The 2024‑25 Budget
Deficit Update
Under LAO Revenue Update, Budget Problem Grows by $15 Billion
February 20, 2024
From the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, The California Legislature’s Non-Partisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor
The state already faces a significant deficit this year—we estimate it totaled $58 billion under the administration’s revenue forecast at the time the Governor’s budget was proposed in January. However, recent revenue collections data reflect even further weakness relative to those estimates. Specifically, our forecast is about $24 billion below the Governor’s budget across 2022‑23 to 2024‑25. All else equal, this means the budget problem is likely to be higher at the time of the May Revision. The actual increase in the state’s budget problem will depend on a number of factors, including formula-driven spending changes, most notably Proposition 98 spending requirements for schools and community colleges. (Due to specific circumstances this year, changes in revenues are unlikely to have a significant effect on the state’s other major formula-driven spending requirements, specifically related to Proposition 2.) Roughly, a $24 billion erosion in revenues corresponds to a $15 billion increase in the budget problem. This would expand the $58 billion estimated deficit to $73 billion under our updated revenue forecast.
Options to Address $15 Billion in Additional Budget Problem
If the budget problem increases by $15 billion, the Legislature will need to find a like amount of new budget solutions to ensure the budget is balanced for 2024‑25. Budget solutions include, for example: revenue increases and spending reductions (on both a one-time and ongoing basis), as well as other tools, like reserves and cost shifts. As the Legislature considers how to address this increased budget problem, we have put together a set of tables identifying one-time and temporary spending that could be pulled back or reduced in order to achieve budgetary savings. Below, we explain why we set forth these amounts as a possible first option to addressing a larger budget problem and then walk through our method for estimating the amounts potentially available in more detail.
Why Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending?
The Legislature will weigh the implications of each possible solution—including increasing revenues and spending reductions—against others and, ultimately, choose a mix of solutions based on its priorities. We recommend the Legislature start by reviewing whether recent augmentations for one-time and temporary spending could be pulled back or reduced. We recommend this approach for two key reasons. First, when this one-time and temporary spending was adopted, it was understood that doing so would provide a cushion for future budget problems. For example, the administration frequently displayed “operating surpluses” in its multiyear forecasts excluding this type of spending—implying that the administration understood that the state could not afford all of the commitments under its own projections, but the state could afford the ongoing budget.
Second, the more the Legislature reduces one-time and temporary spending this year, the more other tools it can preserve for future budget problems. Reducing one-time and temporary spending is a “use or lose” tool for addressing the budget problem—once the funds are disbursed to recipients, pulling them back becomes practically impossible. Other tools, like reserve withdrawals and cost shifts, also can be used only once, but at any time. Saving them to deploy in the future can help the Legislature avoid cuts to ongoing services—which involve very difficult decisions. For example, in the Great Recession, the programs with some of the largest expenditure reductions were in health and human services, including to Medi-Cal, which provides health coverage to low-income individuals and the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which provides income assistance to low-income individuals. Although the federal government has certain requirements for minimum state participation in these programs, California provides services well above these minimums. As a result, reductions tend to be concentrated in these areas because they are the ones where the state has the most flexibility to reduce spending without raising issues related to requirements imposed by courts, the voters, and the federal government. As such, maintaining other tools like reserves and cost shifts now could help mitigate reductions in these areas in the future.
Options Possibly Available to Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending
State Allocated Large Shares of Surpluses to Temporary Purposes, Although Some Has Been Disbursed or Already Proposed for Reduction. Recent budgets allocated tens of billions of dollars in surpluses to one-time and temporary spending, including in 2023‑24, 2024‑25, and 2025‑26. Some spending, most notably for 2023‑24, has already been disbursed or encumbered. This means, for example, that grants have been awarded, funds have been transferred to other entities of government, and contracts or leases have been signed. (In some cases, funds have also been committed for 2024‑25 and 2025‑26, for example, through grant awards.) In addition, the Governor has already proposed pulling back much—but not all—of the undisbursed spending associated with these augmentations.
State Has Nearly $16 Billion in Recent One-Time and Temporary Spending That Could Possibly Still Be Pulled Back or Reduced. After setting aside disbursements and Governor’s budget proposals, we estimate the state possibly could pull back and reduce one-time and temporary augmentations by as much as $6.4 billion in 2023‑24, $4.1 billion in 2024‑25, and $5.1 billion in 2025‑26. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these amounts by program area, while the Appendix includes a complete list of them. These figures represent our current estimates of the amounts for which the Legislature has broad authority to make reductions, which could help the state address a larger budget problem in May. (In some cases, however, further disbursements could occur between now and May, such smaller amounts would be available for reduction at that time.)
Figure 1
Summary of Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending
(In Millions)
2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 | |
Business and Labor | $266 | $284 | $198 |
Criminal Justice | 130 | 40 | — |
Education | 602 | 1,195 | 1,109 |
Health and Human Services | 867 | 301 | 701 |
Housing and Homelessness | 1,599 | — | 260 |
Other | 1,752 | 557 | 432 |
Resources and Environment | 1,049 | 1,005 | 1,377 |
Transportation | 146 | 739 | 1,000 |
Totals | $6,411 | $4,121 | $5,076 |
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
This Information Reflects Our Best Current Understanding. While these estimates reflect the best information we have available, in many cases we do not have perfect information from the administration about the current status of funds. As such, we would view this list as a starting place for the Legislature as it begins crafting the final budget package. For any specific reductions, particularly in 2023‑24, the Legislature could ask the administration for detailed and up-to-date information on disbursements and encumbrances.
More Could Be Pulled Back From Earlier Years. For the purposes of this analysis, we only reviewed disbursements and encumbrances authorized for 2023‑24 and later. There is, however, additional spending attributable to 2022‑23 and earlier that has not yet been disbursed. The Legislature could ask the administration to provide information about the amount of unspent funds from these earlier years.
Appendix Tables
Appendix Figure 1
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Business and Labor
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
EDD | New IT overhaul—EDDNext | $99 | — | — |
GO Biz | California Competes Grants | 10 | — | — |
HCAI | Health and home care workforce package | 85 | $259 | $198 |
HCAI | Behavioral health workforce capacity | 52 | — | — |
HCAI | Various other health care workforce initiatives | 20 | 25 | — |
Totals | $266 | $284 | $198 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
EDD = Employment Development Department; IT = information technology; GO Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information. |
Appendix Figure 2
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Criminal Justice
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
BSCC | Adult Reentry Grant | $20 | — | — |
CDCR | Expansion of community reentry centers | 40 | $40 | — |
CDCR | Various capital projects at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center | 20 | — | — |
OES | Nonprofit Security Grant Program | 40 | — | — |
OES | Family Justice Centers | 10 | — | — |
Totals | $130 | $40 | — | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
BSCC = Board of State and Community Corrections; CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and OES = Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. |
Appendix Figure 3
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Education
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CSAC | Golden State Teacher Grants | $91 | $128 | $1 |
CSU | CSU Dominguez Hills Dymally Institute facility | 15 | — | — |
DGS | State share for school construction projects | 472 | 994 | 485 |
DGS | Construction and renovation of transitional kindergarten, State Preschool, and full‑day kindergarten facilities | — | — | 550 |
OPR | California College Corps Program | — | 73 | 73 |
UC | Cancer Research Relating to Firefighters | 7 | — | — |
UC | UC Berkeley School of Journalism Police Records Access Project | 7 | — | — |
UC | UC Los Angeles Ralph J. Bunche Center | 5 | — | — |
UC | UC Davis Equine Performance and Rehabilitation Center | 5 | — | — |
Totals | $602 | $1,195 | 1,109 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
CSAC = Student Aid Commission; DGS = Department of General Services; and OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. |
Appendix Figure 4
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Health and Human Services
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CalHHS | Health innovation accelerator initiative | — | — | $43 |
CDPH | Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years | $268 | — | — |
CDPH | COVID‑19 response | 25 | — | — |
CDPH | Public health IT systems | 9 | — | — |
CDPH | Public education and change campaign | — | $40 | 5 |
Aging | Modernizing the Older Californians Act | — | 37 | 37 |
DHCS | Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program | — | — | 235 |
DHCS | Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program | — | 100 | 381 |
DHCS | Evidence‑based and community‑defined behavioral health programs | — | 109 | — |
DSS | CalFresh minimum nutrition benefit pilot | — | 15 | — |
HCAI | Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years | 565 | — | — |
Totals | $867 | $301 | $701 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
CalHHS = Health and Human Services Agency; CDPH = California Department of Public Health; Aging = Department of Aging; DHCS = Department of Health Care Services; DSS = Department of Social Services; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information. |
Appendix Figure 5
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Housing and Homelessness
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
BCH Agencya | Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAPP) | $1,100 | — | $260 |
BCH Agency | Encampment Resolution Grants | 299 | — | — |
HCD | Portfolio Reinvestment Program | 100 | — | — |
HCD | Multifamily Housing Program | 75 | — | — |
HCD | Infill Infrastructure Grant Program | 25 | — | — |
Totals | $1,599 | — | $260 | |
aBy the time the HHAPP costs are incurred, the program will have transferred to from BCSH Agency to HCD. | ||||
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
BCH Agency Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and HCD = Department of Housing and Community Development. |
Appendix Figure 6
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Other
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CDT | Broadband infrastructure—increased middle‑mile network costs | $420 | $250 | — |
CPUC | Broadband infrastructure—last‑mile projects | 900 | 100 | $200 |
CPUC | Broadband infrastructure—Broadband Loan Loss Reserve Fund | 175 | 150 | 175 |
GO‑Biz | Fresno Infrastructure Plan | 50 | — | — |
OPR | Establish new office of public outreach | 60 | 57 | 57 |
SCO | California State Payroll System | 147 | — | — |
Totals | $1,752 | $557 | $432 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages |
||||
CDT = California Department of Technology; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; GO‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; and SCO = State Controller’s Office. |
Appendix Figure 7
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Resources and Environment
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
CalEPA | Environmental Justice Initiative (Community Resilience Package) | $5 | — | — |
CalFire | Post‑fire reforestation and regeneration (Wildfire Resilience Package) | 50 | — | — |
CalFire | Emergency surge (helitanker contract component) | 45 | $45 | — |
CalFire | Forest Improvement Program (Wildfire Resilience Package) | 13 | — | — |
CalFire | Tribal engagement (Wildfire Resilience Package) | 10 | — | — |
CARB | FARMER program | 75 | — | — |
CARB | Clean Cars 4 All (ZEV Package) | 50 | — | — |
CARB | AB 617 (Community Resilience Package) | 50 | — | — |
CARB | Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) | 20 | — | — |
CEC | Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan (SB 846) | 100 | 400 | $500 |
CEC | Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (Energy Package) | 100 | 25 | 25 |
CEC | Demand Side Grid Support (Energy Package) | 95 | — | — |
CEC | Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) | — | 53 | 92 |
CNRA | Water resilience projects (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | 171 | — | — |
CNRA | Tribal nature‑based solutions program (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) | 30 | — | — |
CPUC | Residential Solar and Storage (Energy Package) | — | 50 | 100 |
DTSC | Brownfield cleanups | — | 85 | 15 |
DWR | Flood and dam safety (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | 53 | — | — |
DWR | Oroville Pump Storage (Energy Package) | 4 | 10 | 20 |
DWR | American River flood project | — | 27 | — |
DWR | Urban flood risk reduction | — | 35 | — |
DWR | Strategic Reliability Assets (Energy Package) | — | 75 | 75 |
DWR | Water conveyance, water storage (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | — | — | 500 |
Go‑Biz or CNRA | Diablo Canyon land use planning | — | — | 50 |
IBank | Transmission Financing (Energy Package) | 25 | — | — |
OPC | Ocean protection (Coastal Resilience Package) | 13 | — | — |
OPC | Coastal resilience SB 1 implementation (Coastal Resilience Package) | 1 | — | — |
OPR | Community‑Based Public Awareness Campaign (Extreme Heat Package) | 14 | — | — |
SWRCB | Water recycling, groundwater cleanup (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) | 17 | — | — |
SWRCB | Drinking water and wastewater projects (Drought‑Water Resilience) | — | 200 | — |
Various | Misc Nature‑Based Solutions Package | 9 | — | — |
Various | Misc Wildfire Resilience Package | 5 | — | — |
WCB | Protect fish and wildlife from changing conditions (Nature‑Based Solutions) | 49 | — | — |
WCB | Various WCB programs (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) | 46 | — | — |
Totals | $1,049 | $1,005 | $1,377 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages |
||||
CalEPA = California Environmental Protection Agency; CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; CARB = California Air Resources Board; CEC = California Energy Commission; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; DTSC = Department of Toxics and Substances Control; DWR = Department of Water Resources; Go‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; IBank =California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; OPC = Ocean Protection Council; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board; and WCB = Wildlife Conservation Board. |
Appendix Figure 8
Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Transportation
(In Millions)
Department/ Program Area |
Description | 2023‑24 | 2024‑25 | 2025‑26 |
Caltrans | Clean California | $146 | — | — |
CalSTA | Transit and rail funding (Transportation Infrastructure) | — | $739 | $1,000 |
Totals | $146 | $739 | $1,000 | |
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages. |
||||
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation and CalSTA = California State Transportation Agency. |
Read More
Matthew Buckley charged with 6 felonies for actions while serving search warrant in Antioch; former Officer of the Year will serve 3 years & 8 months in prison
By Ted Asregadoo, Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office
Martinez, California – Today, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office reached a negotiated plea against 42-year-old Matthew Allen Buckley, of Pinole, for offenses that occurred when he was a deputy with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office.
Buckley was charged in February 2023 with six felonies and one misdemeanor related to offenses that occurred in 2020 and 2022. In a negotiated disposition, Buckley pled no contest to three felonies, including possession of an illegal assault weapon, filing a false police report, and preparing false documentary evidence [PC30605, PC118.1, and PC134]. Buckley will receive a three years and eight months prison sentence, which he can serve on mandatory supervised release if he successfully completes a six-month drug rehab program.
The case began in September 2020 when Buckley, assigned to the Contra Costa County Anti-Violence Support Effort (C.A.S.E), participated in a task force executing a search warrant in Antioch. During the operation, Deputy Buckley seized two illegal AR-15s, phones, laptops, heroin, and drug paraphernalia.
After seizing the AR 15s, Deputy Buckley authored a police report where he falsely claimed to have booked the firearms into evidence. Instead of booking the illegal weapons, Buckley separated the upper sections from the lower sections of the firearm. He returned possession of the upper sections of the firearms to the original owner, but never returned the lower sections of the firearms.
As part of this investigation the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department discovered that Deputy Buckley created false documents and signed for a judge without his consent on multiple search warrant returns for unrelated cases.
In August 2022 as the investigation was concluding, Deputies with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office searched Buckley’s residence and found the lower sections of the AR-15s as well as a small amount of methamphetamine.
According to his Linkedin profile, Buckley worked for the Sheriff’s Office for 15 years, including his final three years and 10 months as a detective. Previously, he had worked as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Field Training Officer and then a Station Supervisor for ProTransport-1 ambulance service in Pleasant Hill. He started his work life as a Network Security Engineer for Bank of American in Concord.
In 2019, he was named the department’s Officer of the Year.
Pursuant to California Government Code, Matthew Buckley will be legally ineligible to serve as a police officer. Moreover, convicted of felony offenses, Buckley is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.
Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.
Read MoreOne Business member, two Community members
The Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity (ACEEO) has one vacant Business seat and two vacant Community seats open to applicants. The successful candidate for the Business seat must own a business within the county, and candidate(s) for the Community seats must either work or reside within the county. All candidates must have an interest in equal employment matters. The ACEEO meets on the fourth Friday of each month from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., except for holidays.
The ACEEO assists with the implementation of the County’s Equal Employment Opportunities and Contracting Programs and serves as an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors. The ACEEO reviews the Equal Employment Opportunities Program and recommends actions to facilitate the attainment of the County’s goals for equal employment opportunities regardless of gender and race/ethnicity.
The Board of Supervisors established the ACEEO on July 9, 1991. The Council has thirteen (13) seats representing the following groups: 4 Community seats; 2 Labor seats; 2 Management seats; 1 Educational seat; 1 Disability seat; 1 Business seat; 1 Veteran seat; and 1 Labor/Trade seat.
Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 655- 2000 or visiting the County webpage at www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418. Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar St., 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553. Applications can also be emailed to ClerkoftheBoard@cob.cccounty.us.
Applicants should plan to be available for public interviews. For further information about the ACEEO, please contact Antoine Wilson at antoine.wilson@riskm.cccounty.us or (925) 335-1455. You can also visit the web page at www.contracosta.ca.gov/4503/Advisory-Council-on-Equal- Employment-Opp.
Read More
Deadline for submittals is April 5th
Walnut Creek, CA – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D, CA-10) announced he will participate in the nationwide 2024 Congressional Art Competition. High school artists living in California’s 10th Congressional District may begin submitting original artwork to his office virtually from now through Friday, April 5th. The winning piece will be selected by a panel of local judges who will view all artwork electronically and announced at a reception to celebrate all participants following the submission deadline.
Participants may submit one photograph or scan of their artwork, taken in the highest possible resolution, to kaylee.deland@mail.house.gov. Submissions must include the Student Release Form. Artwork entered in the contest may be up to 26 inches by 26 inches, may be up to 4 inches in depth, and not weigh more than 15 pounds. If your artwork is selected as the winning piece, it must arrive framed and must still measure no larger than the above maximum dimensions.
- Paintings – including oil, acrylics, and watercolor
- Drawings – including pastels, colored pencil, pencil, charcoal, ink, and markers (It is recommended that charcoal and pastel drawings be fixed.)
- Collages – must be two dimensional
- Prints – including lithographs, silkscreen, and block prints
- Mixed Media – use of more than two mediums such as pencil, ink, watercolor, etc.
- Computer-generated art
- Photography
All entries must be original in concept, design and execution and may not violate any U.S. copyright laws. Any entry that has been copied from an existing photo or image (including a painting, graphic, or advertisement) that was created by someone other than the student is a violation of the competition rules and will not be accepted. Work entered must be in the original medium (that is, not a scanned reproduction of a painting or drawing).
The rules for the 2024 competition are available here or on House.gov.
“Every year I am so impressed by the talent of the students in our district who participate in the Congressional Art Competition,” said DeSaulnier. “I am pleased to again host this event as an opportunity for young artists to showcase and be recognized for their creativity.”
The competition is open to all high school students living in California’s 10th Congressional District. The winning piece will be displayed in the U.S. Capitol and the winner will be invited to Washington D.C. to attend a national reception honoring winners from around the country. All submissions must be emailed to Kaylee.deland@mail.house.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. PT on April 5, 2024.
The Congressional Art Competition is a nationwide high school visual art competition to recognize and encourage artistic talent in the nation and in each congressional district. Since the Competition began in 1982, more than 650,000 high school students have participated. Complete contest guidelines and submissions forms are available on the Congressman’s website here. For more information or help submitting artwork, please contact DeSaulnier’s office at 925-933-2660.
Read MoreStarts Monday, February 26, 2024
“We’re very lucky to have him as our chief.” – Councilman & retired Pittsburg Lt. Mike Barbanica
Police Officers Association “excited to learn” of appointment
Antioch, CA: Acting Antioch City Manager Kwame Reed has selected retired Pittsburg Police Chief Brian Addington to serve as Interim Chief of Police until a permanent chief is appointed. Chief Addington brings a wealth of experience and a deep understanding of East Contra Costa County law enforcement to this leadership role. He has a proven track record of leadership and dedication to public safety that are essential to guiding the department during this transitional period. Chief Addington’s first day in the office will be Monday, February 26, 2024. Chief Addington understands the challenges and opportunities facing law enforcement in our community. With over a decade of experience as the police chief in neighboring Pittsburg, he has demonstrated his commitment to serving the residents of East Contra Costa County with integrity and professionalism. “We are confident that Chief Addington’s leadership will enhance the safety and security of our community,” Reed said. “His extensive knowledge of local policing issues and his strong ties with the East County community make him the perfect choice to lead the Antioch Police Department during this interim period.” “Retired Chief Addington will come to Antioch with a strong ability to make tough decisions under difficult circumstances,” said Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe. “Until the hiring of a permanent chief of police, he’ll work with City Hall to continue to rebuild police staffing levels and decrease 911 response times.” Addington expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to serve as Interim Chief of Police, stating, “I am honored to join the dedicated men and women of the Antioch Police Department. We will work tirelessly – with a renewed focus on serving our community – and upholding the department’s mission of protecting and serving the residents of Antioch with integrity, compassion, and professionalism.” When reached for comment District 2 Councilman and retired Pittsburg Police Lt. Mike Barbanica said, “I’m very supportive of Chief Addington. He’s a great addition to the APD. We’re very lucky to have him as our chief. I worked with him for many years at the PPD. In fact, he worked for me when. When I was a Bureau Commander and I had the pick of the list, Brian Addington was my first choice. He was my right-hand person. He’s an outstanding administrator. He’s the right choice.” “Addington and I worked together ridding the department of corruption, investigating officers who were falsifying arrest reports and we ended up removing the officer from the police department,” the councilman added. Police Officers Association “Excited to Learn” of Appointment Antioch Police Officers Association Vice President Sgt. Loren Bledsoe was asked for comment about Addington’s appointment. He responded, “The APOA was excited to learn that Chief Addington was selected for the position of Interim Chief of Police. APD has always shared a strong working relationship with the Pittsburg Police Department, and we look forward to the opportunity to support the mission and vision of Chief Addington here, at APD.” About Brian Addington According to a press release from the Pittsburg Police Department when Addington retired, “In 1994, Officer Brian Addington made, what we think, was the best decision of his career. He joined the Pittsburg Police Department after having served for a year and a half with the Suisun City Police Department. That decision left a lasting mark on our department and our Pittsburg community as he rose through the ranks to become our Police Chief serving in that role for the last decade. Chief Addington started as an officer in patrol on the Strategic Enforcement Team (SET) where he served for several years focused on reducing street-level crimes. From there, he became an undercover detective in the Narcotics Unit. In 1998, he was promoted to Sergeant where he trained and mentored officers in a wide variety of assignments. Chief Addington’s rise through the ranks included a promotion to Lieutenant in 2004 and then Captain in 2010. He served as our Public Information Officer as well as duties in patrol, training, narcotics, criminal and administrative investigations and so much more. As Police Chief, he focused on transparency and breaking down barriers between police and the community we’re sworn to serve. His modern approach to law enforcement strategies resulted in both a 10% decrease in crime and more than a 100% increase in diversity among the ranks of the Pittsburg Police Department. These are achievements that will last for decades to come. Chief Addington brought respect and a broader footprint for the Pittsburg Police Department through his service and leadership in many roles including membership with the FBI National Academy Associates, California Police Chiefs Association, and the International Association of Police Chiefs.” See a brief video of Addington’s farewell posted on the Pittsburg PD’s Facebook page. Addington’s Business, Education and Personal Background According to his LinkedIn profile, since retiring, Addington founded WBA Consulting and Investigations, LLC and is Chief Operations Officer for Vacaville-based Cole Pro Media. When reached for comment, Addington said, “I work part-time for Cole Pro Media which works with law enforcement agencies on communications strategy.” His profile on the WBA website offers more about his experience and knowledge. “His expertise covers the full range of policing disciplines based on his experiences in a law enforcement agency in California. Brian provides expert advice on best practices in policing, leadership development, organizational assessments, training, independent investigations, and community engagement and media relations. Brian has also served as an advisor and consultant to various law enforcement agencies and executives in developing strategies and best practices to address the ever-changing demands placed on law enforcement professionals.” He was able to retire at age 50 under the previous compensation package for many law enforcement agencies in the state, including the CHP and Antioch Police Department. Addington said he will be 52 in March. “My intent was always to work after I retired,” he stated. Addington is married, and together with his wife they have a total of eight children “in a blended family.” He earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in organizational leadership, both from Chapman University. In addition, Addington graduated from the FBI National Academy in 2012 and the California POST (Police Officer Standards and Training program) Command College in 2011. He’s been a board member with the Pittsburg Police Activities League since 2014 Asked why he goes by Brian, Addington shared, “My dad was William Calvin Addington, and I’m William Brian. My mom called me Brian. So, I just go by my middle name.” Addington said he was born in San Gabriel in the L.A. area and his family moved to Concord when he was three years old. “We then moved when I was eight to Fairfield. So, I grew up in Solano County,” he added. While he officially starts Monday, Reed was asked if Addington will be sworn in that day or during next Tuesday’s council meeting. He responded, “for the Oath of Office we are planning that now with it being tentatively set some time Tuesday afternoon.” Allen D. Payton contributed to this report. Read MoreIncluding State Senate District 9, Assembly District 15 and County Supervisor District 5
Presented by Building Black Political Power of Contra Costa PAC and NAACP East County Branch
By Allen D. Payton
A Candidates Night for those running in State Senate District 9, Assembly District 15 and Contra Costa County Supervisor District 5 will be held this Thursday, Feb. 22, 2024, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM at Antioch Church Family, 55 E. 18th Street in Antioch. It is sponsored by Building Black Political Power of Contra Costa Political Action Committee (BPC) and the NAACP East County Branch.
Formed in 2022, according to the organization’s website, “The purpose of Building Black Political Power of Contra Costa, also known as the BPC, is to bring attention to the issues affecting the Black community. We want to make sure black voices are heard, on the issues that matter to the black community. We will provide the public with information on current issues facing the Black community and share candidate positions on those current issues. We will contribute to the support of candidates for local, state, and federal office whom we believe, and who have demonstrated their beliefs in, the principles to which blacks are dedicated. The BPC will work in general to protect and advance the interests of Blacks by supporting qualified candidates for federal office, regardless of party affiliation, who understand and are sympathetic to these goals. To further these purposes, the BPC will be empowered to solicit and accept personal contributions from the public that may then be expended to support the campaigns of a variety of candidates.”
The organization is a political action committee (PAC) with both a California Fair Political Practices Commission ID, #202250618736 and a Federal Election Commission ID, #88-222344130. It was formed in 2022 by former Antioch School Board Trustee Alonzo Terry and Odessa Lefrancois, President of the NAACP East County Branch and others, including PAC President Frances Green, Vice President Crystal Sawyer-White, also a former Antioch School Board Trustee, Treasurer Victoria Adams and another former Antioch School Board Trustee Debra Vinson, who along with Dr. Lamont Francies and Willie Mims are founding board members, as well.
Lefrancois said the PAC hasn’t yet raised or spent any funds. However, Dr. Payton said, “We’re starting to raise funds, now for this election cycle, beginning in March.”
For more information about the NAACP East County Branch visit their website at eastcountynaacp.org.
Read MoreFollowing wiretap investigation into East Bay drug suppliers and significant seizures of fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine and cash
Third man illegal alien from Mexico; among 13 defendants indicted in 2019
Each face maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for every count on which they were convicted
Attempt to use FBI investigation of APD officers as a defense denied
By U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal jury has convicted three defendants—Luis Torres Garcia, Evan Martinez Diaz of Bay Point, and Timothy Peoples of Antioch—of multiple drug trafficking offenses following an eight-day trial, announced United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), San Francisco Field Division, Special Agent in Charge Brian M. Clark. The jury convicted the defendants on all counts, rendering its verdict on February 14, 2024, after deliberating for two hours. The verdict followed a trial before the Hon. Richard Seeborg, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California.
The three were among 13 defendants, including seven from Eastern Contra Costa County, indicted in May 2019 “on narcotics trafficking charges, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent in Charge Chris D. Nielsen. The indictment follows the arrest of five of the defendants on April 30, 2019, and the execution of search warrants at thirteen locations, including nine residences in Contra Costa County, Humboldt County, Fairfield, Suisun City and Modesto.” (See related article)
The evidence at trial included calls intercepted between April 2018 and February 2019 as part of a federal wiretap investigation into two drug suppliers in the East Bay. The intercepted calls established, among other things, that both suppliers received drugs from sources in Mexico. At trial, the government also presented evidence of several significant drug seizures including: 8.8 pounds of fentanyl and heroin in May 2018, valued at as much as $1.1 million, according to uncontested evidence at trial; 18 pounds of methamphetamine in August 2018; and 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine in February 2019. The evidence at trial also established that law enforcement seized more than $300,000 in drug-related cash over the course of the investigation.
Martinez Diaz, 31, of Bay Point, California, was charged with three counts—conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The evidence at trial established, among other things, that on February 9, 2019, Martinez Diaz was transporting about 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine through a residential neighborhood in Antioch, California, when he realized he was being followed by law enforcement—which knew about the drugs through intercepted calls. Martinez Diaz began driving erratically, briefly evading law enforcement and directing a co-conspirator to discard the drugs he was carrying in the bushes on a residential street. A short time later law enforcement located the drugs, which evidence at trial established had street retail values of $177,860 (methamphetamine) and $40,000 (cocaine). After Martinez Diaz was stopped by police and released with a traffic citation, he was intercepted on a call telling his supplier that he had seen law enforcement and discarded the drugs to avoid arrest. (See judge’s opinion)
Peoples, 44, of Antioch, California, was arrested after law enforcement officers found cocaine in his home, and charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)–(C). Evidence presented at trial showed that Peoples was a regular customer of an Antioch-based cocaine wholesaler from whom he bought some 10.5 pounds of cocaine for more than $120,000 in a 90-day period. Peoples used the codeword “babies” to refer to ounce quantities of cocaine. The evidence at trial established that Peoples then sold cocaine to his own customers in smaller quantities and used his proceeds to buy expensive cars.
Attempt to Use FBI Investigation of Antioch Police Officers to Defend Himself Denied
According to the judge’s opinion, “In the course of the federal law enforcement investigation in this case, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) were assisted by officers from the Antioch Police Department in executing search warrants and evidence collection, the bulk of which occurred in 2018 and 2019. Since then, several Antioch police officers have been accused of, and indicted for various crimes, including civil rights violations and wire fraud.” (See related articles here and here)
During the court case, “Peoples insisted that the federal case against the Antioch officers was relevant because two members of the Antioch Police Department accused of misconduct were present at the search of Peoples’ home on April 30, 2019.”
The opinion continued, “The defendants previously filed a discovery motion to compel production of impeachment material related to Antioch police officers who assisted with the DEA and ATF investigation of the defendants in the instant case. That motion was denied.”
“An evidentiary hearing was set to determine threshold matters in relation to the motion. Having considered the parties’ briefs, witness testimony, and admitted exhibits from the hearing, the government’s motion is granted, and the defendants are prohibited from referencing the federal investigation of any Antioch police officers.”
The opinion provided background to Peoples’ claim and the judge’s denial.
“Anticipating the issue would reappear at trial, the government filed MIL No. 12 to prevent the defendants from referencing Antioch police misconduct in the presence of the jury without first establishing relevance for fear that this would result in undue prejudice to the government. Dkt. (Docket) 489. In response, Peoples suggested that witnesses and the DEA-6 report regarding the search of Peoples’ home, authored by DEA Agent Mikhail Job, identified Antioch officers accused of misconduct as having participated in the April 30, 2019, search of Peoples’ residence.
Shortly before the pretrial conference, Peoples submitted a supplemental opposition to MIL No. 12 with information he and the government had just learned. Dkt. 521. In that supplemental opposition, Peoples contended that Agent Job had identified Antioch Officer Morteza Amiri, who has since been indicted on wire fraud charges and civil rights violations, as having entered Peoples’ residence alone for five to ten minutes along with his police dog after the occupants had been cleared out and before the official search began. Peoples also suggested that Antioch Officer Kyle Smith, who allegedly exchanged racist texts with other Antioch officers, joined the search of Peoples’ home. The government filed a supplemental response contending that Agent Job received erroneous information from the DEA case agents and had mistakenly named the wrong Antioch officers on his DEA-6 report. Dkt. 528. According to the government, Officers Amiri and Smith were not present at the search of Peoples’ home but were participating in the contemporaneous search of Defendant Lorenzo Lee’s residence. At the pretrial conference, the threshold question of whether Amiri was present at the search of Peoples’ home remained unresolved. The only potential relevance of the Antioch officers’ misconduct turned on whether Amiri and/or Smith were present at Peoples’ residence such that Peoples could infer the police planted evidence.”
Furthermore, “Peoples failed to establish that a jury could reasonably find that Amiri was present at Peoples residence on April 30, 2019 by a preponderance of evidence. At the evidentiary hearing, both sides admitted several witnesses and exhibits, and the government’s evidence was considerably more persuasive. The government’s witnesses included several law enforcement agents who corroborated their version of the events on the day in question. The testimony of two Antioch officers, Kevin Tjahjadi and Brayton Milner, who participated in the search of Peoples’ residence, was particularly persuasive. Both stated unequivocally that neither Amiri nor Smith joined in that search. The Antioch Police Department CAD reports regarding the search of Peoples’ residence further supported this version of events, identifying only Tjahjadi and Milner as the participating officers.”
Torres Garcia, 38, an illegal alien from Mexico, residing in Rio Dell, California, was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The evidence at trial showed that Torres Garcia was a Humboldt County drug trafficker, who used the nickname “Guero.” Torres Garcia received methamphetamine shipments on credit from a Fairfield, California-based drug supplier. On August 8, 2018, the Fairfield supplier attempted to send about 18 pounds of methamphetamine—valued at $158,000—to Torres Garcia in Humboldt County. DEA agents and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office intercepted the drug courier and seized the drugs during a vehicle stop on Highway 101 near Healdsburg, California. In February 2019, the DEA tracked Torres Garcia to a meeting in Windsor, California, where Torres Garcia delivered about $13,800 in cash to a courier for his drug supplier. Although he was present throughout the trial and listened to closing arguments, Torres Garcia absconded before the jury handed down its verdict; he is now a fugitive. (See judge’s opinion)
According to the judge’s opinion, “Luis Garcia-Torres, defendant, an alien who had previously been deported or removed from the United States to Mexico on or about May 19, 2016, was found in the Eastern District of Texas, said defendant not having received the express consent of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the successor, pursuant to United States Code, Title 6, for re-application for admission to the United States, all in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).”
Sentencing Hearing June 11, 2024
Judge Seeborg scheduled a sentencing hearing for June 11, 2024. Torres Garcia faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Martinez Diaz and Peoples each face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for every count on which they were convicted. However, the defendants’ sentences will be imposed only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Pastor and Joseph Tartakovsky prosecuted the case with the assistance of Erick Machado. This prosecution is the result of an investigation led by the DEA Oakland Resident Office, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Homeland Security Investigations; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the police departments in Fairfield, Antioch, Concord, and Oakland; the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; and the California Highway Patrol.
Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.
Read More
The Contra Costa County Delta Stars play their home games at the Cornerstone Christian School gym at 5:15 p.m. 1745 E. 18th Street in Antioch. For more information about the team visit cccdeltastars.com. The Stars compete in the 109-team American Basketball Association. For more information visit Home of American Basketball Association (ABA)
Read More