Contra Costa Herald

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

Contra Costa Tax Collector’s online system crashes Wednesday, payments must be mailed or dropped off by Thursday

By Leave a Comment

By Anthony Dorado

The Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s online payment system crashed on Wednesday, December 9 just a day before the first installment deadline for property tax bills tomorrow. A Tax Collector’s office staff member said that they had experienced an influx of payments that overloaded and subsequently crashed the system.

Many residents utilize the online system as a cheaper, more efficient way to pay their taxes and with the current COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Due to the nature of the system, most users wait until just days before the deadline to submit those taxes and are now seemingly at risk for penalty. No announcement was issued on the matter regarding the crash nor what was being done about it.

However, the staff member said they were doing everything in their power to fix the system and that it should be back up and running soon. While they understand and empathize with those inconvenienced, Tax Collector’s office is asking that people be patient and flexible.

Anyone who has not yet filed their first installment taxes can do so by mailing them by tomorrow, Thursday, Dec. 10. Those who mail their taxes by or before the deadline will have their taxes received and filed promptly according with their postage date. As long as the filing is postmarked by Dec. 10, there will be no penalties.

Taxes, paid by check only, must be mailed to Contra Costa Tax Collector P.O. Box 631, Martinez, CA 94553 or they can be dropped off in the box at the Main Street door of the county Finance Building at 625 Court Street, Suite 100 in Martinez.

 

Contra Costa voters on track to approve county’s Measure X half-cent sales increase

By 1 Comment

Early election results show strong countywide support; 70,000 votes left to count in the county

This week’s election results saw a wide majority of county voters vote in support of Measure X. As of the Friday afternoon results update on November 6, 58% of ballots counted were in favor of the measure. The 0.5% general sales tax is intended to fund services that county residents most need.

Semi-Official Results – Update #1 can be found by clicking here.

Following the latest results, County Supervisor John Gioia remarked,“Recent firestorms and health impacts from COVID-19 have underscored the need for services like firefighting, access to health care, early childhood programming and other safety net services. Measure X creates a new sustainable revenue source, which the state cannot take away, allowing us to maintain and increase these and other essential services at a time when they’re needed most.”

Measure X was grounded in the County Needs Assessment developed through a working group comprised of county nonprofits, community organizations and labor unions. The report highlighted public- and community-provided services in greatest need of funding to better serve county residents and families.

Measure X, which only required a simple majority to pass, received extensive support across the county. “I am really appreciative that we had such a broad and diverse group of support for this measure, from labor unions, to nonprofits, community and faith-based organizations, to the local business leaders,” said Josh Anijar of Contra Costa Central Labor and Co-Chair of the Working Group. “It’s not often that all of these groups come together to support a measure, but we all recognized the benefits Measure X will have for our county residents and workers.”

In a year that has left many county residents feeling insecure about meeting their most basic needs, the passage of Measure X will provide an opportunity to not only help service providers recover from the current crisis, but also address the long-term challenges they’ve faced.

“With Measure X election results moving in the right direction, a crucial next step is to establish a Measure X oversight body that holds supervisors accountable to efficiently and effectively spend the revenue as intended,” said Working Group Co-Chair and Ensuring Opportunity Senior Director Mariana Moore. “We look forward to providing community feedback to the board once the ballots are certified.”

Healthy and Safe Contra Costa, Yes on Measure X will generate an estimated $81 million annually to fund services most essential to Contra Costa County’s needs.

According to County Elections Office staff there are currently 70,000 ballots remaining to be counted, including 65,000 vote-by-mail ballots and 5,000 provisionals. The next update will be provided on Friday, November 13th at 5:00 p.m.

 

Vote “No” on the Measure X “county services” sales tax increase

By Leave a Comment

By Sue Pricco and Michael Arata

Measure X, a 20-year, half-percent Contra Costa County sales tax increase, is on the November 3rd ballot. The “current pandemic” is among rationales advanced by the measure’s supporters.

In reality, however, Measure X got its start in May, 2019 – long before COVID-19 was even on the horizon – when five representatives of county employee organizations demanded that county supervisors drop a plan for a new transportation tax and sponsor a new “county services” tax instead.
The transportation-tax measure went ahead anyway, eventually as Measure J on March 3rd’s Primary ballot.  Itself pushing a half-percent sales-tax increase, Measure J failed.  Measure X deserves the same fate now.

For starters, Measure X is regressive, disproportionately affecting those least able to afford increased costs, particularly during a time of pandemic-driven financial hardship.  Thousands of small businesses have closed.  Millions of Californians are unemployed.   Those still working often see smaller paychecks.

Meanwhile, all must still pay (now or on a deferred basis) federal and state income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, auto-registration taxes, gasoline taxes, phone taxes, etc. ad nauseam.  With whatever money remains, individuals and families must still provide for necessities.

Except for food purchases, essential product needs — from paper towels to kids’ shoes, sometimes to replacement automobiles — have sales taxes added.

Oh, wait on the food exception.  If resources permit a sit-down restaurant dinner or a hot takeout meal, those foods ARE taxed.

Contra Costa sales-tax rates already range from 8.25% to 9.75%, tied for 7th highest among California’s 58 counties.  And another round of sales-tax leapfrog is not a game which County residents likely hope to “win.”

The Measure X ballot question (the summary voters see on ballots) advertises various specific purposes, implying falsely that some are new obligations.

But hiding in the underlying County ordinance’s fine print is the fact that Measure X is actually a general tax, “solely for general governmental purposes and not for specific purposes.”

In economic terms, Measure X dollars are fungible; they can be moved around.  So, for example, Measure X’s new millions could fund County-employee salary, current benefit, and large pension payments directly.

But behind a covering smokescreen of seeming legitimacy, the measure could alternatively finesse compensation boosts indirectly, by “freeing up” money budgeted for other purposes and then backfilling those budget categories with an injection of Measure X revenues.

It would not be the first time that a local government agency deployed such a maneuver.
As is, County employees have enjoyed a 20% salary/benefit increase over just the last three years, and a $166,673 average now in annual per-employee compensation cost — while many who’d pay the new sales tax would count themselves fortunate just to return to their own compensation levels of three years ago. 

What about the Measure X proponent claim of spending “oversight”?  An original ballot-question version characterized the measure as “requiring fiscal accountability.”  But a Superior Court judge removed that phrase after finding that the County’s related ordinance omitted it.  “Fiscal accountability” was apparently just an afterthought.

Finally, Measure X passage would leave at least seven Contra Costa city and town jurisdictions above the statutory 2% cap on local sales taxes.  So an underhanded legislative scheme was deployed.  State Senate Bill 1349, passed and signed at the last minute, allows the County’s sales-tax cap to increase from 2% effectively to at least 3.5% (or possibly 4%), in addition to the State’s 7.25% rate.

And this change, asserts the bill itself in Orwellian doublespeak, “does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.”

Measure X deserves your determined “NO” vote.  For more information, visit CoCoTax.org and NOonX.info.
Sue Pricco is president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.  Michael Arata is a co-founder of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers.  

Glazer’s bill allowing Contra Costa half-cent sales tax increase signed by governor

By Leave a Comment

Votes for Measure X will now count; sales taxes in the county could go to 10.75%, highest in California; Glazer’s second tax increase measure on November ballot

State Senator Steve Glazer. From his campaign Facebook page.

By Allen Payton

On the last day possible, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a variety of bills on Thursday, including SB1349 by State Senator Steve Glazer, allowing a countywide half-cent sales tax increase which is designated Measure X on the November ballot in Contra Costa. The votes on that measure will now count. Had the governor vetoed the bill the votes would not have counted. He also had the option of not signing it by the Sept. 30th deadline and the bill would have become law.

The ballot language for Measure X reads as follows: “To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a ½ cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually for 20 years that the State cannot take, with funds benefitting County residents, be adopted?”

Glazer introduced the bill in the State Senate on February 21, 2020 focusing on “State responsibility area fire prevention fees”. He changed it to, “Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa” on April 8, 2020 after the March Primary election was decided and the countywide additional half-cent sales tax increase for transportation failed.

It took some maneuvering in the State Senate Governance & Finance Committee to get the bill to the floor for a full vote. The bill first failed on a 3-2-2 vote on May 21. A motion to reconsider the bill then passed 7-0 on May 28 and a final committee vote was held on June 3 with just enough to pass by a vote of 4-2-1. It then passed the full Senate on June 11 by a vote of 27-11-2 with both Glazer and State Senator Nancy Skinner, who represents all of West County, voting in favor.

In the Assembly, Member Tim Grayson carried the bill which passed 48-23-8, with the other three Assemblymembers representing Contra Costa County, Jim Frazier, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Buffy Wicks not voting.

The Contra Costa County Public Managers Association was coordinating the effort to get the bill passed and the City Managers were the ones who endorsed it, not the various city councils.

The state has a sales tax rate of 7.25%, decreased from 7.5% on January 1, 2017, and state law prevented counties from charging more than 9.25% prior to the bill becoming law. That includes the half-cent sales tax for BART and the additional half-cent sales tax for transportation through the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. That leaves 1% remaining by which the county can increase its sales tax.

The Board of Supervisors considered a sales tax increase that would have only applied to unincorporated areas outside the 19 city limits. But that was quietly set aside.

According to the Senate Governance & Finance Committee Bill Analysis, the earlier version of the bill, that passed the Senate the first time, would have allowed a possible increase in the countywide sales tax rate to 11.75% in cities that already have a 1% sales tax such as in Antioch, and as high as 12.25% in El Cerrito which has a 1.5% city sales tax. However, the governor’s office said that went too far and the final bill was scaled back.

California’s sales tax rate is high compared to other states, especially when incorporating locally imposed district taxes. Tax experts argue that sales and use taxes are regressive, meaning that the tax incidence falls more on low-income individuals than high-income individuals because those of lesser means generally spend a greater percentage of their income on taxable sales, instead of intangible products or services which are not taxed.

By removing the current Contra Costa Transportation Authority and BART taxes as counting against the cap, in the final version of SB 1349, which passed the Senate the second time and signed by Newsom, allows an additional 1% of room for the county and each of its 19 cities to impose another district of up to 1% in sales tax. If voters approve the 1/2% allowed under Measure X, when it states that existing taxes do not count against the cap, the combined rate would increase to 8.75% countywide, plus any current city rates. The bill also grants Contra Costa County an additional authorization for another 1/2% sales tax increase, such as for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, thereby boosting the maximum countywide rate to 9.25%, plus any current city rates.

That could result in a rate as high as 10.75% in the City of El Cerrito, where an additional 1.5% rate currently applies, and a 10.25% rate in the City of Antioch where they have a current 1% sales tax.

Glazer had the support of his bill from the California Labor Federation, California Professional Firefighters, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21, Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 29, and SEIU California.

Those opposed to SB1349 were the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, California Taxpayers Association, Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund.

In spite of campaigning as a fiscal conservative, touting a hold the line approach to new taxes, this is Glazer’s second measure on the November ballot that will increase taxes if passed. The other is statewide Prop. 19, which will increase taxes on inherited homes or commercial property. According to Ballotpedia, “The ballot measure would eliminate the parent-to-child and grandparent-to-grandchild exemption in cases where the child or grandchild does not use the inherited property as their principal residence, such as using a property a rental house or a second home. When the inherited property is used as the recipient’s principal residence but has a market value above $1 million, an upward adjustment in assessed value would occur. The ballot measure would also apply these rules to certain farms. Beginning on February 16, 2023, the taxable value of an inherited principal residential property would be adjusted each year at a rate equal to the change in the California House Price Index.”

Following is the Legislative Counsel’s Digest and text of Glazer’s bill:

Senate Bill No. 1349

CHAPTER 369

An act to amend Section 29140 of the Public Utilities Code, and to amend Section 7291 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation.

[ Approved by Governor  September 30, 2020. Filed with Secretary of State  September 30, 2020. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 1349, Glazer. Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa.

Existing law authorizes various specified cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law. A provision of the Transactions and Use Tax Law prohibits the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in a county from exceeding 2%.

Existing law authorizes the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 0.5% that, in combination with other transactions and use taxes, exceeds the above-described combined rate limit of 2%, if certain requirements are met, including a requirement that the ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax be submitted to, and approved by, the voters. Existing law repeals this authorization on December 31, 2020, if an ordinance proposing a transactions and use tax has not been approved by that date.

Existing law, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Act, creates the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, which comprises a territory that includes the County of Contra Costa, and, among other things, authorizes the board of directors of the district to impose transactions and use taxes in conformity with the Transactions and Use Tax Law for specified purposes, subject to periodic legislative review and amendment, as provided.

This bill would provide that, notwithstanding the combined rate limit under the Transactions and Use Tax Law, neither a transaction and use tax rate imposed in the County of Contra Costa by the transportation authority under the above-described authority nor a transactions and use tax rate imposed by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, as specified, will be considered for purposes of that combined rate limit within the County of Contra Costa. The bill would declare that the changes made with regard to taxes imposed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for countywide transportation programs are declaratory of existing law.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Contra Costa.

<hr size=1 width=1209 style=’width:907.1pt’ noshade style=’color:#333333′>

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 29140 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

29140.

(a) The board shall, by ordinance, impose transactions and use taxes in conformity with Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purposes specified in Sections 29142 and 29142.2, subject to periodic legislative review and amendment.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) on or before January 1, 2020, that applies within the County of Alameda shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit within the County of Alameda established by that section.

(2) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) on or before the effective date of the act adding this subdivision that applies within the County of Contra Costa shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit within the County of Contra Costa established by that section.

SEC. 2.

Section 7291 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:

7291.

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority may impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 0.5 percent that would, in combination with all taxes imposed pursuant to Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), exceed the limit established in Section 7251.1, if all of the following requirements are met:

(1) The Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopts an ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax by any applicable voting approval requirement.

(2) The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting on the ordinance pursuant to Article XIII C of the California Constitution.

(3) The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions and Use Tax Law, Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), other than Section 7251.1.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit established by Section 7251.1.

(2) This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

SEC. 3.

The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique fiscal pressures being experienced in the County of Contra Costa.

 

State Senate passes Glazer bill allowing Contra Costa half-cent sales tax increase measure on November ballot

By 2 Comments

Awaits Gov. Newsom’s signature; will cost county $547,700 even if he vetoes bill; would raise an estimated $81 million per year.

By Allen Payton

On Monday, Aug. 31, the last day of the legislative session, the California State Senate passed SB1349 authored by Senator Steve Glazer (D-7, Orinda), to allow Contra Costa County Supervisors to place a half-cent sales tax increase on the November ballot on a vote of 29-10-1. According to the state’s Legislative Information website, the bill was presented to Governor Newsom at 6:30 p.m., that night. He has until Sept. 30 to either sign or veto the bill. If he chooses to take no action it automatically becomes law.

During a special meeting held on Friday, Aug. 21, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to approve an urgency ordinance placing the measure on the November ballot if the State Senate passed the bill by Aug. 31 and it was signed by the governor. Board Chair Candace Andersen, who opposes asking the voters for a tax increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, was the lone no vote.

As of Friday, the governor still hadn’t signed or vetoed the bill, according to Steven Harmon, Glazer’s spokesman, who wrote, “Checking. Though, as of yesterday I don’t think he had.”

While Newsom has until the end of September to sign or veto legislation, Harmon added, “I think a premium has been made to get a quick signature,” because any delay holds up the printing of the ballots in Contra Costa County.

The measure is estimated to cost the county $547,700 to place it on the ballot, according to County Clerk-Recorder Deborah Cooper.

The supervisors were asked to consider whether to adopt Ordinance No. 2020-23, an urgency ordinance amending the effective date of the ordinance establishing a general Countywide 0.5% sales tax and acknowledge that if Senate Bill 1349 is not approved by the Legislature by August 31, 2020, Ordinance 2020-22 (as amended) will still be printed on the November 3, 2020 ballot, even though the ordinance will not be effective.

So, labeled Measure X, the ballot language is already on the County Elections Division website, just in case the governor signs the bill and if passed will not go into effect if the governor vetoes the bill.

It asks voters, “To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a ½ cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually for 20 years that the State cannot take, requiring fiscal accountability, with funds benefitting County residents, be adopted?”

Assistant Registrar of Voters for the county, Scott Konopasek, was asked what is the drop deadline date for sending the ballots to print in time to get them to the voters and avoid the additional cost. He responded, “The ballots are at the printer already. The bill becomes law without a signature as long as he doesn’t veto. In the event of a veto, we will not count or report any results.”

In California, the legislative process works just the opposite of the pocket veto for the president and federal legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the “Governor must veto legislation within 12 days of ‘transmittal’ or they automatically become law. However, for bills adopted during the last 12 days of a legislative session and still on the governor’s desk the day the legislature adjourns, usually Aug. 31, the governor has until Sept. 30 to veto before they automatically become law. Governor has a ‘reduction’ veto that provides the ability to reduce – but not increase – proposed appropriations in a particular line item within any spending bill. Legislators can override a veto with a 2/3rd vote of both chambers, but only the governor can call a special session to do so.”

In addition, Supervisor Andersen was asked for any new information her office might have regarding the governor’s action on the bill. She responded, “At our August 21, 2020 Special Meeting the Board of Supervisors authorized putting it on the ballot. It will be on the November ballot, but just would have no effect if the governor chooses to veto the bill. Karen agreed to support it because the elections cost were going to be lower than initially thought since we’re not including the text of the full measure, and the language of the bill was tweaked to better reflect what the governor has signed/agreed to in the past.”

As a result Measure X will be on the November ballot in Contra Costa County. But if the governor vetoes SB1349, and the measure passes it will not go into effect and the sales tax in the county will not increase by a half percent.

Writer disagrees with Op-Ed on Prop 15 – Schools and Communities Funding Act of 2020

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to the recent Op Ed by Jon Coupal and Ernest Dronenberg about Prop 15, the Schools and Communities Funding Act of 2020. Prop 15 will, in fact, preserve all the protections that the 1978 Prop 13 provided to homeowners. And Prop 15 will preserve those property tax protections for Homeowners, Renters, Agricultural properties, and Small Business owners. Prop 15 will only reassess large commercial properties, currently assessed at over $3 million. The rest of the country regularly reassesses commercial properties. I’m sure our county assessors are capable of this work as they did it for many years before 1978.

Mr. Coupal and Mr. Dronenberg did not mention that Prop 15 will close a loophole that presently allows commercial properties to change ownership without being reassessed at their purchase price. When we homeowners purchase property, we have no such avoidance loophole. This loophole has allowed commercial properties to go under-assessed for many years. When this loophole is closed and reassessments are in place, Prop 15 will bring an annual revenue of an estimated $350 million to Contra Costa County.

This is money, that before 1978, the county collected almost equally from homeowners and commercial properties to pay for schools, libraries, street maintenance, local parks, and first responders. Now homeowners pay 72% of these costs.

It is important to note Prop 15 supports small businesses by allowing them to write off 100% of business personal property purchases. Large commercial businesses get to write off $500,000. of these purchases annually.

Prop 15 is about everyone paying their fair share to benefit our communities and our schools. Passing Proposition 15 will help California recover from years of under-investment. Now is the time to reinvest in our future and pass Prop 15.

Sincerely,

Carol Murota

Lafayette, CA

Supervisors discuss closing Orin Allen Youth Rehab Center, tentatively place half-cent sales tax increase on November ballot on split votes

By Leave a Comment

D.A. Becton proposes closing Juvenile Hall, Supes indicate backing Sheriff’s staffing request of 25 more deputies; discuss also closing Marsh Creek Detention Facility

County will apply for $69 million in state Homekey Program funds for homeless sites in Richmond and Pittsburg

By Daniel Borsuk

Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility. Photo from website.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday against keeping open the once popular Orin Allen Rehabilitation Youth Rehabilitation Center in Byron. That signaled Sheriff David Livingston’s 2021-2022 budget request to hire 25 deputies will be approved when supervisors act on the county’s proposed $3.9 billion 2020-2021 budget on Sept. 15. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote of the board.

“Every department has taken some sort of reduction,” said County Administrator David Twa, in his presentation. “There are no additional furloughs or layoffs planned.”

In addition to closing the Orin Allen Rehabilitation Center, supervisors acted to keep closed the now shuttered Marsh Creek Detention Facility on a 4-1 vote with Chair Candace Andersen vote against the motion.

In another action, supervisors placed a half-cent sales tax proposal on the November ballot with the caveat that unless the State legislature does not pass Senate Bill 1349 in the next 17 days, the supervisors will meet at a special meeting on Friday, August 21 to pull the ballot measure from the November ballot. SB 1349 would provide the $100,000 to print the ballots for the county.

Over a wave of citizen comments opposing any increased hiring at the Sheriff’s Office, Supervisors John Gioia of Richmond and Federal Glover of Pittsburg voted to keep the 60-year old Orin Allen Rehabilitation Youth Center open for at least another year so that a newly formed Reimagine Youth Justice Task Force by Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton can develop its findings. She announced the formation of the task force and her desire to close the center in a press release on Tuesday.

“We have seen a lot of success at the ranch,” said Supervisor Glover. “We should think outside of the box. Ninety-nine percent of the graduates are probably successful today.”

But newly appointed Probation Department Officer Esa Ehmen Krause recommended that Orin Allen be closed, and 15 Probation Department positions be eliminated. She also recommended that the 15 youths currently housed at the facility be transferred to juvenile hall in Martinez

Krause said the decision to close the facility in far East County is tied to a declining population, better use of the existing Tamalpais Unit in Martinez, and $10 million to bring the ranch up to code.

With the average cost per incarcerated child in Contra Costa Juvenile Hall skyrocketing to over $473,000 a year, District Attorney Beckton said in a press release, “ The Reimagine Youth Justice Task Force will make explicit recommendations for financial investment in community-based services for youth instead of investing in youth prisons which have proven to result in worse outcomes for our children and families. Such an approach will aallow for critical re-investments in basic needs such as housing, mental health services, and workforce development as well as support and creation of alternatives to incarcerating children in locked facilities.”

The formation of the Reimagine Youth Justice Task Force did not sit well with several supervisors who viewed it as political intervention on the part of the District Attorney.  They felt the DA was intervening in a matter the board of supervisors should be in charge of.

DA Becton assigned her Assistant DA Venus Johnson to address the supervisors.

“I am concerned about the District Attorney’s support to close Orin Allen,” board chair Candace Andersen of Danville said.

“This is a slap in the face to probation to have this go out in a press release,” Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill said.

Throughout the 12-hour long supervisors meeting, supervisors heard from a steady stream of citizens opposed to increased funding for Sheriff Livingston’s department and heard from numerous speakers in support of keeping Orin Allen in operation.

Sheila Barnard questioned supervisors “Are you representing the best interest of our youth?”

“Do not increase funding for the sheriff,” demanded Rev. Leland Takhasi. “Look for alternatives to incarcerating our youth.”

“Because Orin Allen Ranch is an open-air environment absent of guard towers it allows the youth to change their lives, “said Walnut Creek resident Ron Brisco.

Vote 4-1 to Tentatively Place Half Cent Sales Tax Measure on November Ballot

In other action, supervisors voted 4-1 to place a half cent sales tax measure on the Nov. 3 ballot. Board Chair Andersen voted against the proposal without comment. (See related article)

The tax measure is dependent on whether the California State Legislature passes Senate Bill 1349 and Gov. Gavin Newsome signs it by August 21.  If the legislation is not passed by the legislature and signed by the governor August 21, the supervisors will have to hold a special meeting on that date to withdraw the tax measure from the Nov. 3 ballot.

County Will Apply for $69 Million of State Homekey Program Funds for Homeless Sites in Richmond and Pittsburg

Supervisors also approved a resolution  authorizing County Administrator Twa to apply for and accept up to $68,776,000 in Homekey Program grant funds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development to be used to buy property located at 3150 Garrity Way in Richmond and property at 2101 Loveridge Road in Pittsburg to provide supportive housing and support services to persons experience homelessness.

Pinole Animal Shelter Closed, 3 Fewer Animal Control Officers, ConFire Revenue Down

In other budget items, supervisors learned from Animal Services Director Beth Ward that the under-utilized Pinole shelter was closed as of July 20. Two full-time positions were eliminated because of the closure.

Ward also reported that the number of animals at the Martinez facility is down considerably.  As of July 20, the shelter had 45 dogs and 34 cats compared to 176 dogs and 190 cats that were at the shelter on the same date in 2019.

The number of animal control officers has been cut from 13 to 10, Ward said. The length of stays for an animal has decreased 60 percent, she said.

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Chief Louis Brouchard III said EMS Fire Transport has experienced a “significant drop in revenue since March 17, 2020” because of COVID-19.

“The fiscal year 2020-2021 recommended budget anticipated $56 million in transport revenue,” he said.

In other action, supervisors voted to authorize the County Public Works Director to execute an amendment to the sublease with the State of California Employment Development Department to extend the term through January 31, 2023 for about 6,622 square feet of office space at 4071 Port Chicago Highway, Suite 250, Concord at a monthly rate of $13,112 as requested by the Employment and Human Services Department.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

In spite of public opposition Supervisors approve COVID-19 violation ordinance, fines

By Leave a Comment

“You are not being inconvenienced that much.” – Supervisor Karen Mitchoff

  • Half-Cent Sales Tax Ballot Measure Plans Hung Up in Sacramento

  • Sheriff Continues Cooperation with ICE

By Daniel Borsuk

Over citizen objections, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0, Tuesday to approve fines for non-commercial and commercial public health violations in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new ordinance that goes into effect immediately requires citizens to wear face masks in the public and in commercial settings or one can be subject to a fine, or multiple fines.

Contra Costa County Health Services Director Anna Roth told supervisors the county needs an ordinance setting down fines because as of Tuesday the county’s COVID-19 caseload is still rising with 7,304 cases. In the county there have been 108 COVID-19 related deaths, she reported, of which 70 percent occurred in long term care facilities. County health officials have observed a sharp rise in COVID-19 cases since May. Roth pointed out the county is on the state’s COVID-19 Monitoring List.

Deputy County Health Director Randy Sawyer explained there is an “urgent need” for county supervisors to adopt an ordinance establishing fees so that county health enforcement officers can enforce public health orders especially during the current pandemic.  Citizens are not wearing masks and are not practicing social distancing, Sawyer said.

Sawyer said there are about 200 businesses that the county has ongoing public health complaint issues with the department.

Similar ordinances have recently been adopted in Marin and Napa counties, and the Contra Costa County ordinance requires persons to wear masks when engaged in noncommercial and commercial activities.  In Contra Costa, for the first noncommercial violation the fine is $100, $200 for the second violation and $500 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation.

For commercial activity violations, the fine for the first violation is $250, $500 for a second violation, and $1,000 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation. “If a violation continues to more than one day, each day is a separate violation,” the ordinance states.

Public Opposition to Mask Ordinance & Fines

Speakers opposing the ordinance said requiring persons to wear masks violates their Constitutional rights. “I oppose this ordinance because it violates our liberties, “said Dave Sutton. “It restricts our liberties.”

Similarly, Deborah Thompson said, “I oppose the ordinance because it is an abridgement of our liberties.”

Comments like those sparked District One Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond to say, “I am shocked by the lack of literacy and scant knowledge that people have.”

The supervisor said some people don’t understand that this virus is causing a public health crisis where this county “may soon run out of ICU beds and two thirds of the people who have died in the county lived in congregant living facilities.”

“We are out to get these numbers down,” Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill said in reference to the rising number of COVID-19 cases in the county. “A health order will do that. You are not being inconvenienced that much.”

Mitchoff, who noted Contra Costa County’s fines are less than other Bay Area county fines, said  the new ordinance will mean persons will now be required to wear a mask when they out of their house, even when they go to the fast-food drive thru. “If you don’t want to wear a mask then get used to wearing a ventilator,” the supervisor warned.

Richmond resident Edith Alderman supported the ordinance commenting,” I’m 100 percent in favor of the ordinance.  This can help get a handle on this disease.”

Speaking on behalf of the board, Chair Candace Andersen of Danville said “Many people are following the Health Order, but we need to increase our efforts together to slow the spread of COVID-19 in our community. To further our progress, to protect lives and reopen more local businesses and activities, we need a tool to send a fair message that everyone has to adhere to health orders to prevent the spread of the virus.”

“With a 14 percent unemployment rate, this is not the time for a sales tax hike”

– Board Chair Candace Andersen

Half-Cent Sales Tax Ballot Measure Plans Hung Up in Sacramento

With the legislative clock ticking in Sacramento, the supervisors plan to meet at a special teleconferenced meeting next Tuesday in order to get a status report to waive the second reading on the supervisors’ resolution calling for a Nov. 3 half cent sales tax ballot proposal.

The special meeting was called because state legislators have not convened to act on proposed legislation, especially Contra Costa County State Senator Steve Glazer’s Senate Bill 1349, a transactions and use tax law, that the supervisors need the state Legislature to pass and Governor Gavin Newsom to sign by August 18 or the supervisors’ half cent sales proposal will not appear on the November ballot.

Deputy County Administrator Tim Ewell explained without passage of SB 1349, the county will  lose $800,000 to $1 million in state revenue to cover printing costs tied to the ballot measure, but the clock is ticking and the supervisors need to have SB 1349 passed in the legislature and signed by the governor by August 18.

“I want those funds,” said supervisor Mitchoff, “but it will only move forward if the legislature acts.”

Supervisors voted 4-1, with Chair Candace Andersen of Danville casting the lone opposing vote, to move forward to meet next Tuesday.

“I will not support it” said Andersen, who also opposed the tax increase proposal at the board’s July 14 meeting.  “With a 14 percent unemployment rate, this is not the time for a sales tax hike with such high unemployment rate.”

One of the few speakers opposing the proposal Tom Townsend of El Cerrito, said, “I am taxed to the limit and I oppose the half cent sales tax.”

“I am unsure if this ballot measure will pass,” warned District 3 Supervisor Mitchoff, but she voted in favor of it anyway.

Tax proponent Supervisor Gioia said a county resident would typically pay $60 to $80 a year should the tax measure pass in November.

The proposed language for the county tax measure reads:

“To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a ½ cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually for 20 years that the state cannot take, requiring fiscal accountability, with funds benefitting county residents, be adopted?”

Sheriff Continues Cooperation With ICE

Sheriff David Livingston ran into criticism from the public about how the Sheriff’s Office works with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but is not expected to change his policies.

“The Sheriff continues to respond to ICE notification requests,” said Melanie Kim, a staff attorney for Advance Justice – Asian Law Caucus. “These practices are especially cruel given that COVID-19 is running rampant inside ICE facilities.  People in ICE custody are vulnerable to grave illness or death.”

The sheriff told supervisors that because of the COVID-19 hygiene practices that his officers and the inmates use at the West Contra Costa facility in Richmond and Martinez jail, there have been no reported COVID-19 cases.

The sheriff reported that in the past year his office detained for ICE enforcement purposes, 72 were Hispanic prisoners, 18 were Asian prisoners, one was a Black prisoner, three were white prisoners, and two “other” prisoners.

Sheriff Livingston said of the 95 prisoners reported to ICE, 71 were charged for miscellaneous felonies, four for penal or murder, five for robbery, two for car jackings, and for 11 for assaults with deadly weapons.

While there were a number of critics of the Sheriff’s Office asking that the Board of Supervisors to reduce funding for the upcoming 2020-2021 fiscal year, Karen Clarkson was one of few backers of Sheriff Livingston’s department requesting that funding remain unchanged. “I support the Sheriff,” she said. “It is an unsafe practice to defund the Sheriff.”

“This county should be safe for everyone, whether they are documented or undocumented,” said Anisha Walker, who requested that supervisors cut funds to the Sheriff’s Office.

“I have no sympathy for those who break the law and are violent criminals, “said Supervisor Mitchoff. “I support the sheriff. And I support social justice and equality at a time we are in a COVID -19 pandemic.”

Writer responds – Schools and Communities First: Prop 15

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

This is in response to the recent Op/Ed from Dronenburg and Coupal.

Most of us want similar things: good schools for our children, a healthy family, and safe neighborhoods. But for more than four decades, big corporations have not been paying their fair share, leaving California’s school funding falling behind. California now has the most overcrowded classrooms in the U.S. and some of the worst ratios of counselors, librarians, and nurses per student. This has taken an enormous toll.

Schools & Communities First is not an effort to undo Prop 13- it is simply an effort to ensure that our schools and communities come first – with the resources to educate all of our kids and the services to support all of our families.

It accomplishes this by closing commercial property tax loopholes only- not residences, not agriculture and not small businesses. In fact, it will impact only a small fraction of large corporations.
SCF will reclaim $12 billion every year to fund world-class schools and strengthen local economies to lift up all Californians

It’s time to invest in California again- we cannot afford to wait.

Janet Hoy

Walnut Creek

Contra Costa Supervisors move forward placing half-cent sales tax increase on November ballot, extend rental eviction moratorium

By Leave a Comment

Andersen only no vote on tax increase measure; support Martizians for Black Lives and mural; approve Grand Jury report on wildfire preparedness; finalize recruitment process for new County Administrator

By Daniel Borsuk

Just as Contra Costa County’s top public health official Anna Roth informed the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors  on Tuesday the number of COVID-19 positive cases has risen to 2,586 cases, an increase from 92 cases three weeks earlier, and with 79  COVID -19 stricken patients in county hospitals, up from 35 patients in county hospital six weeks previously, Supervisors reacted swiftly by extending a county-wide ordinance prohibiting rental evictions and rental increases until September 30.

Supervisors received overwhelming telephone citizen support to extend the ordinance’s benefits to renters and small businessowners two and half months during Tuesday’s teleconference meeting.  The ordinance that had protected tenants from evictions and rent increases would have expired on Wednesday, July 15.

The new ordinance won unanimous support from supervisors.

“The emergency is not over with the COVID 19 pandemic.  The economic impact our residents face has not subsided, said Board Chair Candace Andersen in a statement.  “We sincerely hope passage of this new ordinance to extend the eviction protection of rent freeze will continue to protect renters and small businesses even as landlords and renters work together to have tenants pay what they can over a longer period of time.

The ordinance contains a no-fault provision that landlords cannot increase the rent on a residential property until Sept. 30, Andersen said in her statement. It applies to all 19 cities in the county as well as all unincorporated areas.

Support Placing Half-Cent Sales Tax Increase on Ballot on Split Vote

The Supervisors, on a 4-1 vote, also flashed the green light to allow county officials to proceed in drafting a county-wide ballot measure possibly for the November election for a half-cent sales tax increase to support county services.

Supervisors reviewed findings from a poll that cost $10,000 and conducted by FM3 Research that found  among 666 persons who were polled, “To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staff; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a half-cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually that the State cannot take, requiring fiscal accountability, with funds benefitting County residents, be adopted?”

The FM3 Research poll found that 62 percent of the respondents would possibly support a tax measure, 31 percent oppose, and 7 percent had no response.

Board Chair Candace Andersen, who represents District 2, cast the lone no vote against the sales tax proposal saying she had “serious concerns” about the measure.  The supervisor from Danville said “it would add further tax burdens to families now stressed by the economic impacts of the  COVID 19 pandemic restrictions.”

“A sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation for those who can least afford it. I think the timing is really, really off,” she added.

But District 1 Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond, who has constantly defended the need for a countywide sales tax to support county services, said, “The need is more apparent now that county services are underfunded and need additional tax support.”

The tax increase would require support of a 50% plus one simple majority of voters to pass. The Supervisors have until August 7 to place the measure on the November ballot. According to the Contra Costa County Elections website, supporters and opponents would have until August 19 to file Arguments in Favor or Against and until August 24 to file rebuttals.

Support Martizians for Black Lives & Mural

Supervisors approved, without opposition, a resolution “supporting Martizians for Black Lives in their legal public commentary through their ‘Blacks Lives Matter’ mural, and strongly condemns those who illegally deface this mural as a racist and illegal act.”  The resolution is in reference to the Black Lives Matter mural that was painted and temporarily defaced in front of the Martinez court house with black paint by a woman and assisted by a man, who said they were defacing the mural with comments such as “Racism is a lie,” “There is no racism,” “This is not happening in my town, “ “No one wants Black Lives Matter,” and “All lives matter.”

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton stated, “The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country.  We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country.”

Grand Jury Report on Wildfire Preparedness

A Grand Jury Report, “Wildfire Preparedness in Contra Costa County,” was approved as a consent item, but among the panel’s recommendations were:

“The Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, and San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District should consider directing their Fire Chief to update wildfire evacuation plans and incorporate pre-determined polygons and advanced routing technology, by June 30, 2021.”

The Grand Jury Report also states directors of the five county fire districts “should consider identifying funds to adopt or expand the use of new technologies, such as ground sensors, drones, satellites, and fire spotting cameras, to help detect fires in high-risk areas by June 30, 2021.”

Additionally, the report recommends that directors of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District and Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District should review and consider an ordinance similar to the one the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District passed that would enable their fire district to recover labor and equipment costs from PG&E for overseeing electrical utility work that presents a high fire risk by June 30, 2021. “

In other action, supervisors approved the sale of two parcels of county owned land at 1750 Oak Park Blvd. and 75 Santa Barbara Road, that is the site of the former Pleasant Hill Library, for $13.8 million to developer Davidon Homes. The site is part of a proposed development calling for the construction of a new City-owned library, 34 single-family homes, and open space.  No one spoke either in opposition or in favor of the sale.

Finalize Recruitment Process for New County Administrator

Supervisors also authorized recruitment consultant Peckham & McKenney, a Sacramento firm that supervisors had hired to recruit a new County Administrator to replace David Twa, who will retire at the end of this year to begin the recruitment process.  The supervisors had approved a $30,500 contract last month with Peckham & McKenney.

The successful candidate could earn an annual salary of as much as $381,000.

The recruiter has proposed a schedule that includes resume deadline of Sept. 22, preliminary interview running from Sept. 23 through Oct. 9, Recommendations of Candidates on Oct. 13, Interview – First Round the week of Oct. 26 and Second Round the week of Nov. 2.

The recruiters work is slated to be completed with the successful replacement of a new county administrator before Jan. 31, 2021, the end of the contract with Peckham & McKenney.