Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations can offer meals for dine-in, delivery and takeout and with limits, in addition to Cottage Food Operations already allowed
By Contra Costa Health
Contra Costa residents interested in selling home-cooked food to the public can now get a health permit to do so, an affordable option for entrepreneurs that ensures the safety of their customers.
Beginning July 1, Contra Costa Health (CCH) offers a new type of food permit for small-scale, home-based restaurants operated inside private homes by their residents. Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKOs) can offer meals for dine-in, delivery and takeout. MEHKOs can offer meals for dine-in, take-out, and/or delivery, and can also be used as a commissary for permitted food carts.
“By providing this option we ensure that people who sell food out of their homes do so in a safe manner that protects the health of our community,” said Federal Glover, chair of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. “We also open the door for neighborhood businesses, and for more access to healthy, nutritious food in areas where options may be limited.”
The board unanimously adopted an ordinance in May authorizing the county to offer the permit under terms of a 2018 state law. Several other Bay Area jurisdictions already do so, including Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Solano counties, and the City of Berkeley.
The permit allows meals to be stored, handled, and prepared to be served or delivered in a private residence. Most other food permits require a commercial kitchen in a restaurant or similar facility.
A permitted home can also serve as a space to prepare food for sale on street carts, a requirement to obtain a cart vendor health permit that has proven to be a significant barrier in Contra Costa.
As with holders of standard commercial food permits, MEHKO permit holders must meet requirements relating both to the spaces where their businesses operate and the food-safety training of operators. CCH will inspect each permit holder annually or more often.
The MEHKO permits do limit the holder to selling no more than 30 meals per day and 90 meals per week, and no more than $100,000 in gross annual sales. There are also some limitations regarding the type of food that may be served.
CCH will schedule workshops throughout the county later this year for potential applicants.
“This permit is great for new entrepreneurs who are just getting started,” CCH Environmental Health Director Kristian Lucas said. “It’s also a way for the public to know that a seller advertising on social media is complying with food safety regulations.”
MEHKO permit holders will be required to display their permits at their homes, and their health inspection records will be available to the public at cchealth.org.
Cottage Food Operations Already Allowed
Contra Costa Health offers two kinds of permits for home-based food operations. In addition, to the new MEHKO, the county also allows Cottage Food Operations (CFO) which “is a home-based operation that allows limited amounts of certain foods to be prepared in a home kitchen for retail sale. A CFO can prepare and package non-potentially hazardous foods from home. The California Department of Public Health maintains a listing of foods approved to be sold from a private residence. Some examples of these foods include cookies, candies, jams/jellies, muffins, cakes, and pies. Only foods on the state listing are approved as cottage food products.
Class A: This type of CFO can sell home-kitchen prepared foods directly to the public. This includes transactions made via the phone, internet, and any other digital method. A direct sale may be fulfilled in person, via mail delivery, or using any other third-party delivery service. A Class A operator’s current maximum gross annual sales are $75,000.
Class B: This type of CFO can sell home-kitchen prepared foods directly to the public or indirectly through restaurants and food markets. A direct sale may be fulfilled in person, via mail delivery, or using any other third-party delivery service. An indirect sale may be fulfilled in person, via mail delivery, or third-party delivery service. The current gross annual sales for a Class B operator are $150,000.
In Antioch, home-based business owners are also required to obtain a Home Occupation Use Permit from the City.
For more information about the new and CFO permits, including how to apply, visit cchealth.org/homekitchens.
During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council on a 4-0 vote passed an ordinance banning organizers and advertisers of and spectators at sideshows. The matter was finally dealt with after discussing the matter since last fall and holding two previous votes, one which adopted an ordinance without targeting spectators and the follow up vote, for which none of the three council members present supported it. (See related articles here, here, here and here)
Most of the residents who spoke during public comments on the agenda item were opposed to including a ban on spectators citing possible constitutional issues and profiling by police, and concerns that those stuck in their cars could be cited.
Before hearing from residents during the public hearing, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said, “The city attorney would have acted as the proponent” but was absent from the meeting. The mayor then asked who would be the opponent, resident Alexander Broom volunteered and was given 10 minutes to speak.
“There are some large concerns I have with Attachment A which goes after the spectators,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a crime that I could be a witness to and be guilty of a crime. I think there are some constitutional issues there.”
“Anyone who is found to be within 200 feet witnessing or observing a sideshow,” he pointed out as one example.
“There are multiple instances that I would go to part of car culture, then you have people who show up and ruin the event,” he stated. “Me just being present doesn’t mean I’m a participant. This ordinance…is far too broad. I would encourage you to not include the spectator portion.”
“I had one of my friends come out to one of these events and a car show broke out. He was profiled,” he stated. “I could face up to six months in jail for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
“There are so many other routes you can go after spectators for this disturbance,” he said. “I think this opens up the city to more lawsuits…to more civil rights violations.”
“I’m open to compromise. I’d rather see the second ordinance go forward that doesn’t include spectators,” he concluded. “This is far too broad.”
Ralph Hernandez said, “These car culture violators should figure out how to lawfully and peacefully cruise. You should keep option 1 to include spectators.”
These are not really spectators. They’re encouraging bad conduct In law, that’s aiding and abetting,” he continued. “I think the police are smart enough…to make differentiation who is a spectator. How do those people claim they’re merely parked there?” he asked. “Come on you have to sell that to someone else.”
“The 200-feet limit, it’s appropriate because these sideshows take up a lot of space,” Hernandez continued. “Is that car culture? They’re violators of the law…by those actively participating, drivers, blockers. If they don’t want to be considered a violator they should not go there.”
“Their cell phones should also be confiscated,” he added. “It’s dangerous. It’s not a football game.”
Teshina Garrett, ACCE Antioch asked, “Who or what is considered a spectator?” and then spoke of her experience being stuck due to a sideshow. “We took photos…of people doing stupid stuff in the middle of the street. Does that make us a spectator?”
“Use these drones, Take their license plates, confiscate their vehicles,” she added.
Resident Dr. Kimberly Payton, Vice President of the NAACP East County Branch, spoke next about her own experience of getting stuck in traffic due to a sideshow. “Therefore, I don’t understand how you can tell a spectator and someone who is stuck. I just encourage you to consider the definition of a spectator if that’s the route the council is going.”
Andrew Becker also shared about “a sideshow that popped up. Within two minutes there were 200 people there. They were jumping on my car. I understand there’s a subjective component there. I also understand you have to have these tools. It’s the individuals…who are driving these things. I’m wondering if…an individual who is cited, they can have it reviewed by the Oversight committee. I think that would be monumental. It might alleviate some of the concerns here.”
Gavin Payton asked, “Some of the sideshows are actually dangerous for cars and for pets, the next day because they’re throwing bottles and the glass is breaking on the curbs and the bushes. Is there going to be some kind of action for that, as well?”
A resident named Devin said, “We really need to determine what a spectator is. We all know that the definition that some will use is not fair to everyone. People can determine who’s participating in these things, who’s taking videos and advertising these things. This is a problematic issue we are having in this city. But the language…people being accused of being a spectator, but they weren’t. Two hundred feet…that’s not fair.”
A woman named Laura said, “I am not an expert on car culture but I’m an excellent driver…and I am a parent. I think it’s dangerous to include spectators …because…systemic racism is a thing. So, I don’t think spectators should be included in this.”
Louise Green spoke last saying, “Using the simple word spectator is scary to everyone. I think this is more targeted to spectator participants. It’s a game they play. They were throwing T-shirts over their license plates. They’re actually throwing their bodies into the cars. You’ll have to put the spectator clause in there. Unless you can get real specific on the language, they are spectators, but a participant spectator. They have racing guns that they signal when the police are coming. There were maybe five people on the sidewalk. But the 200 were spectator participants. They get out of their vehicles. If I’m trapped in my car, they’re going to know, they’re not part of it. We do have to include them because they’re part of the problem.”
Council Discussion
Barbanica spoke first saying, “We’re talking, here about active participants. Not someone sitting in their cars. There’s also a big difference with someone videoing, when an officer rolls up. They say, officer, ‘here’s my phone.’”
“They leapfrog ahead to the next sideshow. It’s very detrimental to the community,” he stated. “This has terrorized the community long enough.”
“These are roving sideshows that are very organized. We have to go after people who are active participants,”
“These sideshows are getting more and more frequent and they’re roving around the city,” Ogorchock stated. “I would ask the city attorney’s office if we can increase the penalties not just $1,000.”
“A San Joaquin Sheriff would not release the cars from a sideshow until the participants’ court dates,” she shared. “These cars are part of evidence.”
“I think we should also look at reimbursement for the use of our resources,” Ogorchock continued. “As we as community members, these are our dollars. These people, the majority of them are coming from outside the community.”
“This is a quality-of-life issue,” she stated. “If we can’t add these to the ordinance toight
Wilson said, “I’m going to steal the term spectator participant. These spectator participants…they’re filming and livestreaming it to let their friends know where they are. We need to hold those participants accountable along with the organizers and advertisers.’
“I betcha there are people from inside our community,” she added.
“We need to start talking about why is this happening. What’s the root cause?” Wilson asked. “We definitely need to include something about the spectators.”
Hernandez-Thorpe spoke last saying, “this doesn’t necessarily stop sideshows. These are tools that once sideshows are happening they can be used. These aren’t preventative. What actually prevents sideshows is determining who is starting them. But unfortunately, our traffic division has been decimated.”
“I’m all for all of them, spectators, organizers and those who advertise,” he stated. “If we pass something tonight it will come back late July and will go into effect 30 days later, at the end of the summer months. If we need to make changes, we do it in the fall.”
“The technology in the police department in my opinion allows them to differentiate between a spectator,” the mayor shared. “Let’s pass something now, tonight and build on it and not let perfection be the enemy of progress.”
Ogorchock then made a motion saying, “I’m going to add” then read the ordinance that included banning spectators, “including not releasing vehicles until court dates and reimburse costs of resource.”
The Assistant City Attorney said, “I think there are some concerns…that we can’t address tonight” in response to a question from Barbanica.
No one seconded the motion.
Barbanica then moved approval of the ordinance including spectators as written. It passed 4-0.
Ogorchock then asked, “that we come back with the two proposals.” But both Barbanica and Wilson had already left the dais, so the mayor said, “Uh, no. There’s no consensus. Everybody left.” They then took a two-minute recess.
She tried again following the break but none of the other council members supported her proposals.
Ordinance Details
The ordinance adopted includes the following:
City Council introduced the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 4 to Title 4 (Public Safety) to the Antioch Municipal Code, which prohibits organizing, advertising, and being a spectator at street racing, sideshows, and reckless driving exhibitions;
Organizing or Advertising Street Races, Sideshows, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly organize a street race, sideshow, reckless driving exhibition, or exhibition of speed conducted within the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
B. It is unlawful for any person to advertise, within the City, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
C. It is unlawful for any person to advertise online, including on social media, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
Spectators at Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited
It is unlawful for any individual who to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, at an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.
B. It is unlawful for any individual to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, where preparations are being made for an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.
C. Local law enforcement shall have the authority to cite any spectator in violation of this Chapter with an administrative citation.
D. An individual is present at the illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition if that individual is within two hundred (200) feet of the location of the event, or within two hundred (200) feet of the location where preparations are being made for the event.
Enforcement
A. Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a maximum of six (6) months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both, unless at the discretion of the district attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction, the violation is reduced to an infraction.
Antioch School Board Vice President Mary Rocha (right) reads a prepared statement during the May 22, 2024 board meeting calling for a vote to censure President Antonio Hernande. Source: AUSD YouTube video screenshot
Resolution claims Antonio Hernandez committed 12 violations of board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and Brown Act open meeting law cited
By Allen D. Payton
During the Antioch School Board meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2024, Board President Antonio Hernandez faces a vote to censure him proposed by fellow Trustee and Board Vice President Mary Rocha for publicly divulging personnel and closed session matters and to the media, among other reasons. It occurred while he spoke with an NBC Bay Area TV about the accusations by district employees of bullying by a supervisor and called for Superintendent Stephanie Anello’s resignation for not handling the situation they way he would have preferred.
At the end of the May 22nd board meeting, Rocha read a statement calling for the censure to be placed on the next board meeting agenda. However, Hernandez pointed out that Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis would be absent for that meeting, so the item was placed on Wednesday night’s meeting agenda. (See 3:10:00 mark of the meeting video)
Under Resolutions for Immediate Action, agenda Item 15F reads, Resolution No. 2023-24-57 Censure of Board President Antonio Hernandez. It outlines 12 times he violated board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and the state’s Brown Act open meeting law which includes:
Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding personnel matters with members of the media;
Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding closed session matters with members of the media;
Board President Hernandez violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPPA) Act by divulging confidential health-related information of a District employee to the media;
Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by speaking out of turn, in public, regarding private and confidential personnel matters, appearing to take on an administrative role;
Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by acting in an administrative capacity to resolve complaints;
Board President Hernandez, sought to evaluate the Superintendent in a public forum, outside of the closed session arena in violation of Board Policy 2140;
Board President Hernandez, used his public Facebook account to post confidential correspondence from a District paid for legal counsel, breaking the confidentiality of the document posted, and posting confidential correspondence to the Board of trustees, which was directed to a closed session item in violation of Board Bylaw 9012;
Board President Hernandez attempted to schedule two Special Board Meetings, while also being told that there would not be a quorum for the meeting;
Board President actually commandeered the Board Room to hold an unsanctioned meeting with members of the public, placing members of the administration in potential jeopardy of violating California’s Open Meeting Law (the “Brown Act”);
Board President Hernandez usurped the authority of the Board by appearing to speak on behalf of the Board or Trustees in media news reports, via his Facebook posts, and in public meetings in violation of Board Bylaws 9010 and 9012;
Board President Hernandez, failed to implement Board Bylaw 9121, when a local media reporter verbally attacked the Superintendent during a Governing Board Meeting;
the Governing Board hereby finds and determines that Board President Hernandez’s conduct is unacceptable, unprofessional, and a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws cited above.
The proposed resolution concludes with four resolutions and orders including:
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and ORDERED that the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
…that based on these recitals, the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby formally censures Board President Hernandez and proclaims publicly that this Board disapproves of the aforementioned conduct and finds it to be a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws and constitutes unacceptable behavior that shall not be tolerated.
…that Board President Hernandez shall treat fellow Board members and all District staff with dignity and respect at all times and in all forums, and that he refrains from any further violation of Board Policies and Bylaws.
…that any further violations of Board Policies and Bylaws by Board President Hernandez may result in his removal as Board President.”
The school board meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the board room at the Antioch Unified School District office building at 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed live on the District’s YouTube channel.
Of 764 city employees Antioch’s highest paid was a police sergeant at $349,993
SACRAMENTO — State Controller Malia M. Cohen has released the 2023 self-reported payroll data for cities and counties on the Government Compensation in California website. The data covers 517,358 positions and a total of more than $40.72 billion in 2023 wages.
Users of the site can:
View compensation levels on maps and search by region;
Narrow results by name of the entity or by job title; and
Export raw data or custom reports.
The newly published data includes 462 cities and 52 counties. The City of Hayward had the highest average city employee wage in California, followed by Atherton, Pleasant Hill, and Beverly Hills. The counties with the highest average employee wages were Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Monterey, and Ventura. The city employee with the highest total wages in California was a police officer for the City of Santa Monica, while the top 20 highest-paid county employees work in health care professions.
For the City of Antioch, the data show a total of 764 employees worked sometime during the year who were paid $44,888,017 in wages and $13,815,659 in retirement and health contributions. The highest paid employee was a police sergeant who earned total wages of $349,993 which included $165,795 in regular pay, $126,573 in overtime and $57,625 in other pay, listed as car allowances, meeting stipends, incentive pay, bonus pay, etc.
California law requires cities, counties, and special districts to annually report compensation data to the State Controller. The State Controller also maintains and publishes state and CSU salary data. Five counties and 20 cities failed to file or provided incomplete or late information. San Francisco is both a city and a county; the website reports San Francisco as a city.
Since the website launched in 2010, State Controller’s Office has published pay and benefit information on more than two million government jobs in California, as reported annually by each entity.
As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on X at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.
“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – CA Supreme Court
“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability
By Allen D. Payton
In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed tocontinue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize
According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election
In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”
However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”
Proponents
Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative. The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”
According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats. They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”
Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts
In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:
“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.
We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.
Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results.
This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future.
In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher.
We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.”
———–
Opponents
The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, FSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”
Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”
In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.
Court’s Decision
According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”
The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”
“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.
The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”
However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.
Proposed $20 billion regional November bond measure seen as way to close the gap
By Kate Hartley, BAHFA & Justine Marcus, Enterprise Community Partners
Enterprise Community Partners (Enterprise) and the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) released the Bay Area Affordable Housing Pipeline 2024 Report, last month, which analyzes affordable housing projects in various stages of predevelopment and identifies solutions for moving them toward completion. The updated research reveals there are now 433 projects in various stages of predevelopment that would create more than 40,896 affordable homes across the nine-county Bay Area. These would account for nearly a quarter of the 180,000 affordable homes the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan determined are needed in the Bay Area by 2031. (See related articles here and here)
Affordable housing developments typically are supported by a capital “stack” investment that includes a commercial mortgage; Low-Income Housing Tax Credits; tax-exempt bonds; and additional local, regional and state dollars that fill the gap between the cost of the development and the financing secured through debt and equity. The new report calculates that the hundreds of Bay Area projects now in the predevelopment pipeline need $9.7 billion in public funds to move forward, and that a $20 billion regional bond measure proposed for the ballot in Bay Area counties this fall would help close this gap.
“We’ve been stuck in an affordable housing crisis that has overwhelmed the region. The November ballot presents an opportunity to unlock thousands of affordable homes for Bay Area residents,” said Heather Hood, VP and Northern California Market Leader at Enterprise. “We expect voters to have a chance to end our housing crisis and deliver the dignified, healthy homes the Bay Area community needs and deserves.”
Source: Enterprise Community Partners
The predevelopment pipeline includes projects in all nine Bay Area counties. These include more than 10,000 units in both Alameda and Santa Clara counties, with another 8,400 affordable homes pending development in San Francisco and more than 3,000 units in both San Mateo and Sonoma counties. Project pipelines in other Bay Area counties range from over 300 affordable homes in Solano County to 1,173 units in Marin County; nearly 1,500 homes in Napa County; and over 2,500 units in Contra Costa County. Each Bay Area city, town or county currently is working on its own to meet the challenges of housing affordability and homelessness.
“The need for affordable housing transcends jurisdictional boundaries. BAHFA’s proposed bond measure would finally allow our Bay Area to take a regional approach to a regional problem,” said BAHFA Director Kate Hartley. “With significant new resources for every county, we can build at scale, deliver equitable solutions, and create a better way to deliver the affordable homes Bay Area residents need.
Enterprise is a national nonprofit that exists to make a good home possible for the millions of families without one. We support community development organizations on the ground, aggregate and invest capital for impact, advance housing policy at every level of government, and build and manage communities ourselves. Since 1982, we have invested $54 billion and created 873,000 homes across all 50 states – all to make home and community places of pride, power and belonging.
About the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority
Established by the state legislature in 2019, BAHFA’s mandate is to create regional solutions that meet the Bay Area’s affordable housing needs. It is the first regional housing finance authority in California. BAHFA works together with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
Senator Glazer’s request leads to findings of workers cheated out of $63.9 million in past wages
Calls it a failure to act on behalf of workers
Report claims inadequate staffing, poor oversight have weakened protections for workers
SACRAMENTO – California Labor Commissioners have stood idly by as a massive backlog in wage theft cases piled up worth $63.9 million in lost wages to workers as its enforcement unit failed to enforce and collect wages in 76 percent of cases in which employers were found to owe wages, according to a report released Wednesday by Grant Parks, the California State Auditor.
The scathing audit came as a result of a March 2023 request through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee by Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, and Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-San Diego. It was based on news reports about the lack of wage theft enforcement.
Parks reported his findings to the Governor, President pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly about the “Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, also known as the Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO).” Lilia García-Brower is the current state Labor Commissioner and was appointed to the position by Governor Newsom in July 2019. Neither her name or photo appears on the website for the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Ironically, according to the agency’s website, “The mission of the LCO is to ensure a just day’s pay in every workplace in the State and to promote economic justice through robust enforcement of labor laws. By combating wage theft, protecting workers from retaliation, and educating the public, we put earned wages into workers’ pockets and help level the playing field for law-abiding employers.”
The audit “reviewed the backlog of wage claims submitted by workers from fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23, and determined that the LCO is not providing timely adjudication of wage claims for workers primarily because of insufficient staffing to process those claims.”
Furthermore, the state Auditor reported, “In addition to its delays in processing wage claims, the LCO has not been successful in collecting judgments from employers. A possible factor contributing to its low collection rate is that the Enforcement Unit does not consistently use all of the methods available to it for collecting payments owed to workers.”
Senator Glazer released this statement on the audit’s findings:
“The California State Auditor’s report makes clear that our State Labor Commissioner is a toothless enforcer of our wage theft laws. This deeply troubling assessment exposes a system that has fundamentally failed the workers it is supposed to protect. According to the auditor, there is a backlog of 47,000 claims registered on June 30, 2023. This is a state embarrassment and a stain on the department that workers depend on for justice.
The report also highlights an alarming increase in the average number of days to resolve claims, which has skyrocketed from 420 days in 2017/18 to an astounding 890 days in 2022/23. This drastic decline in efficiency is not just a statistic; it represents thousands of workers enduring prolonged injustice and financial hardship.
This lack of enforcement emboldens companies to exploit workers, knowing they can likely escape any real consequences, thus perpetuating and increasing further abuse. These findings paint a grim picture of an agency overwhelmed and ineffective, leaving workers vulnerable and without recourse. Immediate and decisive action to restore integrity and effectiveness to the Labor Commissioner’s office is needed. The workers of California deserve nothing less than a robust system that ensures timely and fair resolution of wage theft claims.”
“…contains challenging financial choices for the Governor and the Legislature…”- Malia Cohen
Fiscal year-to-date revenues still trend below expectations
SACRAMENTO — California State Controller Malia M. Cohen today, Friday, May 10, 2024, issued the following statement in response to Governor Gavin Newsom’s May budget revision:
“This morning, Governor Newsom released the May Revision to his proposed 2024-25 State Budget. The blueprint to address the remaining shortfall contains challenging financial choices for the Governor and the Legislature to maintain the state’s commitment to protecting essential programs and services and continuing critical investments in the state’s future.”
“As the state’s chief fiscal officer, it is my job to ensure the state has sufficient cash to pay our bills and to make certain that expenditures are transparent, accountable, and align with their intended purpose and expected outcomes. My office stands ready to assist both the Governor and the Legislature as they make their final push to finalize and approve the 2024-25 budget.”
In addition, Cohen today released her monthly cash report covering the state’s General Fund revenues, disbursements and actual cash balance for the fiscal year through April 30, 2024. The state ended April with $95.8 billion in unused borrowable resources, while fiscal year-to-date receipts continue below estimates contained in the 2024-25 Governor’s proposed budget.
The Governor’s Budget estimated that the state would collect nearly $16.3 billion in personal income taxes in April. As shown on the State Controller’s Office April 2024 Personal Income Tax Tracker webpage, the state exceeded the revenue target by approximately $150 million.
“With April personal income tax revenues just tracking with the most recent budget estimates, fiscal year-to-date revenues continue at lower-than-expected levels,” said Controller Cohen. “The high level of borrowable resources is due in large part to the $26 billion the state has prudently built up and reserved for rainy days and economic uncertainties. Maintaining enough cash to cushion against economic downturns has been one of California’s strengths in its credit ratings, and ensures the state will continue to meet its payment obligations.”
Fiscal year-to-date receipts through April were $169.8 billion, nearly $4.8 billion below the Governor’s Budget estimates, or 2.7 percent. The state’s cash position is $7.6 billion better than expected with disbursements of $184.9 billion for the fiscal year nearly $12.4 billion, or 6.3 percent, less than proposed budget projections.
As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on Twitter at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.
