Plus, 30 more police emergency radios; postpones contract expansion with U.S. DOJ police department monitor

Mayor Bernal participates remotely without prior notification but allowed due to “contagious illness”

 “I want to get Flock out of Antioch,” Councilwoman Torres-Walker said then voted for the new AI-assisted license plate reader system.

By Allen D. Payton

During their Tuesday night meeting, Aug. 25, 2026, the Antioch City Council approved the purchase of AI-assisted technology systems for the police department, a one-year 3% COLA pay raise for police officers, traffic calming devices for Sycamore Drive and 30 more police emergency radios. The council postponed approving the contract expansion with U.S. DOJ police department monitor. They also received some good news about the City’s investments, received and approved the 2025 Annual Military Equipment Report from the police department and approved the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Bernal Participates Remotely Due to Illness

Only three council members attended in-person with Mayor Ron Bernal participating remotely, but his location was not included in the agenda as was required of District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker during the last two meetings. She participated remotely in the last council meeting from a resort and spa in Santa Cruz after proper notification. That followed her being denied the opportunity to participate in the prior meeting due to an error by Acting City Manager Ana Cortez, even though the councilwoman did provide her location prior to the meeting as required. However, different rules applied this time because Bernal was sick. (See related articles here, here and here)

Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas presided over the meeting, with only Torres-Walker and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha in attendance and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson absent.

At the beginning of Tuesday’s meetings, which started with a Closed Session at 3:30 p.m., Bernal was asked to confirm his attendance by Freitas. The mayor, via Zoom said, “I affirm my attendance. I, Ron Bernal, Mayor of the City of Antioch, am unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to a contagious illness and am appearing remotely under just cause pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953.8.3. My wife, Irma, will be the only person, the only adult in the room with me and I will participate via both audio and visual technology throughout the entirety of the meeting. Mr. City Clerk, I ask that you please record my remote appearance under just cause, in the official meeting minutes for the record. Thank you.”

“So noted,” City Clerk Michael Mandy responded.

“And your attendance, roll call,” Freitas asked.

“My attendance is remote tonight so Mayor Pro Tem Freitas will be presiding over tonight’s meeting,” Bernal added.

“It is affirmative,” Freitas responded.

“The mayor has confirmed his attendance,” Mandy stated.

“I am present,” Bernal responded.

The council then entered Closed Session to discuss employee group contracts and nine potential lawsuits. That was followed by a Special Meeting Study Session on the Fiscal Year 2027-28 General Fund Budget at 5:30 p.m. which was followed by the Regular Meeting.

Regular Meeting

Bernal repeated his confirmation to participate remotely at the beginning of the Regular Meeting which was again noted by Mandy.

City Attorney Lori Asuncion said there was nothing to report out from Closed Session.

Sales Tax Citizens Oversight Committee Appointment

The council then moved up Item 8 the appointment of Loretta Ezeife to the Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee after Item 2 on the agenda. She was appointed on a 4-0 vote of the council. Ezeife then offered remarks and thanked the mayor for nominating her and was given the oath of office by City Clerk Mandy while she was surrounded by her family members.

The council, under Item 5, received the Investment Performance Review presented by Justin Ressuelo, Institutional Sales and Relationship Manager of PFM Asset Management, the City’s advisors. The report shows the City has experienced Accrual Basis Earnings from its investments of almost $51 million over the past 10 years and earned $1.2 million in interest over the past three months, $4.9 million over the past year and $13.7 million over the past three years.

Traffic Calming Devices on Sycamore Drive

Rocha wanted to know why the traffic calming devices proposed for Sycamore Drive, under Item 6.H. on the Consent Calendar, were moved up ahead of those proposed for James Donlon Blvd.

“It will go out (for bid) this fall. Give us a year and we’ll have things laid out a bit better,” Public Works Director Scott Buenting stated.

Bernal asked about other traffic calming throughout town in response to complaints about sideshows in intersections throughout the city.

“They’re not built into the traffic calming,” Buenting responded, “We’re working through some geometry about that. It’s not a one-size-fits-all. Most likely it’s going to be bringing out something in the middle of the intersection like a speed bump. These would be done with bolt-down apparatus. I want to get something rolled out here fairly soon…in a couple different areas…that need some sideshow deterrent.”

The Council then voted 4-0 to award the construction agreement to Martinez-based Cowan & Thompson Construction, Inc. in the amount of $488,511.94, with a $25,000 contingency for a total contract amount of $513,511.94 for the Sycamore Drive Traffic Calming Improvements Project. The devices will be placed in eight segments along the street and will include signs and raised traffic separator curb guidance systems with quick release delineator bases.

Council Postpones Decision on DOJ Settlement Agreement Monitoring Consultant

Under Item 6.K. on the Consent Calendar agenda, regarding paying for the monitoring consultant required by the settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) turned out to be a surprisingly controversial matter as Freitas expressed his adamant opposition.

According to the City staff report for the item, following the U.S. DOJ investigation into the Antioch Police Department beginning in April 2023, regarding text messages containing racist, sexist and discriminatory language. As a result in January 2025, the City, police department and U.S. DOJ entered into a Memorandum of Agreement requiring implementation of reforms related to constitutional policing, accountability systems, data collection, complaint investigations, community engagement, hiring practices, supervision and oversight.

A key requirement requires the City and U.S. DOJ to jointly select an Independent Consultant to provide technical assistance, compliance monitoring and implementation oversight.

On March 27, 2026, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement in the Allen, et al. civil rights class action lawsuit that incorporates many of the constitutional policing reforms and accountability measures already required under the DOJ Agreement and requires the existing DOJ Monitor also serve as the Monitor under the Allen Settlement Agreement. (See related articles here and here)

The council was asked to approve the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with MS Investigative Services and Consulting, LLC, to expand the scope of services to include Independent Monitoring services required under the Allen Settlement Agreement and authorizing additional compensation of $150,000 annually for monitoring services and the associated Fiscal Year 2026/27 General Fund budget amendment. If approved, the total compensation for the consultant would be $400,000 per year.

Bernal questioned paying the consultant monthly versus hourly.

Antioch Police Captain Shane Bower provided the staff report and answers to the council members’ questions.

“I have a very difficult time with a 71% increase, and I am absolutely opposed to $12,500 quarterly. He could be on vacation for a month and still get the $12,500,” Freitas stated. He also opposed paying the consultant hourly while driving from his home in Martinez to Antioch and instead wanted him to be paid the standard mileage rate.

“This is one of the most expensive consultant’s contract we have,” the Mayor Pro Tem added.

Bernal asked if the invoices can be brought back “to see how the billing has been going, so far.”

“Yes, I can bring that back,” Cortez stated.

“We have a five-year block of time. There’s a lot of additional work,” Bower responded.

“It’s in the report,” Freitas interjected.

“Mr. Sepulveda has already written the draft…that far exceeds the scope,” Bower said.

“It’s not my goal…to delay the satisfaction of the settlement,” Bernal responded.

“I support working with the existing consultant,” District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha stated. “Compensation seems to be the issue. It needs to be resolved.”

“Is that the standard in the City of Antioch? If it is it needs to come back for council discussion,” Freitas said about consultants being paid while driving to Antioch.

“There’s no doubt in my opinion that we need

“A majority of this agreement does not overlap with the DOJ agreement at all,” Police Chief Joe Vigil stated.

“As far as I’m concerned, there are concerns on the other side that we are dragging our feet. I’d hate to see us back in court,” said Torres-Walker.

“If a council member makes a request and it’s ignored, that causes a delay,” Freitas responded. “We also have a fiduciary responsibility, an oversight responsibility. I think those things need to be addressed.”

“I’m suggesting we are at risk of being in violation of the settlement agreement,” Torres-Walker stated and asked for a special meeting to discuss the matter.

Following agreement between Freitas and Cortez, the matter will return to a future council meeting for additional information and action.

Approves Police Department Technology Systems Purchase

Under Item 9. on the agenda, the Council received the staff report from Antioch Police Lt. Michael Mellone on the purchase of AI-assisted automated license plate recognition, in-car camera and integrated public safety technology systems. According to the staff report, the contract includes “55 fixed automated license plate recognition (ALPR) locations using Axon Outpost, six additional Axon Fleet 3 in-car video and mobile ALPR systems, and 120 Axon AI Assistant licenses for the Police Department, for a 49-month term beginning October 1, 2026, in an amount not to exceed $661,687.54.”

“I called for dash cameras so I’m glad there’ll be more of them throughout the city,” Torres-Walker stated. She then asked about Flock license plate recognition cameras and compliance.

“We are at the forefront of being compliant, not only with the Flock license plate readers,” Mellone responded. “We don’t share with ICE or any federal agencies. That data we collect in Antioch is staying here and not being shared with anyone else.”

“I’m excited to see there will be AI translation,” the councilwoman stated.

“It’s really cool. All the officer has to do is push a button on his body-worn camera and choose whatever language…and it will translate one-to-one,” Mellone explained.

During public comments, resident Kimberly Kit Bailey asked if the cameras “are only going to be in…the troubled areas or will they be all over the city?”

“They are in all locations of the city,” Mellone responded. “We try to cover all the major entry and exit points of town. All the major thoroughfares, all the major intersections. We’re not just concentrating on certain, specific neighborhoods.”

The next public speaker was Mike Katz-Lacabe, who said he is the Director of Oakland Privacy, described as “a citizens’ coalition that works statewide to defend the right to privacy, enhance public transparency and promote oversight regarding the use of surveillance techniques and equipment.” He said, “I urge a no vote…because the staff report does not provide enough information…to justify the $660,000. There was no competitive or comparison bidding process.” He also questioned “expansion of the surveillance program” and said APD’s claim that “Motorola is decommissioning their ALPR platform…is highly suspect” because “law enforcement agencies like L.A.P.D. are continuing to purchase and deploy…technology from Motorola.”

Katz-Lacabe further complained the “staff report lacks any analysis of the effectiveness of the currently deployed license plate readers.” He also said the technology could be and is being abused and used to stalk people.

Resident Frank Sterling, speaking via Zoom said, “I am concerned about mass surveillance. I’m learning more about Axon. But one thing I have been following…is the abuses are happening where people are taking advantage of the system. I think the possibility of abuse is still there.”

Mellone responded, “I think there are some very legitimate questions and concerns. I don’t think anyone in this room wants to have their movements tracked with specificity. I don’t think we want to live in that type of society. I know I certainly don’t. It does not track people. It tracks vehicle detections. It doesn’t track driver identity. It does not maintain a live location feed on a person.”

“Only an authorized investigator can review when and where a specific license plate was captured within the (30-day) retention period, and that search must have a legitimate purpose and it’s logged, audited and tracked,” he continued. “The system records a plate image, vehicle content image and visible vehicle characteristics and the time and location of a detection.”

Mellone then mentioned the system’s use in tracking the movements and identification of the driver in last Friday’s major injury hit-and-run collision with a pedestrian.

He also said the information from the system is available to the public.

“I understand the community’s concerns around hyper-surveillance,” Torres-Walker stated. “My position is I want to get Flock out of Antioch and if moving forward with this Axon system is going to do that with potential…reviews along the way and some guardrails to make sure we are not violating civil liberties…then I can support that. My main position right now is I really want to see Flock eliminated,” she reiterated then asked about reporting to the council.

“We’re doing that now,” Mellone stated. “We have a website with the Fock data, in spite of how controversial that is. Anyone can go to our website…we have a transparency portal.” That can be found here: Flock Safety – Antioch CA PD Transparency Portal.

“With the Axon system, it’s a closed system,” he added.

The councilwoman then asked for reasons for the sole source purchase.

Mellone explained, “There are a few reasons. We’re already using Axon’s body-worn cameras. We’re already using their digital evidence platforms. We trusted Axon with our most sensitive digital evidence. We’ve never had a data breach. All of our personnel are trained in that system. I don’t have to run audits on multiple systems.”

Councilman Rocha spoke next saying, “I support the sole-source justification and the way it’s written. It is what’s most attractive to me.”

He then made the motion to approve the purchase, and as Torres-Walker took a moment to consider seconding after Freitas asked if she wanted to, Bernal said, “I’ll second it.”

Before the vote, Freitas asked, “When will they be implemented? The first phase, I guess?”

Mellone responded, “I don’t have the exact information, the timeline. I can report back to council on that. I don’t think it’s going to be a lengthy implementation.”

Referring to Torres-Walker’s comments Freitas then suggested an annual report to the council, “giving us the detailed information, positive or negative” and asked “the maker and seconder of the motion to add that…from the date the system is implemented.”

Both Rocha and Bernal agreed to the amendment to their motion.

Bernal then asked, “What is the timeline for moving away from Flock with this new system?”

“I think a lot of it depends on how soon we can get the new system up and running,” Mellone shared. He said he didn’t want to compromise existing investigations and asked if either he or the chief could return to the council with an implementation schedule. He also mentioned the additional cost for the Flock cameras as another motivation to replace them.

“So, would the Flock cameras go first, then? Would that be the strategy?” Bernal asked.

“I will make sure that the people involved…will replace the Flock cameras as a priority,” Mellone responded.

“The existing Flock contract we have another 12 months,” Chief Vigil stated.

“But we could end that,” Torres-Walker asked.

“I’d have to get with the City Attorney on ending that,” Vigil responded.

Freitas then asked that the police department leaders return in the next few weeks with answers to the council members questions.

The amended motion then passed on a 4-0 vote.

Other Council Action

In other action, the Council voted 4-0 to approve the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The City’s water supply consists primarily of surface water diverted from the San Joaquin River and water purchased from Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Untreated surface water from the San Joaquin River is pumped to the City’s Municipal Reservoir, where it is stored prior to treatment at the City’s Water Treatment Plant. This untreated surface water may also be routed to the Brackish Water Desalination Plant (BWDP).

Plus, except for Items 6.H. and 6.K., the Council also unanimously approved the Consent Calendar which included the following:

Item 6.I. – the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Antioch and the Antioch Police Officers’ Association including a 3% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Fiscal Year 2026-27 at a cost of $661,430 and other matters;

Item 6.G. – the purchase of 30 additional Motorola APX N70 handheld two-way emergency radios for the police department’s communications, including accessories and five years of subscriber and device management services, from Motorola Solutions in an amount not to exceed $300,717.21;

Item 6.J. – received and approved the 2025 Annual Military Equipment Report from the police department. The equipment includes:

1. Armored Rescue Vehicle
2. Mobile Command Center box truck
3. Specialized Firearms and Ammunition:

A. Geissele Border Patrol Rifle. Quantity 26

B. Colt ArmaLite Rifle (AR)-15 rifle. Quantity 41

C. M4 AR-15 rifle. Quantity 6

D. Colt Commando Short Barrel (SB) rifle. Quantity 10

E. Heckler & Koch (H&K) UMP. Quantity 5

F. Remington 700 bolt action rifle. Quantity 5

G. Federal brand .223 caliber rifle ammunition. Quantity 326 cases

H. Speer Gold Dot .223 caliber rifle ammunition. Quantity 50 cases

I. Ruag brand .308 caliber rifle ammunition. Quantity 8 cases / 4000 rounds

J. Cobalt Kinetics Scrambler Quick Detach Suppressor. Quantity 35

4. Kinetc Energy Projectile Launch Platforms and Projectiles

a. Penn Arms Model L140-4. Quantity 20.

b. Remington 870 Less lethal Shotgun. Quantity 2

i. Both have orange stocks and foregrips and are identified as non-lethal munition launchers.

c. Projectiles

i. Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) direct impact sponge round. Quantity 200

ii. CTS Frangible CS round. Quantity 60

iii. CTS Ferrett round. Quantity 100

iv. CTS LC5 Launching Cups. Quantity 4

v. CTS 2600 12-gauge launch cartridge. Quantity 60

According to the report, “The Antioch Police Department used specific military equipment in five incidents (in 2025). An audit…found no complaints regarding deploying or using the listed equipment. Internal audits of the listed equipment regarding deployment and use did not yield any policy violations or deployment concerns.”

The council meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m.

See council meeting video.

Says “the District Board wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

By Allen D. Payton

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) organized to oppose the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) on the November ballot filed a lawsuit, Monday, against Election Officials in the five included counties and Kimberly Ward, the Public Transit Revenue Measure District Elections Official. If approved by voters, the tax measure, known as Connect Bay Area Transit, will raise a half-cent in four of the five counties, including Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo and one-cent in San Francisco County for 14 years and raise an estimated $17 billion.

Labeled a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by 10 petitioners including former State Senator Quentin L. Kopp, Gregg A. Diéguez, President of CABAT and Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, as well as Brian Holtz, Thomas Rubin and five others listed as individuals and electors in the Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Kopp is also President of the San Francisco Taxpayers Association; Holtz is President of the Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors in Santa Clara County and Secretary and Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County; and Rubin is Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Attorney Jason Bezis of Lafayette is representing them.

The District was formed to oversee the process for the transit tax measure. (See related article) A separate oversight committee will be formed to verify proper expenditure of the funds should the measure pass.

The lawsuit was filed before “the final printing deadline date” of “Friday, August 28, 2026, by which all ballot language and County Voter Information Guides (CVIG) materials must be finalized, including resolving any legal challenges in court.”

Transit Officials Were Warned But Did It Anyway

According to Joffe, “Transit officials cannot claim they were blindsided. On the night of July 23, 2026, the eve of the board’s special meeting, attorney Bezis sent a detailed pre-litigation demand letter urging the board not to approve the question as drafted.  The letter was acknowledged multiple times and the measure was placed on the ballot with the slanted wording anyway.”

Legal Claims

The lawsuit “challenges biased, not neutral, untrue, partial, argumentative, and/or prejudicial wording in the RTM Ballot Question (also called ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) in violation of the Elections Code sections 9051(e) and 13119(c) standards and false and/or misleading wording in the RTM Ballot Question under the Elections Code section 9380/McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (‘McDonough’) standard. This lawsuit also challenges the Impartial Analysis authored by real party in interest DISTRICT Counsel KATHLEEN KANE as false, misleading, and/or not impartial in violation of Elections Code section 9380.”

The petitioners “seek a writ of mandate to compel amendment of the ballot question (also known as ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) and the impartial analysis that Respondents COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS and Ms. WARD are preparing for voter use in the Regional Transit Measure (‘RTM’) election to be held on November 3, 2026.”

Further, the lawsuit claims, “Petitioners assert that the DISTRICT and DISTRICT BOARD wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

Current Ballot Language

The lawsuit explains, “As approved by the PTRMD BOARD at its July 24, 2026 meeting, the RTM Ballot Question (see District Resolution No. 2 Page 7) currently reads:

‘To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

Challenges & Proposed Changes

However, the petitioners claim the adopted ballot language does not comply with state Elections Code and the amount is incorrect and should instead be $1.2 million per year. They claim the statement of the measure is not “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure,” is “argumentative” and “likely to create prejudice for or against the measure,” and that the “RTM Ballot question is inherently prejudicial” based on a survey MTC conducted last year. Furthermore, the petitioners “argue that components of the RTM Ballot Question are false and/or misleading.”

They want to make the following changes:

• Amend the phrase “Preserving BART …” to read “Funding BART …”
• Delete the phrase “for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities”.
• Delete the phrase “To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit”.
• Alternatively, strike the word “major” in the phrase “To prevent major service cuts …”
• Delete the phrase “avoid increased traffic”.
• Delete the phrase “reduce pollution”.
• Strike the phrase “/potholes”.
• Amend “Repairing targeted roads” to read “Repaving transit-served roads”.
• Strike the words “affordability, reliability”.
• Amend “enacting” to read “imposing”.
• Amend the phrase “sales tax” to read “sales and use tax”.
• Strike the word “oversight” in the phrase “Requiring … oversight”.
• Strike the word “accountability” in the phrase “Requiring … accountability”.
• Amend “$980,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimate) to an updated number (an August 2026 estimate) or “$1,200,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimates, averaged over 14 years).

Alternative Ballot Language

The lawsuit offers the following ballot language alternatives:

“If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

The lawsuit further reads, “If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, including use of the ‘Shall the measure … be adopted?’ format, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually; Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; be adopted?’”

The petitioners also claim the “RTM Impartial Analysis is partial, false, and/or misleading” and that it should be written by either the California Attorney General, a county counsel or district attorney instead of Kathleen Kane who is he legal counsel for the District.

“Supporters of the Transit Measure need to use misleading advertising because voters won’t pass the measure if they have the real story that it is a regressive tax falling hardest on seniors and low-income families for 14 years,” Dieguez stated.

“Voters deserve the honest description the law guarantees them, and if the district won’t provide it, a court should,” Joffe added

See the Public Transit Revenue Measure District’s Legal Counsel RTM Impartial Analysis.

See RTM-Ballot-Question-Lawsuit-Aug-17.pdf.

For more information about CABAT visit Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit.

The election is Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Share ideas, raise concerns, provide suggestions online or in person

By David Hafner, Office of Public Affairs, CDTFA

What: The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Meeting, on August 19, 2026, is an opportunity for taxpayers to provide valuable feedback on the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s (CDTFA) programs and procedures. Presided over by the Department’s Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate, Alfred Buck, the annual meeting encourages taxpayers to share ideas, raise concerns and provide suggestions. This meeting is open to everyone. 

DATE: Wednesday, August 19, 2026

TIME:  9:30 a.m.

ONLINE: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/tra/tbor-meetings.htm

IN PERSON: May Lee State Office Complex Auditorium, 651 Bannon Street, Sacramento, CA 95811-0299
Those unable to attend in person can also participate by:

• Telephone, toll-free at 844-767-5651, access code 8014689.
• Viewing the livestream (link will be posted at www.cdtfa.ca.gov/tra/tbor-meetings.htm prior to the meeting).
• Submitting comments by email.

To learn more about the rights provided under the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, visit CDTFA’s Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate (TRA) website or contact the TRA Office at taxpayer.rights@cdtfa.ca.gov or +1.888.324.2798. You can also view the TRA’s  2024/25 Annual Report.

About the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights 

Enacted in January 1989, the Harris-Katz California Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights ensures that the rights of California taxpayers are protected during the assessment and collection of sales taxes. The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights was expanded in 1993 to include special tax programs such as environmental fees, fuel taxes, and tobacco taxes.

The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) administers California’s sales and use, fuel, tobacco, alcohol and cannabis taxes, as well as other taxes and fees that fund specific state programs. CDTFA-administered programs accounted for more than $97.8 billion in the 2024/25 fiscal year, supporting essential local services such as transportation, public safety and health, libraries, schools, social services and natural resource management programs through the distribution of tax dollars directly to local communities.

To oversee process for Bay Area transit tax on Nov. ballot

By Metropolitan Transportation Commission

OAKLAND, CA – Updated Aug. 17, 2026 – The Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) was established under Government Code Title 7.85, by Senate Bill 63 (2025), which also authorizes a regional transportation revenue measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot, known as the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative.

District Members

The Public Transit Revenue Measure District is comprised of the same individuals that govern the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

The PTRMD on Jan. 16, 2026, received a notice of intent from the Connect Bay Area Transit Committee to place a citizen’s initiative on the November 2026 ballot. Senate Bill 63, authored by state senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín of Berkeley, authorized a qualified voter initiative to impose a retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable to the entire district for a duration of 14 years, in an amount of 0.5% in each of the counties located within the district and 1% in the City and County of San Francisco, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. 

On July 1, 2026, the District Elections Official issued a Certificate to Initiative Petition, certifying that proponents of the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative submitted sufficient valid signatures for the measure to qualify for placement on the ballot.

The District at its July 24, 2026, meeting formally approved a resolution accepting the District Elections Official’s certification of the Connect Bay Area Transit initiative measure and requesting the Boards of Supervisors in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to call a special election on the measure and to consolidate this special election with the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. 

Impartial Analysis of Regional Transit Measure 

Legal counsel for the Public Transit Revenue Measure District has prepared an impartial analysis of the  Regional Transit Measure pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code 67740. This text will also be included in each county’s voter information guide per state law. 

Notices of Election Provided by Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters provided the following notices of election:

• Notice of General Election
• 大選通告
• AVISO DE ELECCIÓN GENERAL
• THÔNG BÁO TỔNG TUYỂN CỬ
• Paunawa Sa Pangkalahatang Halalan

Election-Related Deadlines 

Established election dates related to the measure can be found on the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV) website. Please reference the most recently published Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) calendars, which may be accessed at the SantaClaraCounty.gov website.  If you are unable to access the link, please contact the Santa Clara County ROV directly for assistance.  

Staff Contact

Kimberly Ward, District Elections Official
Phone: 415-778-5367
Email: kward@bayareametro.gov

請求協助! | ¡Solicita ayuda! | Request assistance! 

您是否需要我們翻譯其中一份文件的內容? 您是否需要大字體或盲文印刷的書面資料? 您是否需要手語或您所說語言的口譯服務才能參與?  

如需協助，請致電 (415) 778-6757。若需使用 TDD 或為聽障人士，請致電 711，加州轉接服務，或 (800) 735-2929 (TTY) ，(800) 735-2922 (語音)，然後要求轉接至(415) 778-6700。請至少提前三個工作日提出申請，以便我們能為您提供適當的安排。 

¿Necesita que alguno de nuestros documentos sea traducido? ¿Necesita nuestras comunicaciones escritas en letra grande o en Braille? ¿Necesita un intérprete del lenguaje de señas o un intérprete que hable su idioma para poder participar?  

Para solicitar asistencia, por favor llamemos al (415) 778-6757. Para telecomunicaciones para personas sordas y discapacitadas, favor de llamar al 711, el Servicio de Retransmisión de California (CRS) para TTY/VCO/HCO a Voz o para Voz a TTY/VCO/HCO al (800) 855-3000 y pedir que lo conecten al (415) 778-6700. Necesitamos aviso de al menos tres días hábiles de anticipación para proporcionar la asistencia adecuada. 

Do you need one of our documents translated? Do you need written materials in large type or in Braille? Do you need a sign language interpreter or an interpreter who speaks your language in order to participate?  

To request accommodation, please call (415) 778-6757. For TDD or hearing impaired, call 711, California Relay Service, or (800) 735-2929 (TTY), (800) 735-2922 (voice) and ask to be relayed to (415) 778-6700. We require at least three working days’ notice to accommodate requests.

For more information visit Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Laura Cassell, Assessment Appeals Board Secretary

(Martinez, CA) — Are you an experienced real estate, appraisal, accounting, or legal professional looking for a meaningful way to give back? The Contra Costa County Assessment Appeals Board is seeking qualified individuals to serve as board members and help ensure property tax assessments are fair, accurate, and impartial.

As a board member, you’ll hear and decide property tax assessment appeals, playing an important role in protecting the integrity of the County’s property tax system while serving the community.

Board Member Compensation

Board members receive:

• $200 for a half-day meeting
• $300 for a full-day meeting
• $400 for each additional consecutive meeting day
• Mileage reimbursement

Meeting Schedule

Meetings are typically held Thursdays at 9:00 a.m., except the first Thursday of each month. The Board recesses during May and June while the Assessor closes the assessment roll. Because many appeals are resolved through negotiations or withdrawals before a hearing, some scheduled meetings may be canceled.

Who Can Apply?

Applicants do not need to live in Contra Costa County or represent the district in which they reside.
Qualified candidates must have at least five years of professional experience in California in one of the following fields:

• Certified Public Accountant or Public Accountant
• Licensed Real Estate Broker
• Attorney
• Property Appraiser accredited by a nationally recognized professional organization
• Property Appraiser certified by the California Office of Real Estate Appraisers or the State Board of Equalization

Applicants must submit documentation verifying their qualifying experience with their application to the Clerk of the Board. Individuals who have worked in a county assessor’s office within the past three years are not eligible to serve.

Ready to Make a Difference?

If you’re committed to public service and bringing your professional expertise to an important community role, we encourage you to apply. Interested individuals may apply online application link, request an application by emailing the Clerk of the Board at clerkoftheboard@cob.cccoounty.us, or visit the Clerk of the Board office at:

County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor Martinez.

For more information about the application process, call the Clerk of the Board at (925) 655-2000. Additional information is available through the California State Board of Equalization.

For more information about the Appeals Board visit Assessment Appeals | Contra Costa County, CA Official Website.

Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit demands transit agencies address waste, alternative funding sources and non-binding oversight loopholes before locking in a 14-year tax hike.

WALNUT CREEK, CA — A five-county coalition of taxpayer advocates, transit reformers and civic leaders today announced Monday, July 6, 2026, a campaign to defeat the regional transit sales tax slated for the November ballot. The newly formed Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit warns that the 14-year measure will push total sales tax rates up to or over a crushing 11 percent in nine Bay Area cities across Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties.

Authorized by SB 63 (Wiener, 2025), the measure seeks to raise sales taxes by a half-percent in four counties and a full one percent in San Francisco. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) projects the tax, at inception, will extract roughly $1 billion annually from the local economy and rising with inflation to surpass $14 billion over its term. This funding would come on top of the estimated $6 billion in tax and toll subsidies regional transit operators already receive each year.

Campaign organizers highlighted a strategic maneuver by the tax’s proponents, who utilized a citizens’ initiative route rather than having the MTC or transit districts place it on the ballot directly. This path lowers the voter approval threshold from the standard two-thirds supermajority to a simple majority.

“Bay Area voters are being asked to approve more than $14 billion in new taxes at a time when transit agencies are carrying fewer riders and receiving enormous subsidies,” said Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and campaign committee member. “Before squeezing working families and seniors with sales tax rates of over 11 percent in some Bay Area cities and over 10 percent in many others, these agencies must explain why administrative overhead surged since 2019.”

“This measure locks taxpayers into an obsolete, pre-pandemic transit cost structure for 14 years, entirely ignoring how remote work and convenient, emerging transportation alternatives are reshaping regional mobility at no taxpayer expense,” said Gregg Dieguez of SHIFT-Bay Area, representing San Mateo County. “Furthermore, the oversight language in SB 63 is completely non-binding. It allows these agencies to continue wasteful business-as-usual operations with a guaranteed, unaccountable blank check.”

The committee emphasizes that defeating the measure will not shut down public transit. Instead, the coalition argues that the state should redirect a portion of the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funds currently flowing to high-speed rail. They also propose pausing the region’s two largest capital megaprojects—BART’s Silicon Valley Phase II extension and Caltrain’s Portal downtown extension—to free up existing state and local dollars directly for operations while a leaner funding mechanism is designed for 2028. The committee notes that BART could potentially save hundreds of millions annually through targeted management actions alone, adding that the San Jose VTA does not require this funding for operations, labeling the measure a fiscal “hidden ball trick” to cover a bloated BART extension recently criticized by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury.

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit is actively recruiting volunteers, distributing lawn signs beginning in August, and accepting contributions at transitaccountability.com. The campaign website features a localized household tax calculator where residents across all five counties can instantly check the tax’s impact on their family.

About the Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) is a campaign committee sponsored by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, a nonpartisan civic organization founded in 1937 and based in Walnut Creek. The committee has leadership and representation from all five counties affected by the so-called Connect Bay Area Transit sales tax:  Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Contributions to the committee are not tax-deductible. The committee expects to amend its formal name to incorporate the official alphanumeric ballot designation of the “Connect Bay Area Transit” measure once assigned by election officials.

Will appear on Bay Area ballots across five counties including Contra Costa

By Jeff Cretan, West Advisors

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA — The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has announced that the Connect Bay Area regional transit funding measure has officially qualified for the November 2026 ballot after elections officials confirmed the campaign submitted enough valid signatures across Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

The announcement follows the Connect Bay Area campaign’s submission of more than 305,000 signatures in May, far exceeding the 186,000 valid signatures required to qualify the measure. The MTC’s official certification sent on June 30 declared that the registrars of voters across the five counties each conducted their individual county counts and submitted the results to the MTC and the total submitted far exceeded the qualification threshold. 

The measure if adopted would increase the sales tax in Contra Costa, Alameda San Mateo and Santa Clara counties by a half cent and one cent in San Francisco County for 14 years. As previously reported, the measure would generate approximately $980 million annually across the five counties.

The success of this effort was built on one of the largest grassroots transit organizing efforts the region has ever seen and unprecedented support from business, labor, and community organizations across the Bay Area.

The Connect Bay Area five-county sales tax measure would provide long-term operational funding for major Bay Area transit agencies while supporting projects to strengthen and better connect transit systems across the region. It will protect major transit agencies like BART, Muni, Caltrain and AC Transit from devastating service cuts, help VTA grow to better serve residents, workers, and businesses, and provide direct support to counties for transit improvements. 

Connect Bay Area also strengthens accountability for transit agencies. SB 63 – the legislation authored by Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín that enabled Connect Bay Area – requires independent financial reviews, continued efficiency improvements, and stronger regional coordination before the measure even appears on the ballot.

Unprecedented Grassroots, Labor and Business Support

The Connect Bay Area campaign has grown in support over the last several months with more than 80 elected officials and more than 90 labor, business, and advocacy organizations signing on in support. Major businesses from across the region helped raise more than $5.5 million to qualify the measure and prepare for the November election.

Since launching in January, Connect Bay Area mobilized more than 1,000 volunteers and advocates across Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Supporters gathered signatures at transit stations, farmers markets, community events, neighborhood meetings, and major public gatherings throughout the Bay Area.

The overwhelming signature total that led to the measure’s qualification for the ballot reflects broad public support for transit and growing awareness of the urgency surrounding the future of Bay Area public transportation.

Without sustainable transit funding, the Bay Area could face catastrophic service reductions:

• BART: Up to 15 station closures, elimination of two lines, and service cuts of up to 70%
• Caltrain: Hourly train service, no weekend service, and weekday shutdowns after 9 p.m.
• Muni: At least 20 bus routes eliminated and service reductions of 30% or more
• AC Transit: Service cuts of at least 16%

The campaign will now turn its full attention toward the November election, building on the unprecedented coalition of volunteers, businesses, labor organizations, transit riders, and community advocates who helped qualify the measure.

About Connect Bay Area

The Connect Bay Area campaign is a five-county Regional Transit Measure on the November 2026 ballot. The measure would establish a 0.5% sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties and a 1% sales tax in San Francisco to provide additional support for Muni. It would provide long-term operational funding for major Bay Area transit agencies while supporting regional projects that strengthen transit throughout the region.

The Regional Transit Measure will:

• Protect and improve service on BART, Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and AC Transit.
• Prevent catastrophic transit service cuts across the Bay Area.
• Reduce traffic congestion and emissions while supporting California’s climate goals.
• Support the Bay Area economy by strengthening downtown recovery and regional mobility.

The measure includes strong accountability and oversight provisions, including independent financial reviews for every transit operator, regional coordination requirements to ensure systems work better together, and a citizen oversight committee to monitor spending and performance. A recent independent study required under SB 63 found Bay Area transit agencies have already achieved approximately $1 billion in operational efficiencies while identifying additional opportunities to improve service and reduce costs.

The Connect Bay Area Transit Committee is comprised of labor, business, and transit advocates, including Bay Area Council, SEIU 1021, ATU 1555, South Bay Labor Council, SPUR, and SAMCEDA, alongside an advocacy council of more than 20 organizations representing transit, housing, environmental, equity, senior, and disability organizations.

For more information about the Connect Bay Area campaign or to get involved, visit connectbayarea.com.

By Mike Arata

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.

More information: NOonMeasureG.info

Arata is an Executive Committee member of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Upcoming Events

CoCoTax Lunch, June 26: Former State Senator Steve Glazer Discusses BART Accountability
Friday, June 26, 2026 | 11:45am – 1:15pm PDT

CoCoTax Lunch, July 24: County Budget Overview with County Administrator Monica Nino
Friday, July 24, 2026 | 11:45am – 1:15pm PDT

For more information about the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association visit cocotax.org.