Contra Costa Herald

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

Secretary of State Padilla assigns numbers to November ballot measures, invites ballot arguments

By Leave a Comment

Two tax increases included in Props 15 and 19; Prop 18 lowers voting age to 17

SACRAMENTO, CA – Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Wednesday, July 1, assigned proposition numbers to the legislative, initiative, and referendum measures set to appear on the November 3, 2020 General Election ballot. Secretary Padilla also invited interested Californians to submit arguments to be considered for inclusion in the Official Voter Information Guide. The guide is mailed to every voting household in California and posted on the Secretary of State’s website.

The propositions are listed below, along with the Legislative Counsel’s digest or the Attorney General’s official circulating title and summary.

Proposition 14

AUTHORIZES BONDS TO CONTINUE FUNDING STEM CELL AND OTHER MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: (1) stem cell and other medical research, therapy development, and therapy delivery; (2) medical training; and (3) construction of research facilities. Dedicates $1.5 billion to fund research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions. Limits bond issuance to $540 million annually. Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bond debt, but postpones repayment for first five years. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State costs of $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds. Associated average annual debt payments of about $310 million for 25 years. The costs could be higher or lower than these estimates depending on factors such as the interest rate and the period of time over which the bonds are repaid. The state General Fund would pay most of the costs, with a relatively small amount of interest repaid by bond proceeds. (19-0022A1.)

Proposition 15

INCREASES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Increases funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. Increased education funding will supplement existing school funding guarantees. Exempts small businesses from personal property tax; for other businesses, exempts $500,000 worth of personal property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $7.5 billion to $12 billion in most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets. After backfilling state income tax losses related to the measure and paying for county administrative costs, the remaining $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion would be allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent). (19-0008.)

Proposition 16

ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 23), Weber. Government preferences.

The California Constitution, pursuant to provisions enacted by the initiative Proposition 209 in 1996, prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Constitution defines the state for these purposes to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.

This measure would repeal these provisions. The measure would also make a statement of legislative findings in this regard.

WHEREAS, Equal opportunity is deeply rooted in the American ideals of fairness, justice, and equality. Programs to meet the goals of equal opportunity seek to realize these basic values. Equal opportunity not only helps individuals, but also helps communities in need and benefits our larger society. California’s equal opportunity program was upended by the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209, entitled the California Civil Rights Initiative, amended Article I of the California Constitution to prohibit race- and gender-conscious remedies to rectify the underutilization of women and people of color in public employment, as well as public contracting and education; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 invalidated a series of laws that had been enacted by the California Legislature over the 20 years prior to it that required state agencies to eliminate traditional patterns of segregation and exclusion in the workforce, to increase the representation of women and minorities in the state service by identifying jobs for which their employment was underrepresented due to discrimination, and to develop action plans to remedy such underrepresentation without effectuating quota systems; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 also overshadowed other landmark civil rights and antidiscrimination laws. In 1959, after a 37-year campaign by labor and civil rights groups, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was passed, which was the forerunner of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

WHEREAS, As a result of the passage of Proposition 209, women and people of color continue to face discrimination and disparity in opportunities to participate in numerous forms of association and work that are crucial to the development of talents and capabilities that enable people to contribute meaningfully to, and benefit from, the collective possibilities of national life; and

WHEREAS, The State of California has provided employment opportunities for people of color and women of all races. However, lingering, and even increasing, disparity still exists, particularly for Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Black Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and women, and should be rectified; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 has impeded California’s continuing interest in supporting the equal participation of women in the workforce and in public works projects, in addressing the historical and present manifestations of gender bias, and in promulgating policies to enforce antidiscrimination in the workplace and on public projects; and

WHEREAS, In the wake of Proposition 209, California saw stark workforce diversity reductions for people of color and women in public contracting and in public education. Studies show that more diverse workforces perform better financially and are significantly more productive and focused; and

WHEREAS, Since the passage of Proposition 209, the state’s minority-owned and women-owned business enterprise programs have been decimated. A 2016 study conservatively estimates that the implementation of Proposition 209 cost women and people of color over $1,000,000,000 annually in lost contract awards. Most procurement and subcontracting processes remain effectively closed to these groups due to the changes brought on by Proposition 209; and

WHEREAS, Women are vastly underrepresented among firms receiving public contracts and the dollars awarded to certified women-owned business enterprises fell by roughly 40 percent, compared to levels before Proposition 209. In addition, only one-third of certified minority business enterprises in California’s transportation construction industry are still in operation today, compared to 20 years ago; and

WHEREAS, Women, particularly women of color, continue to face unequal pay for equal work. White women are paid 80 cents to every dollar paid to white men doing the same work. Black women are paid 60 cents for every dollar paid to white men doing the same work and would theoretically have to work an extra seven months every year to overcome that differential. This persistent gender wage gap continues to harm women, their families, and communities; and

WHEREAS, Despite a booming economy with almost full employment, a persistent racial wealth gap remains rooted in income inequality. Improving minority access to educational and labor market opportunity reduces the wealth gap and strengthens the economy; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 has had a devastating impact on minority equal opportunity and access to California’s publicly funded institutions of higher education. This violates the spirit of the California Master Plan for Higher Education by making it more difficult for many students to obtain an affordable and accessible high quality public education. While federal law allows schools to use race as a factor when making admissions decisions, California universities are prohibited by Proposition 209 from engaging in targeted outreach and extra efforts to matriculate high-performing minority students. This reduces .the graduation rates of students of color and, in turn, contributes to the diminution of the “pipeline” of candidates of color for faculty positions; and

WHEREAS, Since the passage of Proposition 209, diversity within public educational institutions has been stymied. Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in admissions policy at the University of California, with underrepresented group enrollment at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses of the University of California immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide underrepresented group enrollment falling by at least 12 percent. Underrepresented group high school graduates faced substantial long-term declines in educational and employment outcomes as a result of these changes; and

WHEREAS, Among California high school graduates who apply to the University of California, passage of Proposition 209 has led to a decreased likelihood of earning a college degree within six years, a decreased likelihood of ever earning a graduate degree, and long-run declines in average wages and the likelihood of earning high wages measured by California standards. The University of California has never recovered the same level of diversity that it had before the loss of affirmative action nearly 20 years ago, a level that, at the time, was widely considered to be inadequate to meet the needs of the state and its young people because it did not achieve parity with the state’s ethnic demographics; and

WHEREAS, The importance of diversity in educational settings cannot be overstated. The Supreme Court of the United States outlined the benefits that arise from diversity, as follows, “the destruction of stereotypes, the promotion of cross-racial understanding, the preparation of a student body for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and the cultivation of a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”; and

WHEREAS, Federal courts continue to reaffirm the value of diversity in favor of race conscious admissions, as exemplified by United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs who stated, “race conscious admissions programs that survive strict scrutiny have an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning, improves scholarship, and encourages mutual respect and understanding. Further, Judge Burroughs recognized that there are no race-neutral alternatives that would allow a university to achieve an adequately diverse student body while still perpetuating its standards for academic and other forms of excellence; and

WHEREAS, It is the intent of the Legislature that California remedy discrimination against, and underrepresentation of, certain disadvantaged groups in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and allow gender, racial, and ethnic diversity to be considered among the factors used to decide college admissions and hiring and contracting by government institutions; and

WHEREAS, It is further the intent of the Legislature that California transcend a legacy of unequal treatment of marginalized groups and promote fairness and equal citizenship by affording the members of marginalized groups a fair and full opportunity to be integrated into state public institutions that advance upward mobility, pay equity, and racial wealth gap reduction; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2019-20 Regular Session commencing on the third day of December 2018, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

That Section 31 of Article I thereof is repealed.

Proposition 17

ACA 6 (Resolution Chapter 24), McCarty. Elections: disqualification of electors.

The California Constitution requires the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony. Existing statutory law, for purposes of determining who is entitled to register to vote, defines imprisoned as currently serving a state or federal prison sentence.

This measure would instead direct the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors who are serving a state or federal prison sentence for the conviction of a felony. This measure would also delete the requirement that the Legislature provide for the disqualification of electors while on parole for the conviction of a felony. The measure would provide for the restoration of voting rights upon completion of the prison term.

Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2019-20 Regular Session commencing on the third day of December 2018, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

First-That Section 2 of Article II thereof is amended to read:

SEC. 2. (a) A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

(b) An elector disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term, as described in Section 4, shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.

Second-That Section 4 of Article II thereof is amended to read:

SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.

Proposition 18

ACA 4 (Resolution Chapter 30), Mullin. Elections: voting age.

The California Constitution authorizes any person who is a United States citizen, at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the state to vote.

This measure, in addition, would authorize a United States citizen who is 17 years of age, is a resident of the state, and will be at least 18 years of age at the time of the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that occurs before the next general election in which the citizen would be eligible to vote if at least 18 years of age.

Proposition 19

ACA 11 (Resolution Chapter 31), Mullin. The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act.

The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to authorize a person over 55 years of age or any severely and permanently disabled person residing in property eligible for the homeowner’s exemption to transfer the base year value of that property to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county, or another county that has adopted an ordinance allowing base years value transfers from other counties, as provided. The California Constitution also provides that the purchase or transfer of the principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, of a transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, is not a “purchase” or “change in ownership” for purposes of determining the “full cash value” of property for taxation.

This measure, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, would authorize an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster, as defined, to transfer the taxable value, defined as the base year value plus inflation adjustments, of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in the state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that person’s principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original primary residence. The measure would limit a person who is over 55 years of age or severely disabled to 3 transfers under these provisions.

The measure, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, would exclude from the terms “purchase” and “change in ownership” for purposes of determining the “full cash value” of property the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased. In the case of a transfer of a family home, the measure would require that the property continue as the family home of the transferee. The measure would require that the taxable value of the property be determined as provided. In the case of property tax benefits provided to a family home under these provisions, the bill would require the transferee to claim the homeowner’s or disabled veteran’s exemption within one year of the transfer. The measure would specify that the above-described provisions relating to transfers between parents or grandparents and children or grandchildren would apply to transfers occurring on or before February 15, 2021.

The measure would establish the California Fire Response Fund in the State Treasury. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on calculations by the Director of Finance, of the additional revenues and savings that accrued to the state from the implementation of this measure’s provisions from the General Fund to that fund. However, the measure would provide that, if the amount required to be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund exceeds the amount transferred for the previous fiscal year by more than 10%, that excess amount would not be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund. The measure would require the Legislature to appropriate moneys in the fund solely for the purpose of funding fire suppression staffing by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and underfunded special districts that provide fire protection services, as provided.

The measure would also establish the County Revenue Protection Fund and continuously appropriate moneys in that fund for the purpose of reimbursing eligible local agencies, as provided. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on the above-described calculations by the Director of Finance, from the General Fund to that fund. The measure would require each county to annually determine the gain of the county and any local agency within the county resulting from the implementation of this measure and, if that amount of gain is negative, provide that specified eligible local agencies may receive a reimbursement from the County Revenue Protection Fund. The measure would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to provide a reimbursement to each eligible local agency that has a negative gain, determined every 3 years based on the aggregate gain of the eligible local agency, as provided, and require the Controller to transfer any remaining balance in the County Revenue Protection Fund to the General Fund at the end of each 3-year period, to be available for appropriation for any purpose.

Proposition 20

RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Imposes restrictions on parole program for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term for their primary offense. Expands list of offenses that disqualify an inmate from this parole program. Changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this program. Authorizes felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. Requires persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples for state database. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in penalties for certain theft-related crimes and the changes to the nonviolent offender release consideration process. Increased state and local court-related costs of around a few million dollars annually related to processing probation revocations and additional felony theft filings. Increased state and local law enforcement costs not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually related to collecting and processing DNA samples from additional offenders. (17-0044.)

Proposition 21

EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows rent increases on rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance. Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies. In accordance with California law, provides that rent-control policies may not violate landlords’ right to a fair financial return on their property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more. (19-0001.)

Proposition 22

CHANGES EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATION RULES FOR APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY DRIVERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” Independent contractors are not entitled to certain state-law protections afforded employees—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, companies with independent contractor drivers will be required to provide specified alternative benefits, including: minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies. Restricts local regulation of app-based drivers; criminalizes impersonation of such drivers; requires background checks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increase in state personal income tax revenue of an unknown amount. (19-0026A1)

Proposition 23

AUTHORIZES STATE REGULATION OF KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. ESTABLISHES MINIMUM STAFFING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatientkidney dialysis clinics; authorizes Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from thisrequirement due to shortages of qualified licensed physicians if at least one nurse practitioner orphysician assistant is on site. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state andfederal governments. Requires state approval for clinics to close or reduce services. Prohibitsclinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care. Summaryof estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state and local health care costs, likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, resulting from increased dialysis treatment costs. (19-0025A1.)

Proposition 24

AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; (2) correct inaccurate personal information; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information”—such as precise geolocation; race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; union membership; private communications; and certain sexual orientation, health, and biometric information. Changes criteria for which businesses must comply with these laws. Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal information for longer than reasonably necessary. Triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce and implement consumer privacy laws, and impose administrative fines. Requires adoption of substantive regulations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased annual state costs of roughly $10 million for a new state agency to monitor compliance and enforcement of consumer privacy laws. Increased state costs, potentially reaching the low millions of dollars annually, from increased workload to DOJ and the state courts, some or all of which would be offset by penalty revenues. Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to protect consumer information. (19-0021A1.)

Proposition 25

REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN A 2018 LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY RISK. If this petition is signed by the required number of registered voters and timely filed, a referendum will be placed on the next statewide ballot requiring a majority of voters to approve a 2018 state law before it can take effect. The 2018 law replaces the money bail system with a system for pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or flight risk, and limits pretrial detention for most misdemeanors. (18-0009.)

Ballot Arguments

Arguments may be submitted for or against the measures. Arguments selected for the Official Voter Information Guide will be on public display between July 21 and August 10. If multiple arguments are submitted for a proposition, state law gives first priority to arguments written by legislators in the case of legislative measures and to proponents of an initiative or referendum; subsequent priority goes to bona fide citizen associations and then to individuals. No more than three signers are allowed to appear on an argument or rebuttal to an argument.

Ballot arguments cannot exceed 500 words and rebuttals to ballot arguments cannot exceed 250 words. All submissions should be typed and double-spaced.  Arguments may be hand-delivered to the Secretary of State’s Elections Division at 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814; faxed to (916) 653-3214; or emailed to VIGarguments@sos.ca.gov. If faxed or emailed, the original documents must be received within 72 hours.  The deadline to submit ballot arguments is July 7 by 5:00 p.m. The deadline to submit rebuttals to the ballot arguments is July 16 by 5:00 p.m.

Candidate Statements in the County Voter Information Guide

Candidates for the United States House of Representatives, California State Senate, and California State Assembly have until August 7 to submit candidate statements to their county elections official for the local sample ballot in the county or counties in which the district lies.

For more information on ballot measures, candidate filing requirements, and election deadlines, please visit: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/general-election-november-3-2020/

 

Hold that beer: Contra Costa to postpone COVID-19 reopening timeline due to spike in cases, although expected

By Leave a Comment

Decision on bars made Sunday; indoor dining, gyms, nail salons, bowling alleys, arcades, hotels, museums, plus massage, body waxing and tattoo businesses will also remain closed

As Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) warned the public of the possibility on Friday, they have decided to delay the opening of businesses and activities previously planned for July 1 until the COVID-19 outbreak in Contra Costa is better contained.

The county is closely monitoring recent data showing COVID-19 activity increasing in the community, as it is statewide and throughout the country.

On Sunday, Gov. Gavin Newsom recommended that Contra Costa County, along with several other counties in the state, not reopen bars. Contra Costa is one of 15 counties on the state’s County Monitoring List. The county’s timeline had previously cleared bars (with or without food), indoor dining, gyms, fitness centers, personal training, massage, nail salons, tattoo, body waxing and other personal services not involving the face, limited indoor leisure (arcades, billiards, bowling alleys, etc.), indoor museums and hotels for tourism & individual travel to reopen July 1.

When asked Sunday about the impact of Newsom’s recommendations, Kim McCarl, Communications Assistant for Contra Costa Health Services responded, “As you know, we released a statement on Friday indicating that we would make an announcement about our timeline going forward on Monday. That is still our plan.  Bars are not currently open in Contra Costa County. We appreciate the governor’s recommendation and will certainly take it into consideration as we determine next steps. We’ll have more tomorrow.”

However, Board of Supervisors Chair Candace Andersen told KPIX5 CBS News, on Sunday that “We were slated to open them on July 1, but given the governor’s announcement, we will definitely not be opening bars on July 1st,” citing contact tracing as one of the biggest challenges. “It is very difficult in a bar where you have lots of people interacting,” she continued. “Whereas in other settings, a workplace, even a hair salon where you know who’s coming, who’s going, where you can then alert them when they have been exposed to someone with COVID-19.”

Asked if she and the board had the authority to make that decision or if it was still in the hands of County Health Director Dr. Chris Farnitano and why it wasn’t shared with all the media, yesterday, Andersen responded, “I spoke with Dr. Farnitano yesterday and he told me that while we were not making a determination about the other July 1 activities until today, he was going to recommend that we follow the Governor’s guidelines regarding not opening bars. Based upon that information, I responded to the media inquiries received.”

With the sharp rise in community spread and hospitalizations, it does not make sense at this time to open additional business sectors that could further accelerate community transmission. These businesses and activities will remain closed in Contra Costa until county data indicate that the spread of the virus has slowed, as measured by at least a week of stable case numbers, hospitalizations and percent of tests that are positive. Trends will be monitored and evaluated daily.

Decision Based on Statistics

The seven-day average number of COVID-19 patients in hospitals in the county has increased by 75% from June 15 to June 29.

The seven-day average number of newly identified COVID-19 cases has increased from 38 a day to 87 a day. The percentage of COVID-19 tests that came back positive has also increased from 4% to 6%. This suggests the change is not simply due to more testing, but a true increase in community spread.

More Young People Testing Positive

We are also seeing a shift with more young people testing positive. In June, 55 percent of people testing positive in Contra Costa were 40 years and younger, compared to 38 percent for that group in April. It’s a sign that younger people are playing a major role in driving the increase in new cases and potentially infecting vulnerable individuals.

Many people who carry and spread the virus have no symptoms themselves. That is why it’s important for everyone to avoid social gatherings, observe physical distancing and wear masks or face coverings when around others.

Widespread testing is necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19 so we can safely reopen the economy. Testing is the only way to find out if you are carrying the virus and interrupt its spread. People can spread the virus without knowing they are sick.

While Contra Costa have seen an increase in the numbers of people being tested over the past several weeks, we highly encourage everyone who lives and works in the county to get tested, even if they have no symptoms.

This morning, CCHS opened its eighth community COVID-19 testing site at Kennedy High School in Richmond. To make an appointment for a fast, convenient, no-cost test at any site in Contra Costa, call 1-844-421-0804 or visit cchealth.org/coronavirus – online scheduling is available at most sites.

The following questions were sent to Board Chair Andersen and county health services communications staff immediately prior to publication time:

Can someone please ask Dr. Farnitano, with all the recent reopening and protests, in which many more than 100 people were in attendance and clearly not social distancing was not practiced, during the previous three weeks, wasn’t the increase in cases and percentages expected?

If so, then why punish everyone for the actions of a few?

Also, since the new cases aren’t overwhelming our hospitals and health care industry with only 38 hospitalized, today – which was the issue we were told from the beginning was the major concern in the need to flatten the curve – and we all know that cases will increase once more businesses are reopened and activities are allowed to resume, why the delay?

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Supervisors, protesters overlook Grand Jury report calling for increased Sheriff, police staffing in Contra Costa

By Leave a Comment

Supes close to forming Office on Racial Justice and Equity; hear from County Clerk-Registrar of Voters urging vote-by-mail for November Election

By Daniel Borsuk

While critics of Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston and his department again blasted the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors with complaints over the $2.8 million in proposed increased funding for the 2020-2021 fiscal year at their meeting Tuesday, no one paid any attention to an important Grand Jury report on “Police Department Staffing” that supervisors unanimously approved as a consent item during the same meeting.

In other action, Supervisors Federal Glover of Pittsburg and John Gioia of Richmond announced the potential formation of a County Office of Racial Justice and Equity for the upcoming 2020-2021 fiscal year. The board also received a progress report on the 2020 November election from Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Debi Cooper that heavily endorsed voters to mail ballots.

Grand Jury Report on Police Staffing

“The Grand Jury found that relatively low authorized sworn officer levels and ongoing unfilled officer positions contribute to mandatory officer overtime, reduced level of police services such as traffic enforcement and school resource officers, and longer response times,” the Grand Jury report stated.

The Grand Jury report found that the Sheriff’s Office and 15 municipal police departments have difficulty recruiting, hiring and retaining officers. “Fewer applicants than in the past are applying to law enforcement due to different career expectations, the availability of less dangerous jobs, and negative perceptions of policing,” the report stated.

The Contra Costa Herald contacted Sheriff Livingston’s office for comment about the Grand Jury’s findings, but there was no comment from the Sheriff’s Office by deadline

“Accountability is needed,” demanded Pittsburg resident Don Hernandez. “You guys (i.e., the Board of Supervisors) need to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.”

Hernandez was one of more than 18 speakers opposing increased funding for the Sheriff’s Office, but one unidentified caller supported extra funding for the sheriff saying without extra resources sheriff deputies will not be able to properly respond to emergencies when they arise.

County worker Christopher Brown said “Racism is systemic. Something needs to change. Mental health is a huge issue. Mental health deserves to be a bigger part of the budget, not the sheriff.”

“We need a criminal justice system that does not go backwards. We need a system that solves problems.” said Walnut Creek resident Karen Perkins. “I urge you to drive away funds from the Sheriff’s Office and form a racial justice commission.”

Based on 2019-2020 data, the Sheriff’s Office and 15 cities are below the state ratio of 1.48 patrol officers per 1,000 residents. Only the cities of El Cerrito with a 1.77 ratio and San Pablo with a 1.85 ratio were above the state average. The Sheriff’s Office had a 1.06 ratio.

The report also found that every police department except Clayton, Moraga, Oakley and Walnut Creek had unfilled positions mainly as a result of retirements, officers on leave, lateral transfers of the department and resignations.

The Sheriff’s Office had the most number of unfilled positions due to resignations at 65, with Richmond having 15 unfilled positions, Antioch 10 unfilled positions, Martinez and Concord each six unfilled positions, El Cerrito 5 unfilled positions, Brentwood and San Ramon each 4 unfilled positions, Pleasant Hill 3 unfilled positions, San Pablo 2 unfilled positions, and Pinole, Pittsburg, Lafayette and Danville with 1 unfilled position each.

Even then, supervisors received a number of complaints from citizens that the sheriff does not deserve a proposed $2.8 million increase in 2020-21 funding, even though later on during the meeting County Administrator David Twa forecast that the Sheriff’s Office might lose $13 million in state Proposition 72 funds later this year.

“The sheriff will have less money next year,” said Twa, who gave a gloomy fiscal forecast. The District Attorney Office’s budget might be down $6.2 million, he predicted. The county hospital is losing $60 million in revenue and earlier this month the county laid off 30 library workers.

Yet, with all this gloomy financial news, Twa announced that after two years of labor negotiations, the county and the 9,000 members of the In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority and SEIU Local 2015 have agreed to a new labor pact that ends in 2022.

Proposed Office of Racial Justice and Equity Moves Forward

After listening an hour-long presentation from supporters for the formation of a County Office of Racial Justice and Equity, Supervisor Federal Glover of Pittsburg and John Gioia of Richmond said they plan to soon present to the full Board a new Office on Racial Justice and Equity.

Both supervisors serve on the Public Protection Committee where the proposal to form an Office on Racial Justice and Equity Is taking shape.

“One thing we will bring is the discussion of the formation of an Office of Racial Justice and Equity. Your voice has been heard. We plan to bring this proposal before the Board in the near future,” said Glover.

Gioia said it is possible supervisors can consider a proposed office at its next board meeting on July 14. “It’s a matter of listening to the community in Contra Costa County. There should be a community process on how it should be done. There will be a lot more community input.”

In what is shaping up to be a difficult fiscal year, proponents of an Office of Racial Justice and Equity called on Supervisors to defund the Sheriff’s Office and transfer those funds to the new office to assist residents of color with a 14.5 percent unemployment rate in Contra Costa County on April 2020 compared to 3.1 percent on February 2020.

Additionally, 45 percent of African Americans, 57 percent of Latinx, 26 percent Asian/Pacific Islanders, 29 percent Native Americans and 20 percent White households were financially precarious before the pandemic, according to an Insight Center study.

County Recorder-Registrar of Voters Urges Vote by Mail

Contra Costa County Recorder-Registrar of Voters Debi Cooper informed supervisors it is untrue that voting by mail promotes fraud. “Despite what you hear, voting my mail does not increase fraud, she said. Outreach and education to vote by mail has been increased. The postage is free.”

Cooper described how the department she leads that will have 45 drop boxes and six polling locations throughout the County on Nov. 3. She said voting by mail will be the safest way to vote because COVID-19 will still be present.

Cooper expected to mail 700,000 ballots and more than 500,000 ballots will be returned by voters.

“I find it unacceptable to have six polling locations in the county,” said supervisor Gioia of Richmond. “I would reevaluate churches. Churches would be willing to be polling locations and to have equipment on locations for four days.

County elections officials expect about 150,000 voters will show up at the polls to cast ballots. There were 85,000 voters at the polls in the March election.

Bowling Alleys, Bars, Hotels to Open July 1 – Possibly

With word that the Contra Costa County Department of Public Health reported 34 new COVID-19 cases last week, department director Anna Roth said the county is still moving ahead to open hotels, bowling alleys and bars on July 1 and starting on July 15 movie theaters, card rooms and banks will open.

But the news was not all that great. The county is on the state watch list because of a spike in cases. Last week the county reported 34 new COVID-19 cases bringing the county’s grand total to 2,454 cases. There have been 52 deaths in the county. “Clearly there’s been an increase,” said Roth, who attributed the rise to persons in low income communities and living in long term care facilities.

Deputy County Health Director Dr. Sarah Levine said there has been an increase in the number of young patients being diagnosed positive with COVID-19 mainly because they do not practice the main hygiene principles – constantly washing hands, covering mouths, social distance, and staying home.

However, based on the announcement by the Contra Costa Health Services on Friday, that date for those activities is in doubt. (Please see related article).

Contra Costa Health Services evaluating COVID-19 reopening timeline

By 2 Comments

Timeline for July and August now contains qualifier

Friday, June 26, 2020 – Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) is evaluating whether the county should continue its current reopening timeline, due to recent data showing COVID-19 activity is increasing in the community. The timeline for the reopening of businesses and activities scheduled for July 1st and 15th, as well as the school reopening scheduled for July and August include an asterisk and the following qualifier: “In light of rapidly increasing case numbers and hospitilizations, anticipated re-opening dates may need to be postponed. Our community’s actions are more important than ever to stop the spread.”

CCHS is closely monitoring key data indicators that show how the virus is spreading in the county and will announce a decision about the timeline Monday.

During the past seven days, the number of COVID-19 patients in hospitals in the county has increased 42%.

The seven-day average number of newly identified COVID-19 cases has increased from 39 a day to 68 a day. The positivity rate of test results – the percentage of COVID-19 tests that came back positive – has also increased. This suggests the change is not simply due to more testing, but indicates a true increase in community spread.

We are also seeing a shift with more young people testing positive. In June, 55% of cases were 40 years and under compared to 38% for that group in April. It’s a sign that younger people are playing a major role in driving the increase in new cases and potentially infecting vulnerable individuals. This highlights why it’s important for everyone to avoid social gatherings, observe physical distancing and wear masks or face coverings when around others.

CCHS encourages all residents to get tested. Increased testing for COVID-19 is a critical part of the community effort to slow local spread of the virus, and necessary to continue reopening in the future.

Contra Costa’s data are consistent with increases in COVID-19 activity now being experienced in communities across the state and the nation. To view the Contra Costa Health Services Coronavirus Dashboard for more statistics, click here.

There is concern that these increases may lead to a surge in very ill people that could overwhelm the local healthcare system. We realize many people are eager to resume normal activities. However, if we adjust the reopening timeline, it will be because we have a chance to prevent the pandemic from getting out of control in the county.

Any change to the timeline would immediately affect businesses and activities that are currently scheduled to resume July 1, including indoor dining, bars, gyms, hotels and some personal care services, including nail salons and tattoo parlors.

CCHS is releasing this information today to provide businesses and residents as much time as possible to prepare for a potential change to the timeline.

With the Fourth of July weekend approaching, CCHS also reminds everyone that it’s a healthy choice to observe physical distancing when outside the home – maintain six feet of space whenever possible – and to wear face coverings. Anyone who feels sick should stay home. People should also wash their hands frequently.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

Contra Costa Supervisors seek applicants for Racial Justice Oversight Body Community Representative Seat 4

By Leave a Comment

By John Fout, Community & Media Relations Specialist, Contra Costa County Office of Communications & Media

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is seeking applicants who are interested in serving on its 18-member Racial Justice Oversight Body (RJOB). The Racial Justice Oversight Body has a current vacancy for a Community Representative who has prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system involvement.

The RJOB is a multi-agency advisory body established by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Racial Justice Task Force and accepted by the Board of Supervisors to reduce racial disparities in the justice system. The RJOB also reviews local criminal and juvenile justice data to identify and report on racial disparities.

The Racial Justice Oversight Body is composed of the following 18 members:
Four (4) Ex‐Officio Members:
1. The Sheriff or his designee;
2. The Chief Probation Officer or her designee;
3. The Public Defender or her designee;
4. The District Attorney or her designee;
Five (5) Other Appointed Members:
5. A representative from the Superior Court, as a non-voting member;
6. A representative from a local law enforcement agency, nominated by the Contra Costa County Police Chiefs’ Association;
7. A representative from the Contra Costa County Office of Education;
8. A representative from a Local School District;
9. A representative from Contra Costa County Health Services Department;
Nine (9) community-based representatives selected and appointed by the Board of Supervisors:
10-11. Community Representative Seats 1 & 2: two (2) members of the Contra Costa Racial Justice Coalition;
12-13. Community Representative Seats 3 & 4: two (2) individuals with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system involvement;
14. Community Representative Seat 5: one (1) representative from a community-based organization that works with justice-involved youth
15-16. Community Representatives Seat 6 &7: two (2) representatives from community-based organizations that work with justice-involved populations, any age;
17. Community Representative Seat 8: one (1) representative from a faith-based organization;
18. Community Representative Seat 9: one (1) representative that is either a school age young person, or from a community based organization who provides services to school age youth.

The Board of Supervisors is seeking applications for one (1) of the seats identified above:

Community Representative Seat 4: one (1) individual with prior personal criminal or juvenile justice system involvement.

Appointments to the Racial Justice Oversight Body are for a term of two years. The appointment to Seat 4 is a mid-term appointment ending December 31, 2020. The full RJOB meets on a quarterly basis with its three subcommittees meeting on a monthly basis. Members serve without compensation, stipends, or reimbursement of expenses. The community-based representatives should reflect the geographic, ethnic, and racial diversity of the County.

Applicants will be interviewed by the Board of Supervisors’ Public Protection Committee: Supervisors Candace Andersen, District II, and Federal Glover, District V. The nomination for the Racial Justice Oversight Body appointment will then be submitted to the full Board of Supervisors for action.

Below is a timeline of the recruitment process for the one (1) vacancy:
• July 21, 2020: Final Day of the Application Period, due by 5:00 p.m.
• July 27, 2020: Public Protection Committee Meeting: Interviews
• August 4, 2020: Board of Supervisors Appointment

Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 335-1900 or by visiting the County webpage at http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418/. Completed applications should be emailed to ClerkoftheBoard@cob.cccounty.us. Applications can also be mailed to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553.

Contra Costa Road Ahead update: more projected reopenings – indoor dining & gyms July 1st, movie theaters July 15th

By 1 Comment

Following are the businesses that will be allowed to reopen and the activities that will be allowed to resume based on Contra Costa County’s updated Road Ahead issued Wednesday, June 17, 2020.

July 1st – Personal services not involving the face (massage, nail salons, tattoo, body waxing, etc.) • Indoor dining • Bars (with or without food) • Indoor religious services • Gyms, fitness centers & personal training • Limited indoor leisure (arcades, billiards, bowling alleys, etc.) • Indoor museums • Hotels (for tourism & individual travel).

July 15th – Personal services involving the face (skin care, permanent makeup, facial waxing, etc.) • Movie theaters.

However, although “These openings are a direct response to your patience and observation of the health order” as is written on the new Road Ahead, and they “hope to continue opening up the county” the county health officer “may need to reconsider openings based on the course of the pandemic.”

Download a copy of the latest Road Ahead, here.

Contra Costa receives state variance to continue and more control over reopening plan

By Leave a Comment

From Contra Costa Health Services

The State of California this week granted Contra Costa County a variance that allows more local control over when some activities restricted by the COVID-19 pandemic may resume.

The variance allows Contra Costa to move ahead with its road map for reopening at a pace that is appropriate for local conditions, which includes hair salons, indoor dining, gyms and schools in coming weeks.

“We are able to reopen more businesses and activities because the people of Contra Costa have diligently followed the health orders restricting our activities for many months,” said Candace Andersen, chair of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. “We remain committed to a safe and careful reopening for our county.”

In an attestation filed to the state this week, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) outlined the progress at managing the spread of COVID-19 locally and how the local healthcare system is preparing in the event of a new surge in cases.

If safe to do so, hair salons and barber shops can reopen for business on June 17, according to a timeline released by CCHS. Indoor dining, bars, gyms and fitness centers, hotels and some indoor entertainment venues may follow July 1.

The county’s timeline could change if community health indicators worsen, such as an increase in the number of new cases or patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Contra Costa is the first of six counties in the lower Bay Area to seek or receive a variance from the state COVID-19 health order, joining the North Bay counties of Napa, Solano and Sonoma.

Visit cchealth.org/coronavirus for more information about Contra Costa’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Contra Costa backs off requiring worship service attendees give names, contact info, will now recommend churches gather it

By 5 Comments

By Allen Payton

Contra Costa County health officials are backing down on their requirement in the latest order issued June 5 that places of worship gather names and information of all attendees, keep it for 14 days and provide it to the county immediately upon request. According to a statement issued Tuesday morning, “health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement.”

The action comes following a series of email exchanges between the Herald and county supervisors and staff over the past several days about the requirement, an article on the matter and public outrage on social media challenging the constitutionality of the requirement, the inconsistent and unfair application to only places of worship, and no other organization or business, including protesters or restaurants offering outdoor dining in which people sit for extended periods of time with their masks off in order to it.

A legal effort was in the works as of Monday, with several residents agreeing to sign on to a legal demand letter to be sent to the county. But that now appears to be unnecessary.

Following is the Statement Regarding Requirements for Religious Gatherings

“In the health order issued June 5 by Contra Costa Health Services, religious organizations were required to maintain a list of attendees at religious services and cultural ceremonies in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. The intention was to facilitate quick, complete contact tracing if a participant at the event tests positive.

Health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement. If a participant tests positive for COVID-19, the host will be asked to assist CCHS with contact tracing associated with the gathering.

To mitigate the risk of transmission to the greatest extent possible, CCHS encourages participants to wear face coverings at all times, maintain social distance when possible, practice good hand hygiene, and stay home if sick.”

According to Kim McCarl, Assistant to the Director of Contra Costa Health Services for Communications, “As we revise the language, the recommendation will apply to any allowed gatherings.”

Contra Costa Health Director issues Road to Reopening for more businesses, schools but not churches

By 4 Comments

Road to Reopening – A message from Anna M. Roth, Health Director, Contra Costa County

(June 6, 2020) – Thanks to all your collective efforts and sacrifices for the health of the community, we are making progress in our fight against COVID-19. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

The state is permitting us and other counties to chart their own courses based on local conditions. We are now able to provide a timeline laying out when we are aiming for opening more businesses and allowing more activities. I hope this provides some clarity about our hoped next steps. We will be updating this document as we get further guidance from the state and in consideration of the status of COVID-19 in our community. Stay safe and we will all get through this together.

But the road map includes the caveat of “We hope to continue opening up the county but, may need to reconsider openings based on the course of the pandemic.”

However, the road map includes the caveat of “We hope to continue opening up the county, but may need to reconsider openings based on the course of the pandemic.” An email was sent to the county health services asking why churches/religious services are not included and when they will be. Please check back later for updates to this report.

For more information visit www.coronavirus.cchealth.org.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

More reopening in Contra Costa effective Friday at 5 p.m. – outdoor dining, pools, religious services with strict limits

By 2 Comments

From Contra Costa Health Services

Contra Costa County residents may again enjoy outdoor swimming pools, outdoor seating at restaurants and dog parks under a new health officer order released today.

The order, effective 5 p.m. today, also allows for outdoor religious services of up to 100 people, indoor religious services of up to 12 people, use of outdoor picnic and barbecue spaces, and overnight camping for people belonging to the same household.

Because of the progress made in the fight against COVID-19, Contra Costa health officers feel confident opening additional businesses and activities. The State of California has determined that while counties can move slower than state in reopening, they cannot move more quickly. The openings announced today bring Contra Costa County in closer alignment to state guidelines. It also aligns with other Bay Area counties taking similar steps.

“We have made great progress slowing COVID-19 in our county,” said Candace Andersen, chair of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. “I want to offer a heartfelt thank you to all who suffered and sacrificed to follow these health orders throughout this pandemic. I know it has not been easy. But you have helped save lives.”

This order follows a modification earlier this week that allowed offices and many retail businesses to reopen and created guidance for small gatherings including people from different households.

Previous health orders requiring physical distancing and face coverings in public spaces remain in effect. Contra Costa residents should also continue to emphasize handwashing and other hygiene measures in their daily lives to reduce their risk of becoming infected.

“COVID-19 is still circulating in our community, and we need to take precautions to prevent outbreaks,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, the county health officer. “Another way we can keep ourselves and our families safe is to get tested, even if we feel well.”

The new order includes guidance for safely conducting the newly permitted activities, including requirements for businesses. Details, including the full text of the order, are available at cchealth.org/coronavirus.