Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Antioch Council continues FY 2026–27 budget study session, flags several funds for follow-up
Summary
Council continued a budget study session on April 28, 2026, reviewing ARP spending, asset forfeiture uses, abandoned vehicle fund transfers, ADA fund balances and a projected NPDES shortfall; staff agreed to refine projections and report back where further spending or fee changes are needed.
Antioch’s City Council continued its fiscal year 2026–27 budget study session on April 28, focusing on a series of restricted funds and grant programs that could affect general fund planning.
City Manager Scott and Finance Director Merchant guided the council through worksheets for special-revenue and capital funds and said some American Rescue Plan (ARP) expenditures — including the community response team — will require rollovers into FY 2026–27 because spending is projected to extend through December 31, 2026. Merchant told the council that ARP totals through March were included in cumulative reporting but that some line items (notably a small-business grant pot) remain difficult to project precisely.
Council members probed a range of funds. On federal and local asset-forfeiture accounts, staff explained the legal limits on spending (training and equipment, not staffing) and noted a planned armored-vehicle purchase from federal forfeiture proceeds. Several council members said they would prefer to exhaust seizure-derived funds on officer training before drawing general fund dollars.
The council also debated how aggressively to draw down the abandoned-vehicle fund, which receives county pass-through registration fees. Finance staff offered two options: increase the FY 2026–27 transfer to $600,000 (a one‑time higher transfer) or spread transfers over two years to smooth department budgets; members signaled a preference to spread the transfer across two years.
Questions about the Disability Access Fund highlighted that the balance had grown (roughly $351,000 projected in carryover) while annual ADA‑related expenditures were small. Councilmember(s) requested a staff report to clarify allowable uses and whether the fund could help pay for planned ADA improvements, including projects at the Nick Rodriguez building where some ADA work is already underway using other grant sources.
Public-works financing and stormwater were also flagged. Staff said the NPDES (stormwater) fund will face a roughly $1 million gap in two years if revenue or assessment levels are not adjusted; this shortfall is driven in part by staffing reclassifications and lower projected transfers. Council requested that staff explore options, including a stormwater assessment increase or other funding sources, and return with recommendations.
Several other grant and pass-through funds were reviewed without substantive policy changes: Byrne/JAG and other law-enforcement grants, CalVIP/CalGRIP and California Volunteers grants, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) staffing transitions, and opioid settlement subfunds. Council asked staff to refine investment-income and carryover assumptions for multiple funds after identifying apparent anomalies in the interest-income projections.
Staff and council agreed to follow up on several items — a revised projection of investment income, a staff report on Disability Access Fund allowable uses, options for addressing the stormwater deficit, and potential timing for spending RMRA road-repair balances — before the FY 2026–27 budget is finalized.
