Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Delta Levees Investment Strategy becomes California state law

By Leave a Comment

Delta levee work. Photo: Delta Stewardship Council

New flood-related regulations prioritize levee investments in the Delta and Suisun Marsh

By Delta Stewardship Council

SACRAMENTO – The new year has brought new flood protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta Stewardship Council has successfully amended the Delta Levees Investment Strategy (DLIS), a tool the state uses to prioritize investments in Delta levee operations, maintenance and improvements, thus reducing the likelihood and consequences of levee failures.

Executive Officer Jessica R. Pearson at a Delta Stewardship Council meeting. Photo: DSC

The amendment assigns very high, high, or other priority to islands or tracts within the Delta and Suisun Marsh and directs the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund levee improvement projects by order of priority. Additionally, it requires the DWR to submit an annual report to the Council describing Delta levee investments relative to the established priorities. The amended regulation took effect on January 1, 2024.

“Delta flood risk is one of the most urgent threats to California and will continue to worsen in the future with changes in sea levels and storm patterns,” says the Council’s Executive Officer Jessica R. Pearson. “Limited funding to address that risk demands clear priorities. The product of nearly a decade of public input and collaboration, the strategy represents one of the Council’s greatest milestone achievements.”

 

The amendment assigns very high, high, or other priority to islands or tracts within the Delta and Suisun Marsh and directs the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund levee improvement projects by order of priority. Additionally, it requires the DWR to submit an annual report to the Council describing Delta levee investments relative to the established priorities.

The Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project site, located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta near Oakley, California.
The restoration project implemented by the California Department of Water Resources will restore 1,187 acres into a tidal marsh to provide habitat for salmon and other native fish and wildlife. Photo taken May 18, 2023, by Florence Low / California Department of Water Resources,

“Flood protection is a key piece of DWR’s work to increase water resilience as California moves toward a hotter, drier future,” says DWR Director Karla Nemeth. “DWR stands in partnership with the Delta Stewardship Council across multiple initiatives, including the Delta Levees Investment Strategy. These efforts will provide needed protections to the diverse communities that call the Delta home.”

The Delta’s 1,100 miles of levees provide protection for residences, agricultural lands, and infrastructure, which need deliberate and sustainable maintenance and funding. Many of the levees date back to when the Delta was reclaimed for agricultural purposes in the late 1800s.

The updated strategy prioritizes the protection of people, property, and state interests and advances statewide water supply reliability and Delta ecosystem resilience in a manner that protects and enhances the Delta as a place where people live, work, and recreate.

Source: DSC

On September 21, 2023, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Council’s Administrative Procedure Act process to amend the California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 5001 and 5012, to implement the Council’s Delta Levees Investment Strategy. The amended regulation took effect on January 1, 2024, and is available at on the Delta Levees Investment Strategy web page at deltacouncil.ca.gov/DLIS.

ABOUT THE COUNCIL

The Delta Stewardship Council was created by the California Legislature in 2009 to advance California’s water supply reliability and the Delta’s ecosystem resiliency in a manner that protects and enhances the region’s unique characteristics. It is composed of seven members, advised by an independent 10-member science board, and supported by a dedicated staff. For more information, visit the Council’s website at deltacouncil.ca.gov.

Opinion: Will California’s budget woes impact tax reform?

By Leave a Comment

By Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) is a proposed constitutional amendment which has already qualified for the November 2024 ballot. It is sponsored by taxpayer and business organizations to restore key provisions of Proposition 13 and other pro-taxpayer laws that give voters more control over when and how new tax revenue is raised.

Although TPA, unlike previous tax reform measures, doesn’t reduce or eliminate any state or local tax, it does impose both enhanced voter approval requirements for fee and tax increases as well as robust accountability and transparency provisions.

For obvious reasons, tax-and-spend interests hate TPA and have launched a multi-front assault hoping to either defeat it or keep it off the ballot entirely.

The motivation for these schemes is that politicians and their enablers are fully aware that TPA is highly likely to pass if it stays on the ballot. Californians are sick and tired of having the nation’s highest tax rates jammed down their throats, especially when these heavy tax burdens are not accompanied by higher levels of public services; in fact, the opposite is true, as evidenced by California’s high cost of living, crime, homelessness, hostile business climate, and other ills.

But now, there may be another reason why anti-taxpayer interests are waging this war on TPA. A recent report by the California Legislative Analyst’s office threw a bucket of cold water on progressives’ plans to continue to increase taxes with virtually no restraint. The LAO now estimates “2022-23 revenues to be $26 billion below Budget Act projections. Historical experience suggests this weakness is likely to carry into this fiscal year and next. Overall, our updated revenue outlook anticipates collections to come in $58 billion below Budget Act projections across 2022-23 to 2024-25.” (Note that in less than a week after this news, the LAO upped the shortfall from $58 billion to $68 billion).

If there is any saving grace to the current financial situation it is that California still has substantial budget reserves. That, plus some creative accounting, can probably blunt the negative impacts of a severe drop in revenues – at least for a while.

Nonetheless, if California’s tax revenue spigot is curtailed any significant amount, will the enemies of the Taxpayer Protection Act argue that this provides another justification for removing all restraints on raising taxes?

Economic growth in Texas and Florida is outpacing that in California, due in part to a top marginal income tax rate of zero. What is happening in other smaller states is less well known. The smart move would be to follow the lead of other states which are aggressively pursuing pro-growth strategies which in turn lead to more tax revenue.

Take Iowa for example. Defying critics who claimed that tax reductions would crush the state budget, Iowa’s Governor Kim Reynolds slashed top marginal tax rates, previously some of the highest in the nation. Not only did revenues not crash, but they shot up by huge percentage points. According to a report in Center Square, “Iowa led the ‘tax-cutting wave’ in 2022, with the most comprehensive and aggressive tax reform in the United States. This will gradually replace the nine-bracket, progressive income tax with a flat tax, bringing the top rate, which was close to 9 percent, down to a flat 3.9 percent by 2026.”

Other states have provided California with a roadmap for economic growth and healthy budgets by cutting taxes and pursuing other pro-freedom policies. However, the political realities in this one-party state – governed by hardcore progressives – render the odds of politicians even looking at the roadmap extremely slight.

That being said, if the Governor and the Legislature won’t do what’s necessary to prevent a budget disaster, the least they can do is get out of the way of those who have offered the Taxpayer Protection Act to the voters so that ordinary citizens can do what politicians won’t: impose fiscal discipline on a fiscally reckless state.

This column originally appeared in the Orange County Register. Republished with permission.

CA State Controller responds to Legislative Analyst’s projected $68 billion budget deficit

By Leave a Comment

Says state can borrow over $91 billion

By Allen D. Payton

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report on Dec. 7, 2023, that the state faces a $68 billion budget deficit for the 2024-25 Fiscal Year. Entitled, “The 2024-25 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook”, the report’s Executive Summary read as follows:

“California Faces a $68 Billion Deficit.

Largely as a result of a severe revenue decline in 2022-23, the state faces a serious budget deficit. Specifically, under the state’s current law and policy, we estimate the Legislature will need to solve a budget problem of $68 billion in the upcoming budget process.

Unprecedented Prior-Year Revenue Shortfall Creates Unique Challenges.

Typically, the budget process does not involve large changes in revenue in the prior year (in this case, 2022-23). This is because prior-year taxes usually have been filed and associated revenues collected. Due to the state conforming to federal tax filing extensions, however, the Legislature is gaining a complete picture of 2022-23 tax collections after the fiscal year has already ended. Specifically, we estimate that 2022-23 revenue will be $26 billion below budget act estimates. This creates unique and difficult challenges—including limiting the Legislature’s options for addressing the budget problem.

Legislature Has Multiple Tools Available to Address Budget Problem.

While addressing a deficit of this scope will be challenging, the Legislature has a number of options available to do so. In particular, the state has nearly $24 billion in reserves to address the budget problem. In addition, there are options to reduce spending on schools and community colleges that could address nearly $17 billion of the budget problem. Further adjustments to other areas of the budget, such as reductions to one-time spending, could address at least an additional $10 billion or so. These options and some others, like cost shifts, would allow the Legislature to solve most of the deficit largely without impacting the state’s core ongoing service level.

Legislature Will Have Fewer Options to Address Multiyear Deficits in the Coming Years.

Given the state faces a serious budget problem, using general purpose reserves this year is merited. That said, we suggest the Legislature exercise some caution when deploying tools like reserves and cost shifts. The state’s reserves are unlikely to be sufficient to cover the state’s multiyear deficits—which average $30 billion per year under our estimates. These deficits likely necessitate ongoing spending reductions, revenue increases, or both. As a result, preserving a substantial portion—potentially up to half—of reserves would provide a helpful cushion in light of the anticipated shortfalls that lie ahead.”

Controller Cohen Calls for Calm

In a press release issued today, Tuesday, Dec. 19, State Controller Malia M. Cohen calls for calm in the wake of recent budget deficit announcements and issued the following statement after releasing the recent Cash Report on December 8:

“Despite reports from various sources indicating a budgetary deficit of approximately $68 billion, the state’s cash position remains strong, and, absent any unforeseen circumstances, the state has sufficient cash to pay its bills and meet its financial obligations through the end of the fiscal year.”

“As chief fiscal officer, one of my duties is to track and report on the state’s actual cash balance,” she continued. “In that regard, the state currently has more than $91.4 billion in available borrowable resources, due in large part to the Governor’s and Legislature’s foresight in building prudent rainy-day reserves in the Budget Stabilization Account. While legislators will have difficult choices to make in the new year, I am confident they will be deliberate in addressing the budget challenges before them, and I urge them to protect, to the extent possible, the health and social service programs designed to benefit those who are displaced, without shelter, or otherwise economically disadvantaged.”

About Controller Cohen

As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on X at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.

About the Legislative Analyst’s Office

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has provided fiscal and policy advice to the Legislature for 75 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analyses of the state budget. The office serves as the “eyes and ears” for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.

The office is overseen by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), a 16-member bipartisan committee. Currently, the office has a staff of 43 analysts and approximately 13 support staff. The analytical staff cover several budget and policy areas: Criminal Justice, State Finance, Education (including K-12 and Higher Education), Health and Human Services, Natural Resources and Environment, General Government (including Local Government), Transportation, and Capital Outlay and Infrastructure.

 

State Public Utilities Commission approves 12.8% PG&E rate increase

By Leave a Comment

Claims typical residential customer will pay $32.62 more for combined monthly electric and natural gas bill beginning January 1, 2024.

By CPUC

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Thursday, Nov. 16, 2023, resolved Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) General Rate Case (GRC), which covers its operational and infrastructure revenue requirement for 2023-2026. The decision marks a crucial step in fortifying the future of California’s electric grid while prioritizing customer affordability.

Based on the evidence presented, the CPUC today unanimously approved the Alternate Proposed Decision of Commissioner John Reynolds. This decision approves investments in the safety and reliability of PG&E’s energy services. Inflation and a significant investment in undergrounding electric lines ranked among the top drivers in PG&E’s request. Over the past year and a half, numerous parties reviewed PG&E’s GRC request and provided input on each cost category and related proposed expenditures.

“I am proud of today’s decision because it represents the CPUC’s commitment to finding a reasonable balance in the face of incredibly challenging circumstances and competing objectives,” said Commissioner John Reynolds, who is assigned to the proceeding. “This decision ultimately represents both an historic investment in PG&E’s electric and natural gas systems as well as an expectation that PG&E must continue to be safer and more efficient. I am grateful to the many parties, and the scores of CPUC staffers, for their help as we grappled with this decision.”

Today’s decision propels PG&E’s energy infrastructure and operations into the future, addressing critical objectives such as mitigating wildfire risk, enhancing safety and reliability, and anticipating evolving electric grid demands. This comprehensive approach not only ensures PG&E’s capacity to maintain a safe and reliable energy system with a dedicated workforce, but also positions California for a more resilient energy future in the face of climate change. Moreover, the decision reflects rigorous oversight over hundreds of programs, and reduces PG&E’s request to more accurately reflect forecasts for prudent use of ratepayer funds.

Among the key initiatives covered in the decision:

  • Wildfire System Enhancement and Undergrounding
    • Approves 1,230 miles of electric line undergrounding, as well as 778 miles of covered conductor, totaling 2,008 hardened miles. This represents an historic opportunity for PG&E to invest in safer, reliable improvements for its customers while also achieving economies of scale to drive down costs; the revised undergrounding total also provides PG&E with a bridge to a future phase of undergrounding planning, through the Senate Bill 884 program.
  • Vegetation Management
    • Approves PG&E investing approximately $1.3 billion in vegetation management to reduce wildfire ignition risk and improve reliability on PG&E’s electrical system.
  • Capacity Upgrades
    • Approves PG&E investing more than $2.5 billion in upgrading the electric distribution system from 2023-2026, which will help prepare the grid to support initiatives for enhanced building electrification and new interconnections for electric vehicle charging stations and new housing and businesses.

“Today’s decision balances a myriad of competing interests—affordability, feasibility, safety, and reliability,” said CPUC President Alice Reynolds. “And in the face of increasingly turbulent climate-driven weather events, it gives PG&E the opportunity to prove it can underground electric lines at scale.  This will allow PG&E to achieve economies of scale, drive down costs, and reduce wildfire risk.”

Setting the pathway for critical investments in PG&E’s system

For PG&E customers, this approval by the CPUC translates to a continued commitment to safe, reliable, and affordable energy services. The GRC ensures that every dollar invested contributes to more resilient energy infrastructure, offering customers lasting benefits. Moreover, stringent accountability measures are embedded within the decision, assuring customers that their investment yields tangible and accountable improvements in PG&E’s operations and services.

PG&E requested $15.4 billion for 2023; Thursday’s decision cut that amount substantially, by $1.8 billion. Today’s decision sets the 2023 revenue requirement at $13.5 billion, reflecting an 11 percent increase from the authorized 2022 revenue requirement. For the typical residential customer, their combined monthly electric and natural gas bill will increase by $32.62 or 12.8 percent, compared to PG&E’s request of $38.73 or 17.9 percent increase.

PG&E’s 2022 Authorized Revenue Requirement Proposed 2023
Revenue Requirement		 Percent Increase Dollar Increase
$12.2 billion PG&E Request $15.4 billion 26% $3.2 billion
Decision $13.5 billion 11% $1.3 billion

Customers can expect any changes to their bill to go into effect on January 1, 2024.

For further information on the proceeding, including today’s decision and a fact sheet, please visit the CPUC’s website.

About the California Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC regulates services and utilities, protects consumers, safeguards the environment, and assures Californians access to safe and reliable utility infrastructure and services. Visit www.cpuc.ca.gov for more information.

 

 

 

 

Jury convicts Alamo attorney of embezzling $400,000 from fire victim clients

By Leave a Comment

By Ted Asregadoo, PIO, Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office

A jury in Martinez returned guilty verdicts on November 7th in a felony case involving an attorney, William James Reed, who embezzled $400,000 from his clients.

Reed, an 80-year-old attorney formerly of Alamo, was convicted of felony grand theft by embezzlement and a white-collar crime enhancement related to a settlement agreement with PG&E. The agreement included payments to victims of the 2006 Zamora Fire near Woodland, CA.

Following the fire, Reed authored a letter, purportedly from a fellow landowner impacted by the fire, stating that in a lawsuit against PG&E, attorney’s fees would be covered by PG&E. He invited fire victims to a Town Hall meeting in Zamora, where he assured them that, according to the law, PG&E would be responsible for attorney’s fees, not the clients.

Two families, including elderly victims with ranch properties damaged by the fire, agreed to have Reed represent them. Reed presented unclear and confusing lawyer-client relationship documents, including a contract implying clients would pay his hourly legal fees and costs at the rate of $625 an hour, and a cover letter stating PG&E would cover Reed’s attorney’s fees and costs. After obtaining the victims’ agreement on legal representation, Reed filed a lawsuit against PG&E on the victims’ behalf in 2008.

In 2013, a $200,000 settlement for each victim family was brokered by Reed with PG&E. Reed received the $400,000 settlement from an attorney representing PG&E — but Reed failed to inform his clients about the money. His clients discovered the settlement money was paid to Reed at an unrelated court hearing.

Afterward, when the victims asked Reed about their money, he presented them with a proposed settlement agreement. The agreement stated the clients would each give him $103,000 for attorney’s fees and costs, and in turn each client would receive $97,000. The victims refused to sign Reed’s proposed settlement agreement because it contradicted their initial agreement with him. Years of civil litigation ensued between Reed and the victims, with Reed using some of the settlement money to pay his lawyers to fight the victims.

In 2017, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office was alerted to possible criminal violations related to the victim’s settlement money. A Forensic Accountant at the District Attorney’s Office analyzed Reed’s bank account statements and determined that Reed had spent the entire $400,000 on himself. Thereafter, felony grand theft by embezzlement charges were filed against Reed.

The case went to trial on October 13, 2023. Deputy District Attorney Scott Prosser had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that Reed was not entitled to the victim’s settlement money for attorney’s fees A key piece of evidence presented to the jury during the trial was the document stating that Reed’s fees would be paid by PG&E and not the victims.

The jury deliberated for a few hours and convicted Reed on two felony counts of grand theft by embezzlement and a white collar crime enhancement, establishing illegal possession of over $100,000. Reed faces imprisonment for three years and eight months and will be sentenced on January 10, 2024, by

Superior Court Judge Charles Treat.

Deputy District Attorney Prosser, after the verdict, stated, “It is unconscionable for an attorney to lead a client to believe they were not responsible for attorney’s fees, and then take 100 % of the client’s money from a settlement agreement. And we are very pleased with the outcome in our fight to seek justice for the

victims in this case.”.

BART seeks applicants for public seat on Audit Committee

By Leave a Comment

BART is seeking applicants to serve as public members on its Audit Committee, which assists the Board of Directors in providing oversight for financial management, operational effectiveness, ethics and regulatory compliance.

The Audit Committee is comprised of five voting members, including three Board Directors and two public members with governmental financial expertise. It meets at least four times per year, with authority to convene additional meetings as needed.

Criteria for the position include:

  • Expertise: Have expertise in governmental accounting, financial management, or Performance auditing, or conducting investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse;
  • Technical Knowledge: Have technical knowledge of accounting, financial or performance auditing, financial reporting, and internal controls, including an understanding of and ability to apply the Government Auditing Standards, accounting standards issued by the Government Accounting Standards Board, and a recognized internal control framework;
  • Professional Certification: Possess a relevant professional certification, such as Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, Certified Fraud Examiner, Certified Inspector General, Certified Internal Controls Auditor, Certified Information Systems Auditor, or a similar certification. Relevant experience may substitute for such certification in the Board’s discretion;
  • No conflicts/recent affiliations: Within the past 10 years and other than in their role as a committee member, have no affiliation with the District or with a firm that has done business with the District.

Public members serving on the Audit Committee must be appointed by a majority of the full Board of Directors through this application process. Public members must possess the independence, experience, and collective technical expertise necessary to carry out the duties of the Audit Committee. Public members must be residents within the District’s boundaries and are subject to conflict-of-interest laws.

The application process has two phases. In Phase 1, all applications will be reviewed to meet all requirements and qualifications, letters of recommendations and any supplemental documents. In Phase 2, selected candidates will be invited to appear before the Board of Directors to briefly explain their interest in serving on the committee, followed by a Board vote.

Download the application form, Audit Committee Public Member appointment rules, and the  Audit Committee Charter.

Please contact the Office of the District Secretary with any questions via email at boardofdirectors@bart.gov.

Grayson cryptocurrency regulation bill signed into law

By Leave a Comment

Assembly Bill 39 will establish a licensing process for crypto exchanges and provide consumers with needed protections. Senate Bill 401 will establish safeguards for crypto kiosks. 

(SACRAMENTO, CA) – On Friday, Oct. 13, 2023, Assembly Bill 39, authored by Assembly Banking and Finance Chair Timothy Grayson (D-Concord) and co-authored by Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego), Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Chair Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara), and Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. AB 39 will establish a licensing program for crypto assets within the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to protect Californians from bad actors and foster responsible innovation. The bill represents a major victory for responsible innovators and California consumers.

AB 39’s lead author, Assemblymember Grayson, released the following statement:

“Today California is taking the necessary step to regulate a market that is volatile, risky, and, in some cases, deliberately rigged against everyday consumers. Because of today’s action, Californians can be confident that crypto businesses, like any other company in financial services, must follow reasonable rules that will protect consumers and their money. Thank you to Governor Newsom for helping ensure that our state leads in fostering responsible innovation.”

Assembly Bill 39 is a companion bill to Senate Bill 401 (Limón and Atkins), which will set a regulatory framework for crypto kiosks, a part of the crypto industry rife with fraud and abuse. Crypto kiosks are ATM-like machines that allow consumers to purchase cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. However, these machines charge exorbitant fees and are hubs of criminal activity, scams, and consumer fraud.

“With the important frameworks established by AB 39 and SB 401, California will begin the challenging task ahead of us to regulate cryptocurrency and ensure that no Californian falls prey to scams, investment related fraud, or high-fee asset withdrawal schemes,” said California Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins. “Failures in crypto markets in recent years have emphasized the need for regulatory frameworks that have the backs of consumers, and Assemblymember Grayson and Senator Limón have led the way in doing just that.”

“California is taking a step in the right direction to protect California consumers from fraud, unnecessary risk, and potentially criminal activity with the signing of SB 401 and AB 39,” said Senator Monique Limón. “I am grateful that Governor Newsom sees the benefits to establishing a clear framework that allows for innovation without harming California consumers.”

Senate Bill 401 was signed into law, along with Assembly Bill 39. 

“The Consumer Federation of California thanks Governor Newsom for signing these two important bills protecting consumers in the crypto marketplace,” said Robert Herrell, Executive Director of Consumer Confederation of California. “California now retakes its rightful position near the top of states protecting consumers in the crypto market. We also profoundly thank Assemblymember Grayson and Senators Limón and Atkins for their perseverance on these issues. Consumers will be better protected in crypto thanks to these new laws.” 

With the Governor’s signature of these measures, crypto companies and crypto kiosk operators must obtain or apply for a license by July 1, 2025, to continue doing business in California. Additional information and the text of both bills can be found here. 

 

BART Board president, GM say more state funds needed to avoid “severe cuts to service and staffing”

By Leave a Comment

From Board of Directors President Janice Li and General Manager Bob Powers:

BART is thankful for the recent action taken by the California State Legislature to restore $2 billion for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The program is vital in funding transformative capital improvements to modernize public transportation systems such as BART.

The fate of transit operating budgets, however, presents a do-or-die decision point.

Each day BART moves closer to plunging off the fiscal cliff if the State does not provide short-term financial aid to fund transit operations.

One-time federal funds are dwindling even with BART’s stringent cost controls and will be exhausted by early 2025. If transit operations funding is not included in this year’s State budget, BART must begin making severe cuts to service and staffing, as early as this year. The State has the opportunity – and the power – to sustain BART or let BART and the Bay Area economy fail.
Here’s how failure looks:

  • Trains only once an hour.
  • No trains on weekends.
  • No trains after 9 p.m. on weeknights.
  • Reduced service to San Francisco International and Oakland International airports.
  • Some stations closed.
  • Entire lines potentially shuttered

Those who will pay the biggest price for these severe cuts are those who can afford it the least. Sixty-seven percent of BART riders identify as non-white. Forty-four percent do not have a vehicle. Thirty-one percent have an income of $50,000 or lower. Seven percent are disabled. If the State fails to act, those who rely on BART as a lifeline will be stranded.

Everyone will pay the price if BART fails – even those who don’t use it. Traffic stands to drastically worsen across our already congested roadways and bridges, and regional greenhouse gas emissions will increase, further fueling climate change. Just one trip in a car emits the same amount of C02 as thirty trips taken on BART.

Businesses will struggle to move their goods with thousands more vehicles on already strained roads. BART service cuts to SFO and OAK will make tourism and convention travel unpalatable.

The Bay Area is an economic engine for the entire state, which represents the fourth largest economy in the world. But the regional economy isn’t ironclad. It needs effective public transit – BART, Muni, and other agencies – to thrive.

BART staff, labor partners and Board are focused on increasing ridership by improving the system.

Some highlights:

  • Adding eight to 18 additional police officers to patrol trains each shift in addition to BART’s unarmed safety staff of Ambassadors, Crisis Intervention Specialists and Fare Inspectors on trains.
  • A September schedule change means no rider will wait more than 20 minutes for a scheduled train, including nights and weekends.
  • More than doubling the Clipper START discount for eligible low-income riders.
  • A project to install 700 new fare gates at all stations by 2026 to deter fare evasion and increase safety.
  • Thorough cleaning of train car interiors twice as often.
  • Increasing the number of deep-clean teams by 66% to scrub heavily used stations.

These hard-earned gains for riders would be wiped out by severe service cuts. It’s a recipe for a death spiral.

If the State fails to act, not only will BART fail, but Bay Area public transit will fail. Ninety percent of all transfer trips in the Bay Area involve a connection to BART.

For BART and the Bay Area we know and love to survive, we need State help NOW.

Contra Costa Supervisors to discuss proposed $5.5 billion Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget Monday

By Leave a Comment

Source: Contra Costa County

By Allen D. Payton

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will discuss the $5.515 billion Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Recommended Budget at 9 a.m. on Monday, April 24.

New this year is an updated online version, which increases accessibility through easier navigation, interactive content, additional performance measures, and customizable PDF printing options.

“This structurally balanced budget continues to reflect years of careful, comprehensive, and continuing review and refinement of our operations to cope with economic challenges.” said County Administrator Monica Nino. “At every opportunity, we continue to make changes to deliver services that residents need and expect from County government in ways that are more efficient and less costly.”

According to Nino’s report to the Board, “It is anticipated this year will be one of status quo in the delivery of services besides those program enhancements that are in the startup phase from the benefit of the Board-allocated Measure X funds for specific purposes. The increase in salaries and benefits totals $126.3 million, largely due to the second year of a 5% cost of living increase for over 80% of the County workforce received as part of a four-year labor agreement.

The Recommended Budget includes funding for 11,127.6 full-time equivalent positions (FTE), of which 6,836.4 are in the General Fund. The recommendation includes 85.4 new (60.0 General Fund) positions to be added for the fiscal year 2023-2024 (FY23-24). To structurally balance the budget, a number of our General Fund departments continue to have vacancy factors built into their recommended budget allocations. A vacancy factor accounts for cost savings related to personnel vacancies occurring within departments during the fiscal year. During the development of the Recommended Budget, there were approximately 2,013 vacant FTE positions, totaling $305.0 million, of which 1,395 FTE totaling $204.9 million are General Fund supported. Due to difficulties in recruitments, retention, and normal turnover, the following nine departments are maintaining vacancy factors totaling $101.5 million: Health Services, Sheriff-Coroner, Employment and Human Services, District Attorney, County Clerk-Recorder, Probation, Public Defender, Animal Services, and Assessor. We have continued the process of eliminating vacant/unfunded positions with the goal of more easily identifying funded vacant positions requiring recruitment during the fiscal year.

Source: Contra Costa County

General Purpose Revenue for FY23-24 totals $725.1 million, an increase of 9.3% over the prior year budget of $663.6 million. Of the major revenue sources, property taxes are the largest category and total $496.9 million, based on an assumed 4% growth over current year projected collections. The next largest sources are Measure X sales tax at $118.2 million, interest income at $30 million, and sales and use taxes at $22.2 million. Interest income is projected to be received close to double in FY22-23 of what is budgeted for FY23-24; this is as a result of increases in interest rates. This economic benefit is projected not to last and actual interest earnings will be monitored during the new fiscal year in the event an adjustment is necessary.

The following items are potential pressures to the recommended spending plan.

  • Persistent high inflation and economic uncertainty;
  • Unanticipated impacts from the Governor’s May Revised Budget proposal and shortfalls in Federal allocations;
  • Decreasing County revenue growth;
  • Disallowed FEMA reimbursement related to COVID-19;
  • Labor contract negotiations for agreements expiring June 30, 2023; and
  • Limited qualified workforce to fill job vacancies

The majority of the budget ($2.876 billion) is funded from State and Federal revenues. This means that for the majority of the programs funded, a program cut would also result in a loss of the revenue associated with the program. Salary and Benefit costs are broken out to show the growth, which consumes 37% of the County budget.”

Among the recommended budget highlights provided by Supervisor Diane Burgis’ office are:

  • Adds 26 positions in the Employment and Human Services Department to improve children and family services; youth programming and workforce development; In-Home Supportive Services case management; senior nutrition programs; CalAIM implementation; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and associated programs.
  • Adds three full-time Animal Services Officers to increase beat coverage and improve response times to dangerous animal cases and an additional two full-time positions focused on transfer partner and adoption programs and lost and found programs.
  • A $10 million allocation toward developing a new Bay Point Library branch. The branch is a new 10,000-20,000 square-foot space constructed in partnership with an affordable housing project.
  • $10 million in capital funding to provide a local match for grants that would allow the County to leverage state and federal funds for large infrastructure projects, such as roads and bridges, as part of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

The Board discussion is tentatively scheduled to continue at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 25, if additional time is needed. The Board is scheduled to adopt the final budget on Tuesday, May 23.

 

Senator Glazer resigns from Bay Area Transit panel

By Leave a Comment

State Senator Steve Glazer wants greater fiscal oversight of BART.

Says “Bay Area leaders have not stepped up to fix the fiscal oversight problems with BART…”

BART Board Vice Chair Foley responds, Director Allen applauds Glazer

By Allen D. Payton

SACRAMENTO – Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, announced that he resigned today, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023 from his position as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit, saying Bay Area leaders have failed to support fiscal oversight of BART.

Senator Glazer is a longtime supporter of public transit and is concerned about the financial problems facing Bay Area transit systems, which are essential to the health of the regional economy. But, he said, the status quo is unacceptable.

“Bay Area leaders have not stepped up to fix the fiscal oversight problems with BART, as well as the underfunding of the Inspector General’s office,” Glazer said. “When these problems are addressed, I will join with my colleagues and support greater transit funding.”

In June 2022, an Alameda County Grand Jury found that BART’s leadership has repeatedly blocked the Inspector General’s authority and autonomy.

Just two months later, former State Auditor Elaine Howle found that the BART office “lacked the authority and independence necessary to do its job…”

The BART inspector general was created by Senator Glazer as part of a transportation bill in 2017. Senator Glazer advanced legislation (SB 827) to the governor’s desk last year that enhanced independence for the IG, conforming its auditing standards and investigations with other transportation IGs. At the request of the BART Board, Governor Newsom vetoed the bill.

Senator Glazer’s letter reads as follows:

Dear Senator Wiener,

I hereby resign from the Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit, effective immediately. The failure of Bay Area leaders to hold BART financially accountable makes my participation in this transit support committee incompatible.

I recognize and support the pressing need for the state to invest in public transit agencies throughout the Bay Area given the financial uncertainty that looms over these systems. However, there is no guarantee that these agencies will spend taxpayer dollars sensibly without adequate oversight of their expenditures. I point to the recent alarming reports from BART’s Inspector General regarding BART’s financial mismanagement and brazen defiance of voter-mandated oversight.

In June 2022, an Alameda County Grand Jury found that BART’s leadership has repeatedly blocked the Inspector General’s authority and autonomy. Specifically, the Grand Jury found that BART’s board of directors and management engaged in a “pattern of obstruction” that has impeded the Inspector General’s ability to conduct independent oversight and “stymied OIG independence and the confidentiality of investigations.”

Just two months later, former State Auditor Elaine Howle, comparing the powers and responsibilities of the BART IG to other, similar offices, found that the BART office “lacked the authority and independence necessary to do its job according to the best practices recommended by national professional organizations that set standards in the accountability field.’ She also asserted in a letter to Governor Newsom that ‘(e)nsuring the independence of the BART Inspector General is critical to the credibility and effectiveness of the office.”

As BART and other regional transit systems seek additional state funding to stave off upcoming fiscal problems, the Legislature must ensure that the same systems spend public resources responsibly.

I wish you well with your important work.

———————

BART Directors Respond

When reached for comment about Glazer’s resignation from the committee and reason for it the four BART Board directors who represent Contra Costa County, including Vice Chair and District 3 Director Mark Foley, District 1 Director Deb Allen, District 3 Director Rebecca Stutzman and District 7 Director Lateefah Simon.

Foley responded writing, “I’d like to thank Senator Glazer for his continuing support of BART and public transit. I look forward to partnering with the senator on matters of mutual interest, including strengthening the Office of the Inspector General and helping support BART’s efforts to provide safe, world-class transit, invest in infrastructure renewal and address societal issues such as unhoused individuals within the BART system. I’m eagerly anticipating Chair Wiener’s appointment to this vacancy on the Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit.”

Allen responded writing, “I applauded CA Senator Glazer for standing up to Bay Area elected leaders to insist on accountability to transit riders and taxpayers. They deserve answers about how BART spends $2.5B plus annually and those answers aren’t easy to come by.

Senator Glazer and I have worked for over six years together to get answers and still continue to meet resistance in making meaningful independent oversight a permanent part of the BART culture. We have worked tirelessly over last 4 years on strengthening the role of the Office of Inspector General we created and built, while the majority of BART board directors, unions and executive staff continue to focus on the ‘more money please!’ approach. We saw it last week in BART’s annual Board Workshop and it seems Senator Glazer is seeing the same approach evolving from the Senate select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit. That will only produce more of the same failed policies we see now for BART.

I believe BART executive management and a majority of directors will continue to fight proper oversight. Unless our state leaders like Senator Glazer attach oversight strings to new funding at the state level to keep transit agencies accountable to the people who are paying for it, transit will continue to fail the riders, workers and the Bay Area.”