Freitas stated. “We took no pleasure in cutting…and using reserves, $5 million last year, $5 million this year…and with a $15 million deficit for the next fiscal year. That’s why we’re so concerned…in August, we will begin to focus on the budget so the City will not go into bankruptcy.”
“Having receivership is not something we would welcome in this community,” he continued.
“I would love to address the homelessness in the City of Antioch. This Homekey project doesn’t guarantee it,” Freitas stated. “We can go ahead and spend $19 million for the next 15 years and the impact that we will have to spend money to oversee how we’re spending money. I just can’t understand why there’s such a fight in this community and division, and frankly, a lot of hatred…coming to us, because we want fiscal responsibility.”
“I agree with what Nichole Gardner said. ‘If not this, what are we going to do to figure this out?’ For me, Homekey+ application is not it,” he stated.
“We’re going to spend $15 million to buy a property that’s in foreclosure. Really?” the councilman asked. “We could go through all of this and not one homeless Antioch person would be helped. Not one. That is not acceptable to me. This is not the right project at the right time with the consequences. So, I believe the prudent response is the second option.”
Some in the audience then erupted into chants of “Fight, fight, fight. Housing is a human right.”
“Not helpful,” Freitas responded.
“This report, if you read it in its entirety, you’ll see it’s not a good project,” he added.
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “I need to hear from staff, particularly the city manager, why Councilwoman Torres-Walker wasn’t in this meeting tonight. She’s been the number one advocate here and we did not hear her voice, tonight and I find it very disrespectful. She let staff know over a month ago.”
“If we don’t do this, what are we going to do?” she asked “What we’re currently doing is not working. It’s a crisis on the street. We need to figure something out because people email us every day. People call us every day. They’re concerned about homeless, because they don’t want to see it. We can’t turn our backs on this population…because other cities have pushed their problems. I refuse to be a problem pusher.”
“Somebody bought that hotel and fixed it up. But we didn’t help it. We didn’t utilize it,” Wilson continued and then mentioned it’s going to be fenced in and boarded up.
“I’m probably going to be the only one to still support Homekey,” she concluded.
Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next saying, “In 2021, the city council developed and adopted policies how we’re going to help homeless. Those still stand. In December 2023…it provided specific tactics and strategies how staff was going to help homeless in the City of Antioch. We spent $500,000 to develop those plans. To say there’s no plan is wrong. We are doing aspects of that plan, with ERF (state Encampment Resolution Funds) to help 30 or 40 homeless off the streets. We are not doing nothing.”
“Let me thank staff for doing that, because it wasn’t council,” Wilson interjected.
“Yes. It was staff,” Bernal responded.
“Other cities do not use their General Fund monies for these programs,” he continued. “When this program came forward it required General Fund monies which are very precious. We faced a $54 million budget…I didn’t think we could commit $1.2 million per year. At that time, I was the only ‘no’ vote. So, I’ve been the bad guy which is fine. Because I don’t think we can add…to our deficit. That’s with 15 vacancies…deferring all of our $4 million in roof project. We have a building across the street that’s going to cost…I don’t know why we have that.”
“We as a city do not have the resources at this time to make a long-term commitment…up to $18 million in the future,” Bernal stated.
“We have a permanent housing element that with discussion with regional opportunities…I’ve reached out to other cities and there is not an appetite…for people to commit money to what people often believe is Antioch’s problem,” he shared.
“This project is not going to solve homelessness in Antioch,” Bernal continued. “This is a very expensive proposition which is going to help people, but Antioch does not have the funds.”
“My position is to rescind the Homekey funding,” he concluded.
Bernal then made the motion to rescind the prior authorization and withdraw from the project. Rocha seconded the motion and it passed 3-1 with Wilson voting against and Torres-Walker absent.
(For more background on the project see related articles here, here, here and here).
Torres-Walker Speaks During Public Comments at End of Meeting
Torres-Walker then called in again during the Public Comments at the end of the meeting.
“In advance of the meeting, I submitted all the necessary documents to participate,” she said. “It speaks to the disfunction. This is in no way a sleight to Acting City Manager Cortez. So, I don’t blame Ms. Cortez for not posting my location within 72 hours before the meeting.”
“Ms. Scott is not coming back, and we are in desperate need of quality leadership,” the councilwoman added.
To discuss Sheriff’s Office response to ICE civil immigration enforcement activities
By Kristi Jourdan, PIO, Contra Costa County & Jimmy Lee, PIO, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office
(Martinez, CA) – The Contra Costa County TRUTH Act Community Forum to discuss civil immigration enforcement activities is scheduled for 10 a.m., Tuesday, Aug. 25, during the regular Board of Supervisors meeting.
The forum discussion will present Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office 2025 data on responses to ICE Requests for Notification for serious and/or violent offenders currently in custody, in compliance with state law. The annual forum has been held since 2017 in accordance with California’s Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, which requires local jurisdictions to hold a public forum and report on certain interactions with federal immigration authorities.
Jourdan and Lee were asked why they are referred to as, “civil immigration enforcement activities” when the forum will discuss “responses to ICE Requests for Notification for serious and/or violent offenders currently in custody” and shouldn’t they be considered criminal immigration enforcement activities.
Jourdan responded, “we use ‘civil immigration enforcement’ in alignment with the definition of ‘ICE access’ under section 7283(d).”
“The annual TRUTH Act forum reflects our commitment to strengthening trust through open dialogue,” said Board Chair Diane Burgis, District 3 Supervisor. “By creating a space for the public to ask questions, hear information directly from local law enforcement, and share their concerns, we ensure these conversations are grounded in transparency that keeps our community informed and engaged.”
Before subjecting an individual in its custody to an interview by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a local law enforcement entity shall provide the individual with a written consent form, in a language that is understandable to the individual, that explains all of the following:
The purpose of the interview;
That the interview is voluntary; and
That he or she may decline the interview or may choose to be interviewed only with his or her attorney present.
Upon receiving any detainer, notification, or transfer request, the local law enforcement agency shall:
Provide a copy of the request to the individual; and
Inform the individual whether the law enforcement agency intends to comply with the request.
If a local law enforcement agency chooses to provide ICE with notification that an individual will be released from custody on a certain date, the local law enforcement agency must promptly provide the same notification in writing to the individual and to his or her attorney or other person designated by the individual being held.
All records relating to ICE access provided by local law enforcement agencies, including all communication with ICE, are public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act, but to protect the privacy of individuals, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure.”
Ways to Participate:
Attend the forum in person on August 25 at 1025 Escobar St. in Martinez
Provide comments or questions in person, by phone, or Zoom during the meeting, or provide public comment in advance by emailing it to TRUTHAct@cob.cccounty.us or mailing it to the Clerk of the Board, 1025 Escobar St., 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553.
Whole You, Powered by Spring Health, extends personalized mental health care to more than 245,000 California state employees across 153 departments
By Kristina Piersanti, 5W PR for Spring Health
SACRAMENTO, Calif., — California’s firefighters, police officers, parks departments, correctional staff, and many others spend their careers keeping communities safe and helping people through their worst days. Nationally, first responders develop PTSD at up to ten times the rate of the general population, according to a 2025 meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychology Review[1]. It’s a toll that builds quietly over the routine weight of emergency response and is compounded during high-intensity stretches like fire season.
The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) is now providing the state’s employees and their families access to Whole You, Powered by Spring Health, CalHR’s new Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offering confidential, personalized support for care, crisis needs, work-life challenges, and everyday wellbeing. A lifelong mental health platform, Spring Health will deliver mental health care to more than 245,000 California state employees across 153 departments, and their eligible family members.
First responders receive the most extensive tier of care under the new program, delivered by trauma-informed providers with direct experience in first responder roles. Support staff within CalFire, the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation also receive an elevated level of support, reflecting the higher-stress nature of their roles. The State’s 153,000 administrative or desk-based staff will also receive support under the new program.
CalHR was drawn to Spring Health’s proven outcomes, not just improved access. According to research published in OJPHI and JAMA Network Open, 92% of members reliably improve or recover from depression or anxiety, and members recover 5.9 weeks faster than the leading competitor, with appointments available in less than two days on average, compared to a 48-day average with traditional EAPs.
“First responders put themselves in harm’s way over and over again to protect the communities they serve. That takes a toll not just on them, but on their families too,” said George Michaels, Chief Revenue Officer at Spring Health. “Partnering with CalHR to support more than 245,000 state employees is exactly the kind of large-scale, public-sector commitment we built Spring Health to deliver on, and we’re honored to help deliver the mental health support they and their families deserve.”
“When people go to work, they shouldn’t have to leave their hearts at home,” said Shannon MacGregor, Statewide Employee Assistance Program Manager at the California Department of Human Resources. “Our first responders carry things most of us never have to. Whole You is our commitment that when they need support, it’s there — fast, confidential and built around what they’ve actually experienced.”
Whole You, Powered by Spring Health, is available now to California state employees and their eligible dependents through their department’s benefits resources. For more information on Spring Health’s lifelong mental health platform, visit our webpage.
About Spring Health
Spring Health is a global mental health company built on one AI-native platform so care follows individuals across every job, move, health plan, and life stage. Independently validated by JAMA Network Open and the Validation Institute, with 92% of members reliably improved or recovered from depression or anxiety and employers seeing a 52% reduction in total mental health claims costs, Spring Health provides personalized lifelong mental health support across self-guided tools, coaching, therapy, medication management, and specialty care. More than 170 million people worldwide have access to Spring Health, which is trusted by leading employers, health plans, and channel partners, including Highmark, Target, The Coca-Cola Company, BlackRock, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Wawa.
[1]Arena, A.F., Gregory, M., Collins, D.A.J., Vilus, B., Bryant, R., Harvey, S.B., & Deady, M. (2025). Global PTSD prevalence among active first responders and trends over recent years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 120, 102622.
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 former Comfort Inn, now Antioch Inn & Suites, is being considered for the Homekey+ program to house the homeless at a cost of up to $1.2 million per year. Photo courtesy of Mike Barbanica
Before deciding to accept or reject State Homekey+funding
City staff answer councilmembers’ questions; can only use 15% of CDBG funds to cover the up to $1.2 million annual commitment
By Allen D. Payton
As agreed to during their meeting this past Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will hold a study session Monday, June 29th, to discuss and get questions answered regarding the State Homekey+ funding for the Mahogany Housing Project at the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly Comfort Inn. It will help the council members determine whether they will vote to accept or reject the $34.9 million grant at their next regular meeting on July 28th.
The City would have to commit an initial $750,000 already included in next year’s budget, plus, up to an additional $1.2 million per year for the next five for $6.75 million total and as many as 15 years for a total City commitment of $18.75 million. The State and City funds will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the hotel on Mahogany Way, for approximately 84 units of permanent supportive housing.
On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
However, Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked if the other 40 rooms would still be rented for public hotel accommodations. Another question asked by District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha, that City staff did not have an answer for, was what would happen if a future council chooses to not continue the program. Those are just two of the questions the council members want answered before they vote.
As previously reported, following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”
“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May, 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”
“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”
Staff Answers questions
In the City staff report for the item, SM-1 on the agenda, they answered a variety of the council members’ questions.
HOMEKEY+ AWARD STATUS
The project received a conditional award in March 2026. The Acceptance of Terms was signed by both the City and CSH on March 17, 2026.
The award letter indicates that the representations made in the application are the basis for the award. HCD has been preparing the Standard Agreement, which is the final contract document for the award. The Standard Agreement has not been presented to the City as of the writing of this staff report.
HCD TIMELINES & PROJECT MILESTONES
“One of the primary questions raised by Council was related to timelines required by HCD. To staff’s knowledge, there does not appear to be an immediate concrete deadline.
“However, HCD described a series of project milestones tied to the award letter, Standard Agreement, construction, rehabilitation, and lease-up schedule. The longer the City delays execution and project advancement, the more difficult it becomes for the project to meet the milestones contemplated in the award and the Homekey+ Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Homekey+ is designed to support the relatively rapid development of permanent supportive housing, and HCD expressed concern regarding the amount of time that has passed since issuance of the March 2026 conditional award.
In simple terms, staff understands the timeline issue as follows:
The City has received a conditional award.
The acceptance of award terms was signed.
HCD is preparing or has prepared the Standard Agreement.
Project milestones are tied to execution and project delivery.
Delay does not automatically terminate the award today, but continued delay increases risk to the award and project schedule.
PROJECT CONFIGURATION & UNIT COUNT
“The existing Comfort Inn currently contains 123 hotel rooms. Under the proposed Homekey+ project, the property would be rehabilitated and reconfigured into a total of 85 residential units, consisting of 84 permanent supportive housing units and one on-site manager’s unit. The reduction in the total number of units does not represent unused space or hotel rooms that would continue operating for transient lodging. Rather, the rehabilitation combines multiple existing hotel rooms to create larger, code-compliant residential units while also incorporating the infrastructure necessary for permanent supportive housing, including kitchenettes, accessibility improvements, property management offices, supportive service and case management offices, community gathering space, laundry facilities, recreation areas and other resident amenities.”
PROPERTY STATUS & REPORTED LOAN DEFAULT
The staff report also shares, “Council and members of the public raised concerns regarding news reports that the
property is associated with a loan default. Since the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting, staff has received additional information directly from the lending institution regarding the status of the loan.
“According to the lender, while a Notice of Default has been filed against the property, there is currently no foreclosure or trustee sale scheduled. The lender advised that it is actively working with the property owner to facilitate the sale of the hotel for the Homekey+ project and is aware that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has awarded funding for the project. The lender further indicated that it will work cooperatively with the borrower, project partners, and the City to facilitate the transaction and is aligned with HCD’s project timeline.”
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ONGOING HOMELESS SERVICES:
The staff report also offers some other funding sources for homeless services. However, one source can’t be used, and the City can only use 15 percent of its annual Community Development Block Grant funds, which was suggested by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker.
“During Council discussion, questions were raised regarding whether existing City, State, or Federal funding sources could be used to offset the potential ongoing operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project. Staff evaluated several potential funding sources and summarized the findings below.
“Staff evaluated several existing funding sources to determine whether they could realistically offset the City’s projected operating commitment. While each funding source could potentially contribute to project operations, each carries statutory limitations or would require significant reductions to existing programs currently serving Antioch residents. Accordingly, none of the identified funding sources currently provides a complete replacement for the projected operating subsidy without corresponding impacts to existing City priorities.”
Housing Successor Funds
“The City currently allocates approximately $500,000 annually in Housing Successor funds toward homeless services, subject to available fund balance…these funds are expected to remain available for approximately two to three additional years.
“Redirecting the entire annual homeless services allocation to support Homekey+ operations would require discontinuing or significantly reducing programs currently serving approximately 2,688 homeless and at-risk Antioch residents through eight community-based organizations. It would also eliminate or significantly reduce funding for tenant-landlord mediation, eviction prevention, emergency rental assistance, legal services for tenants facing eviction, and a City staff position currently dedicated to housing services.”
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
“Federal regulations limit CDBG public service expenditures to 15 percent of the City’s annual allocation. Based on recent grant awards, this equates to approximately $127,500 annually, although the amount varies each year.
“Using the City’s entire public service allocation for Homekey+ operations would eliminate funding for the City’s competitive public service grant program during that funding cycle, affecting approximately 13 nonprofit organizations currently serving at least 1,655 Antioch residents, including programs supporting seniors, individuals with disabilities, youth, victims of abuse and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, such a change would require a Substantial Amendment to the City’s HUD Consolidated Plan, completion of a federal public participation process, and would not be available until the next funding cycle.
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
“The City receives approximately $350,000 annually through the State’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program. State requirements dedicate a significant portion of these funds to housing rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, accessory dwelling units, and administration. Approximately 55 percent of the annual allocation (roughly $190,000 annually) could potentially be directed toward homelessness-related activities through the City’s next five-year PLHA planning process.
“However, redirecting these funds would require reducing or eliminating other housing priorities currently supported through PLHA, including affordable homeownership assistance and housing rehabilitation programs. Any change would require HCD approval and completion of the City’s next required five-year planning process.
“Staff also evaluated whether the HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program could be used to finance ongoing Homekey+ operations. Section 108 is intended to finance capital improvements, including housing acquisition and rehabilitation, public facilities, infrastructure improvements, and economic development projects. It is not an eligible funding source for ongoing supportive services, staffing, case management, or annual operating expenses. As a result, Section 108 could potentially support future capital improvements but cannot be used to fund the City’s proposed operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project.”
QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE SUMMARY
1. Is the award final or conditional? Not yet. HCD has issued a conditional award of $34.9 million and the project has advanced beyond the application stage. However, the project is not yet fully finalized because the Standard Agreement has not been fully executed and other program requirements must still be satisfied before grant funds may be disbursed.
2. Has the City already accepted the award? The City previously executed and returned the Conditional Award Acceptance acknowledging the terms and conditions of the award. HCD has confirmed that this document does not, by itself, obligate the City to execute the Standard Agreement or proceed with the project. Execution of the Standard Agreement remains the action that commits the parties to the grant.
3. Does the City have to pay $1.2 million immediately?
No. The operating subsidy is tied to project operations and is not expected to begin until the project is operational, currently anticipated in 2027.
4. What happens if the City declines? If the City elects not to execute the Standard Agreement, HCD would likely rescind the Homekey+ award and the current project would not proceed under this funding allocation. HCD has advised that declining an award could be considered during evaluation of future competitive funding applications; however, any effect on future scoring would depend on the specific funding program and evaluation criteria in place at that time.
5. How does the current loan default affect the project? Based upon discussions between the City’s legal counsel, project representatives, and parties associated with the existing financing, the reported loan default appears to involve the current property owner rather than the Homekey+ project itself. While it may affect the timing or structure of the acquisition, HCD has advised that acquisition through foreclosure, receivership, negotiated purchase, or other lawful means may still be possible. The developer continues to evaluate acquisition options with the lender and trustee.
6. Is this a loan? No. HCD described Homekey+ as a grant program. The City’s obligation is related to its role as co-applicant, payee, and proposed local contributor.
7. Who receives and administers funds? HCD indicated the City is required to be the payee. Specific disbursement controls may be established through escrow or other approved structures.
8. Who gets housed? Residents would be referred to through approved eligibility and referral systems, not through open walk-in access. The final tenant selection and referral process must comply with Homekey+, fair housing, and coordinated entry requirements.
9. Can Antioch residents be prioritized? This requires additional legal and programmatic clarification. County partners have indicated that some projects have used lawful local targeting approaches, but final structure must comply with fair housing and funding requirements.
10. What public safety measures will be in place? The final operations plan should include property management, staffing, service coordination, resident expectations, security protocols, and coordination with APD and County partners.
A Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. will be held to again negotiate contracts with City employee groups who have been working without one since last fall including the Management Unit, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association. The study session will begin at 6:30 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.
No changes in new leaders elected, countywide ballot measures
But lead change in 14th Assembly District second place for November run-off
By Allen D. Payton
According to the Contra Costa Elections Division, with the seven-day deadline to receive mail-in ballots passed on Tuesday and only 2,100 ballots remaining to be processed and 4,000 ballots to be cured, the results are confirmed as of June 10th at 3:23 p.m.: three new leaders have been elected, three re-elected, one ballot measure passed and two failed. A total of 323,422 ballots were cast in the county resulting in a 44.21% turnout.
Plus, according to the California Secretary of State as of 7:25 p.m., second place in two of the closest races in the state have been determined, including one lead change since last Friday’s update.
Source: CCC Elections
County Leader Elections
In the four contested races for countywide positions no changes occurred. Dr. Dana Eaton defeated Dr. Jag Lathan for Superintendent of Schools; Vince Robb defeated his two opponents, Nick Spinner and Kismat Kathrani, for Assessor; Peter Karumbi defeated Deepika Naharas for Auditor-Controller; and incumbent County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Kristin Connelly was re-elected having defeated challenger Pratima Sonavne.
Source: CCC Elections
Countywide Ballot Measures – A Passes, B & G Fail
In the three countywide ballot measure elections, Measure A, the Urban Limit Line renewal, passed overwhelmingly while Measure B, the County’s sales tax increase and Measure G, the college district’s bond, were defeated.
Measure A increased its margin of victory to 70.2% of the vote in favor to 29.8% opposed.
In the Measure B contest, while more “no” than “yes” votes were counted since last Friday’s update and the margin of defeat increased from 36,562 votes to now 41,093, the percentage of defeat decreased from 57.41% to 56.93% of the vote against. Yet, there are not enough votes remaining to be counted in the county for it to pass.
Although the “yes” votes overtook the “no” votes in the Measure G contest and currently lead by 253 votes, it requires 55% of the vote to pass. There are now 50.03% of the vote in favor to 49.97% opposed. Yet, even if all the remaining 6,100 ballots in the county included favorable votes, the bond measure would still fall about 12,000 votes short of passing.
Source: CA Secretary of State
Lead Change in 14th Assembly District
In the race for second place to determine who will face incumbent Democrat Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks in November in the 14th Assembly District, which includes most of West County and portions of Alameda County, a lead change occurred. Green Party candidate Mark Rendon has overtaken Republican Borgar Solnordal by 1,251 votes, a reversal of 2,201 votes since last Friday’s update and 3,336 votes since Election Night.
Source: CA Secretary of State
10th Congressional District
In the second-place contest to determine who will take on incumbent Democrat Rep. Mark DeSaulnier in November in the 10th Congressional District, which includes most of Contra Costa and portions of Alameda County, Republican Jeff Frese has 3,077 more votes than third-time candidate Katherine Piccinini. He increased his lead by 121 votes since the last update and 233 since Election Night.
The mystery candidate has a website, Facebook page with two followers, X/Twitter feed with zero followers and an Instagram account with one post and one follower as of June 10th. But Frese does not provide a photo of himself or description of what he does for work as a Small Business Owner, which is his ballot designation. Only an email address is provided. An effort to reach him comment about his advancing to the General Election and details about his business were unsuccessful prior to publication time.
Estimated number of unprocessed ballots in Contra Costa County:
Ballots voted at a voting location – 0
Vote-by-mail ballots received on or before Election Day – 0
Vote-by-mail ballots received after Election Day – 0
According to the Secretary of State, “State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to the Secretary of State by July 3, 2026. The Secretary of State has until July 10, 2026, to certify the results of the election.”
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
The governor included $1.7 billion in his allocation to K-12 and community colleges, but is keeping $3.9 billion until next year.
Newsom would raise the statutory minimum COLA from 2.87% to 4.31%.
The revised budget reduces the cost-of-living adjustment for the California State Preschool Program to 2.01% from the January proposal of 2.41%.
With one contentious exception, school districts can check off most items on their wish list for 2026-27 with the release on Thursday of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised state budget.
Newsom is proposing to target unexpected billions of dollars from surging state revenues to the priorities that school district leaders had prized, including a higher cost-of-living adjustment, billions of dollars more annually for special education, and a one-time, much larger discretionary block grant.
Also, all employees of community colleges and TK-12 schools will be entitled to up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave beginning in 2026-27, which the higher COLA will pay for.
But there remains a major point of contention: Newsom is still withholding $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 funding that school organizations say should go to schools and community colleges now.
School districts had complained loudly that their base funding hadn’t kept up with rising expenses, particularly special education and declining enrollment. Amid overall record state funding, Newsom prioritized new initiatives, including the addition of transitional kindergarten, the creation of community schools and expanded learning after school and during the summer.
“People were looking for base money in their pocket,” said Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. “The attention to a higher COLA and special education is welcome news.”
Source: EdSource.org
Ted Lempert, president of the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, said, “Big picture, the May revision puts $8.1 billion more than the January budget into education. While it’s not perfect, we really appreciate it. The governor and Legislature have done a better job in the last couple of years of protecting funding. That said, kids are still way behind.”
Tempering praise for the higher COLA and special education funding, California School Boards Association President Debra Schade said in a statement, “Unfortunately, the Governor’s May Revise masks the underfunding of the Proposition 98 school funding guarantee and the prolific use of one-time money to inflate funding levels in the short term without providing the stability and predictability schools need to plan effectively for student support. “
In his January budget, Newsom said he would withhold $5.6 billion from schools and community colleges until he was certain, early in 2027, that state revenue had actually come through. Schools objected, and the California Teachers Association and the school boards association have threatened to sue on the principle that the Prop. 98 allocations are a voter-approved constitutional guarantee.
In the May revision, Newsom included $1.7 billion in his allocation, but is still keeping $3.9 billion until early next year, when the next governor can reassess. This continues to frustrate school organizations.
“ACSA rejects the Administration’s proposal, as these funds belong in classrooms supporting students,” said Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators. “As budget negotiations move forward, ACSA will continue advocating for a final budget that fully honors the state’s constitutional commitment to public education.”
CTA President David Goldberg said withholding the funds “causes serious harm to public schools. This means overcrowded, under-resourced, destabilized classrooms.” This week, he said, “more than 2,000 educators will find out if their layoff notice is permanent heading into the next school year … and their future is in jeopardy with threats to withhold vital funds from our local school districts.”
Asked about the issue during a state budget presentation Thursday, Newsom said education advocates should take a wider view.
“We made some accommodation to that concern, and I would just have them look at the entire balance sheet and be hard-pressed to find an administration over a seven-year period that’s invested more in transforming our TK — a brand new grade — to 12 education system,” Newsom told reporters “(We’ve made) unprecedented, historic investments per pupil, investments that are the envy of many other states.”
The revised funding estimate for Proposition 98, the 40% of the state general fund that must go to TK-12 and community colleges, would be a record $127.1 billion in 2026-27. Per student funding would increase to a record $21,013 per pupil. Funding per pupil from federal and other sources would be $28,282.
That overall revenue estimate, however, would appear at least several billion dollars less than the Senate and the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office had forecast. The May revision marks the starting line for a final dash toward the Legislature’s June 15 deadline, followed by negotiations between Newsom and legislative leaders, with final passage by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.
Laird said that including the withheld $3.9 billion for schools and community colleges will be one of the items. Additional revenue projections, based on May tax receipts, will be a factor.
The table presents proposed and revised budget year expenditures for each agency area. These totals are comprised of State funds which include General Fund, special funds, and selected bond funds. These totals do not include federal funds, other non-governmental cost funds, or reimbursements. Source: Office of the California Governor
Here are some budget specifics:
COLA: Newsom would raise the statutory minimum COLA of 2.87%, determined by a federal formula that does not consider the price of housing, to 4.31%. The effect would raise COLA for districts’ operating expenses, through the Local Control Funding Formula, from $3.1 billion proposed in January to $4 billion. Other programs, including special education, would get the statutory COLA of 2.87%
The 4.31% would become the new base for determining COLA calculations in future years.
SPECIAL EDUCATION: State and federal special education fall well short of districts’ obligations for students with disabilities. Additional state funding for special education offsets districts’ base expenses. Newsom would add $1.8 billion to the extra $509 million increase he proposed in January for a total of $2.4 billion — 43% more than a year ago.
Newsom characterized it as “the largest investment in special education in California’s history … maybe in American history.”
“It’s an area that has continued to be anxiety-inducing because you meet with parents, and they’re demanding more, and we’ve heard that call,” he said.
BLOCK GRANT: In January, Newsom proposed a one-time $2.8 billion grant; he has raised it to $5 billion. He calls it the Student Support and Professional Development Block Grant, and implies it should be used for teacher training for math, reading and literacy support for English learners, along with career pathways and expanding dual enrollment. But districts will have wide latitude to spend the money as they choose.
RAINY DAY FUND: Newsom would raise the Proposition 98 reserve to $10.3 billion, approaching the statutory maximum, as a cushion in the event of a recession or if the spigot of projected revenues from tax receipts from AI startups runs dry.
John Affeldt, managing attorney for Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, warned that the state should plan for that to happen. “Our state cannot continue to rely on temporary AI stock market bubbles,” he said. “To build a budget that will enable our residents to thrive, California needs more robust permanent revenue streams to support our schools and healthy communities. We cannot ask teachers to transform students’ lives while those same teachers are being priced out of the communities they serve.”
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: Newsom would add $1 billion to the $4.1 billion previously invested in creating 2,500 community schools, which provide community partnerships involving wellness, mental health and career opportunities. His May revision would also repurpose nearly $500 million in extension grants to add more community schools.
“We lead and dominate the nation in community schools,” Newsom said Thursday.
LITERACY AND MATH INSTRUCTION: Since 2019, the state has funded $715 million to hire and train reading specialists and coaches in high-poverty schools — a key element in the state’s comprehensive early literacy plan. But that money, in one-time grants, will expire over the next three years. Newsom proposes $440 million to extend the grants through 2031.
He would also add $60 million to the $30 million funded last year for the Mathematics Professional Learning Partnership, which is creating a statewide network to train coaches and math specialists in the 2023 math framework. Still missing: funding for elementary schools to hire coaches.
Newsom is also encouraging districts to use some of the $5 billion in the discretionary block grant for literacy and math instruction.
Early education and care
In his presentation, the governor largely overlooked early education and child care. The proposal allocates $15 million toward training to help with the implementation of programs such as Transitional Kindergarten and $5 million in ongoing funding to support the use of the Multitudes dyslexia screener at no cost to districts.
But the revised budget reduces the cost-of-living adjustment for the California State Preschool Program to 2.01% from the January proposal of 2.41%. The governor also did not address calls from early education advocates to help support pre-K programs that have been struggling after losing large numbers of children to the new TK programs offered by the state’s public schools.
Patricia Lozano, executive director of Early Edge California, a nonprofit organization that advocates for accessible, high-quality early learning, said the reduction to the cost-of-living adjustment sends a troubling signal to providers who are already operating on the margins.
“Access to affordable child care isn’t just an early learning issue, it’s essential to families’ economic well-being,” she said. “The governor has been a strong champion for children during his years in office, and we’ll be urging the Administration and the Legislature to fulfill the promise of funding additional child care slots and restoring COLA before the budget is finalized.”
In particular, the governor’s plan to significantly increase the cost-of-living allowance for TK-12 schools while cutting it for preschools drew fire.
“He decided to backstop health premiums and local schools, while punting on aiding families who desperately search for affordable child care,” said Bruce Fuller, who co-authored a new report from the UC Berkeley Equity and Excellence in Early Childhood alliance on the dire outlook many pre-K programs are facing.
Lempert, of Children Now, said he hoped the cuts to the early education COLA would be reversed by the Legislature in the final budget.
the STATE BUDGET PROCESS
Governor’s initial budget proposal:
Must be released by Jan. 10.
Assumes an estimate of revenues the state will collect over the next 18 months (by June 30, 2027). Actual revenues often differ significantly due to economic conditions, federal policy and unforeseen events, such as the destructive fires in Los Angeles.
MAY 14 revision:
Governor issues May budget with revised general fund revenues, including its impact on Proposition 98.
LATE MAY to EARLY JUNE:
Legislature’s budget subcommittees report to the full budget committees.
JUNE 15:
Constitutional deadline for the Legislature to pass the budget bill.
MID-JUNE TO LATE JUNE:
Negotiations between the Assembly speaker and the Senate president pro tempore with the governor; the Legislature passes the final budget, and the governor signs it before the fiscal year starts on July 1.
Legislature’s response:
The Assembly and Senate have until June 15 to hold hearings and respond with their own version.
Negotiation:
Behind closed doors, legislative leaders and the governor settle differences. Lawmakers sign off, and the governor signs the final version.
Governors have increasingly used the budget to rewrite statutes outside the legislative process. That’s why it’s important to read the fine print in massive “budget trailer bills” written after the budget is passed.
About 40% of the state’s general fund will go to schools and community colleges. The bulk goes to keeping schools running, but in some years, new money is spent on new programs, such as transitional kindergarten and community schools.
