By Antioch Police

To celebrate National Dog Day, K9 Kona started work today with a good arrest. Our Dispatch Center received calls reporting an individual vandalizing the Antioch Water Treatment Plant with an axe.  When officers arrived, the vandal took off running and engaged in a game of hide-and-seek. Kona arrived and immediately put her superior sniffer to work! She led us on a trail that led right to a bush in a wooded area. After realizing Kona was onto him, our vandal immediately gave up, and his senseless shenanigans abruptly ended.

Our department has six police service dogs and are an integral part of our patrol teams (they’re a force multiplier!). We love our police canines and know many of you do too. On National Dog Day, please join us in a series of virtual head pats, ear scratches, and tummy rubs for Enzo, Kona, Kaia, Dex, Purcy, and Tzak!

Fun Fact: Our dogs don’t just look for bad guys and gals. They also do narcotic, article, and missing person searches! A dog’s nose is 100 times better than our own! Did someone just open a bag of treats?

The BART Police Department is launching a new initiative that gives riders another way to request assistance from officers while they’re in the system.  Text BART Police allows riders, employees, and others to directly contact the BPD Dispatch Center.  The launch builds on the success of the BART Watch app, which has been downloaded 89,000 times.

“I want to give our riders as many ways as possible to reach us while they’re on our trains and in our stations,” said BART Police Chief Ed Alvarez.  “Text BART Police makes it easy for anyone to use their phone to discreetly contact us if a need should arise.”

The number for Text BART Police is 510-200-0992.  Text BART Police is operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week and can also be used to send pictures to BPD.  Much like the BART Watch app, the number should be primarily used for non-emergency reports.  Anyone with an emergency is still urged to call 911 or contact their Train Operator.

Fails to remove Householder from School-City Standing Committee on 1-4 vote after she offers multiple apologies

By Allen Payton

Following another heated exchange amongst Antioch School Board members during their meeting Wednesday night, over Twitter comments by Trustee Ellie Householder about Trustee Mary Rocha, the board chose not to remove Householder from the School-City Standing Committee on a 1-4 vote. Only Rocha, who made the motion, voted in favor, after Householder offered multiple apologies during the meeting.

The comments posted on Twitter, which have since been deleted, referred to Rocha’s decision at the last board meeting to withdraw her agenda item about removing Householder from the committee, and how the recent demonstrations by the students were having an effect, using the phrase “she is SHOOK YA’LL”.

“Madame Chair, I am interested in putting a motion in place would that be proper?” Rocha asked.

“Yes, you can make a motion whenever you want,” Board President Diane Gibson-Gray stated.

At this time I will make my statement, then,” Rocha said. At the last meeting I had put the school and city subcommittee on the agenda for discussion. But I decided to move the item until after the November election. I felt we needed to be respectful of the timing and consideration of the trustees in the election, which includes both of our representatives to this committee.”

“I was appalled at the tweets that Trustee Householder wrote encouraging more harassment against me and she was encouraging more people to bully me to influence my vote similar to what she did to Councilwoman Joy Motts.”

“Madame Chair, point of order, point of order, point of order,” Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White said interrupting Rocha, who continued to read her statement. “Excuse me, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this has never happened, before,”

“Excuse me. Excuse me. Trustee Sawyer-White, she has the floor,” Gibson-Gray responded.

“At this time, I’m putting a motion to remove Trustee Householder from the School-City Subcommittee,” Rocha added.

“OK. That’s a motion. Before we go, Trustee Sawyer-White was saying point of order,” Gibson-Gray said. “What is the point of order?”

“That’s totally disrespectful. That’s disrespectful. She could have motioned without the comments,” Sawyer-White said. “That’s totally disrespectful. As the president you can motion a point of order.”

“That’s not a point of order,” Gibson-Gray explained. “She’s allowed whatever she likes. So, she has made a motion to remove Trustee Householder. Is there a second so we can have conversation?  I will second it for conversation. Does anyone want to say something.”

“I’ll say something. So, I apologize if what I said on Twitter was hurtful,” Householder then said. “But I just want to be clear, because I’m sure that Trustee Rocha didn’t actually read the tweet herself. But I was not in any way calling for any violence to be perpetrated against any one of my fellow trustees or anyone in the community, for that matter. My tweet was rather to encourage the students to continue demonstrating and exercising their First Amendment right. You know, I understand, I mean I’ve heard since then that there have been other altercations during or after that meeting regarding SRO’s. I was in no way condoning any particular tactic. But I was in fact saying student’s rights to exercise their First Amendment was right and it had an affect.”

“And so I understand how if you don’t understand Twitter that could be definitely taken out of context. But as somebody who uses Twitter a lot, ask anybody who’s on my Twitter feed, that was definitely not the intention,” she continued. “But, regardless of my intent was, I do deeply apologize, because I can understand as a fellow trustee how alarming it must be to hear that there’s another trustee calling for violence or bullying. But I can assure you that definitely that was not my intention, at all. But I do apologize because I can understand how upsetting that is.”

“And with that I mean do understand why that type of emotional, visceral response would lead to ‘well, she doesn’t belong on the city subcommittee,’” said Householder. “But I kind of view those, I don’t kind of, those are two very separate things. And I think that if we, you know, want to have a discussion offline, I’d be more than happy to talk with my fellow trustee about that and to have a heart to heart about that and to just clear the air. But I think to move to say ‘oh, well, she doesn’t belong on the city subcommittee’ is a little odd to me.”

“But, you know, whatever, as President Gibson-Gray pointed out people can make a motion about whatever they want to make a motion on. That’s kind of how this kind of thing works, right? But, you know, I do apologize if those comments were hurtful. Our school-city subcommittee hasn’t met for a long time and we only met twice. So, it’s necessarily moving and sharking things.”

“Three out of the four elected officials are up for election. I anticipate that this committee is going to change, and I’ll be really shocked if we met before the election,” Householder concluded. “I obviously respect whatever motion people want to put on the table.”

“I actually asked Trustee Rocha to pull it back,” Gibson-Gray said. “It was as a result of the visit to Councilmember Motts’ house. I didn’t want another open letter to a board member from you to be put out if this happened. Unfortunately, you know, there are things that are disagreed on, you know and the way it’s worked out in public is not good.”

“I am a Twitter user. I did not show her that. I follow you on Twitter. I saw it. I believe that ‘all shook up’ is  you know, frightening,” she continued. “I don’t care how you couch it, I don’t think that was appropriate language. Do I think it’s enough to pull you off the committee? No. So, I’m going to vote no.”

“But, you know, this is a conversation that needed to be had in public,” Gibson-Gray stated. Because there was no conversation outside of your Twitter feed and I think it was very disrespectful in my opinion.”

“I just want to offer the same thing that’s been told to me time and time, again. You all have my phone number. If there is any confusion about anything please feel free to call, text me, whatever,” Householder responded. “I am the youngest person on this board, and the way that local leaders, or leaders in general engage with their constituents is a little bit different. And so, I understand that there is just that kind of like knowledge gap about the use of Twitter and I also think it’s not inappropriate to go to the public, as a public figure, to express opinions. But you know you guys have my number. So, call me in the future if there’s anything confusing to you.”

“The ageism comment is offensive to me,” Gibson-Gray responded. “I’ve been on social media long before you have. So, to say that because of our age we don’t understand that is challenging for me.”

“The thing I wanted to say is, I did this, at the last meeting I was doing it, as I said, so that we didn’t have any problems with the issues of the elections, etc. And so, I took it off for that reason,” Rocha explained. “But I resent it how it came back as if I was a weak person. I have over 30 years of working in the community, 30 years in public life and I’ve never backed off on anything. And believe you I sleep well. I don’t have issues with what my decisions are. Thank you.”

Then, before Superintendent Stephanie Anello read the public comments, she said, “There are so many comments that I just heard that were offensive, but it’s not my place to say that.”

The two public comments chastised Householder for her Twitter comments, and included them verbatim.

“I know I said I’d vote no, but I’m waffling,” Gibson-Gray then said. “But to hear them read out loud is a little bit different. What I just heard was a little disturbing. I do appreciate the fact that Trustee Householder did apologize and that will have some weight on my vote.”

“I was a little confused by what you’re saying, “Householder then said, “I think there were a few type-os.”

“Maybe I was a bit pre-emptive in saying how I’d vote,” Gibson-Gray said. “These were more than just ‘shook’. Your message was not appropriate for a board member.”

“I’m going to take back my vote no and I’m going to vote yes,” Gibson-Gray then said. “I’m changing my mind as I’m listening.”

“Again, this is our democracy at work,” Householder said. “And so, like I’m not offended at any of this. What I think for me since we’re talking about what I meant. That was actually in response to what a lot of intense things students were saying, they are having an effect on what the board is doing. I do standby my message, my larger message that it’s very clear demonstrations do have an affect on our politics. I do not take away the fact that I did upset my fellow trustee. In all of these comments it’s never my intent to be hurtful.”

“I do appreciate your apology,” Gibson-Gray said. “Regardless, I am a board member 24-hours a day. So, I’m very careful what I say. Board members are held to a higher standard. Perhaps we can learn something from this.”

She then called for the vote.

“Mary you made the motion to remove Trustee Householder from the subcommittee,” Gibson-Gray said.

Sawyer-White then wanted to make a comment. “I just wanted to say Ellie has a great heart. I know we conduct ourselves in a different manner and Twitter is a different ballgame. And Ellie is qualified to be on this committee and on this board.”

The motion failed on a 1-4 vote with Trustee Gary Hack saying, “with trepidation, no” and only Rocha voting in favor of it.

“I understand, in my mind, Trustee Rocha’s justified offense. I’m hoping we learn and move forward,” Gibson-Gray said. “The motion fails 4-1. So, am I done with that one, everyone? Sounds like a yes.”

“We’ll move on to 11, which I tried to start earlier,” she continued. “Resolutions for immediate action.”

“Madame Chair, what was the vote, the voting outcome?” asked Sawyer-White. “I’m sorry.”

“The vote failed 4-1,” Gibson-Gray responded.

“I said ‘no’,” Sawyer-White stated.

“Yes, that’s correct. So, it failed. Trustee Householder is still on the standing committee,” Gibson-Gray responded.

“OK. Thank you,” Sawyer-White responded.

“Yes. Can I move onto 11, now?” asked Gibson-Gray.

“I’m sorry. I was confused on the vote,” Sawyer-White said.

“I know. It was an unusual one. It was an unusual one,” Gibson-Gray then said.

“Mine was yes. It was yes. I’m not in favor,” Sawyer-White said.

“I know. It was an unusual vote. We’re all good, now, right?” Gibson-Gray asked.

“Well, I’m in favor. I’m the only one that voted ‘no’”? Sawyer-White asked.

“No. The vote was 4-1 that the vote failed. Trustee Householder is still on the standing committee by a vote of 4-1,” Gibson-Gray reiterated.

“And I’m the one,” Sawyer-White then said.

“No. No. No. You are the four. You’re part of the four,” Gibson-Gray explained, again.

“OK. Thank you,” Sawyer-White responded.

“Superintendent Anello, am I misstating that? I just want to make sure,” Gibson-Gray asked.

“No, you’re correct,” Anello responded.

“And Trustee Sawyer-White, you’re good now, right?” Gibson-Gray asked.

“Yes. Thank you for clarifying,” Sawyer-White responded.

“The vote was 1-4, not 4-1. I mean it’s either or,” Anello added.

“Yeah, four meant she stays on the committee,” Gibson-Gray stated. “That’s the way it works. It’s like when you vote in the ballot. It’s confusing. But the outcome is she stays on the committee.”

 

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Wednesday, August 26, 2020, the Antioch School Board approved compensation agreements for the top three staff in the district to comply with changes in state law.

AB 1344 makes changes to the Elections Code and Government Code concerning city charter elections, employment contracts for local agency executives, new notice requirements for open meetings, and penalties for misuse of public office. The law impacts principal entities and K-12 education agencies. These contracts incorporate the necessary provisions under state law.

Employment contracts for senior management must be approved at a regularly scheduled board meeting. The amendments to the contracts include a one-year extension and a step increase effective July 1, 2020.

Retroactively to July 1, 2020, Superintendent Stephanie Anello will be paid $270,585; Deputy Superintendent Jessica Romero will be paid $250,651; and Associate Superintendent Christine Ibarra will be paid $216,135.

Trustee Ellie Householder, “I was hoping Ms. Romero could explain to us how this is related to what we voted on at the last board meeting.”

“No, it’s not the same. The last one was looking at the ’19-20 school year. This is for the ’20-21 school year,” Romero explained.

“At the last meeting it was retroactive, although we have the management listed, it’s not saying it’s guaranteed for the next three years. Whoever was in these roles would get this over the next t three years,” Householder said.

“No. The three of us were not at the top step and this takes into account our years of service,” Romero shared. “Your step is generally based on the amount of years with the district.”

“How does this compare with similar positions in neighboring districts?” Householder then asked.

“I think you’ll find it’s in the ballpark of neighboring districts,” said Romero.

“Were these calculations taken into consideration in the budget revise we looked at?” Householder asked. “I’m just concerned about our longevity over the next three years.”

“It was taken into consideration when we looked at the budget,” said Romero. “We calculate a 1% increase across the board for all employees.”

“I will be saying ‘no’ on this…I’m just worried about us being able to afford it. It’s nothing personal. I just don’t think we can afford it,” Householder said.

Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White spoke on the matter next, saying, “I echo Trustee Householder. I review other districts. Parents are unemployed. To extend this contract out until 20-23 we can’t predict the future. Why we can’t take into account the new

“Each year on July 1st, our right to a step increase

“Yes, but we’re in a pandemic, and other districts are required to present a performance review which we haven’t done for the past two years or so,” Sawyer-White said. “I will be voting ‘no’, too. This is not appropriate use of state funds.”

“If you’re going to use that argument, we could use it for every…employee,” said Trustee Gary Hack. “There is precedence on this. It’s brought to us every year. It’s been an agreement for a long time.”

“I’d have to disagree. Classified and certificated employees are not making six-figure incomes,” Sawyer-White responded.

Hack moved approval and Trustee Mary Rocha seconded the motion.

It passed 3-2 with Board President Diane Gibson-Gray voting along with Hack and Rocha.

Hair salons, gyms, fitness centers may begin operating outdoors, hotels and short-term rentals may open

From Contra Costa Health Services, Office of the Director

Daily hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and the percentage of COVID-19 tests returning positive remained steady or fell slightly in Contra Costa County during early August, reflecting recent local progress in slowing the spread of a deadly virus. The seven-day rolling average number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Contra Costa dropped slightly, from 103 on Aug. 5 to 96 on Aug. 24. The average percentage of tests administered in the county that come back positive, meanwhile, has fallen from 8.8% on Aug. 6 to 7.4% on Aug. 24.

These key data indicators for the pandemic remain at dangerously high levels in Contra Costa, which remains on the California Department of Public Health’s county monitoring list, but are not currently increasing as they did in June and July.

Given the improvement, Contra Costa County today makes small changes to its social distancing health order to allow certain business sectors to begin operating again outdoors. The changes align Contra Costa’s policy with recently updated state health guidelines:

— Personal care services that do not involve close contact with the face, such as nail salons and massage, may begin operating outdoors in accordance with the state-issued industry guidelines and checklist.

— Gyms and fitness centers may begin operating outdoors in accordance with their own state guidelines and checklist.

— Hotels and short-term rentals in the county may open for personal or recreational travel, not just for essential business purposes.

These updates to the health order are effective Friday, August 28. Hair salons and barbers have already been permitted to perform limited work outdoors in the county, with no reported outbreaks.

Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) does encourage businesses to adjust reopening plans because of poor air quality in the county from Northern California wildfires. The county has issued a health advisory about smoke, encouraging all residents to stay inside when possible with doors and windows shut. For air quality updates and forecasts, visit the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

While recent issues at the state level skewed local testing data in late July and early August, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) has confidence in data related to hospitalization and number of new positive cases because they are directly reported to the county by local health providers and clinics.

“Based on what we are able to see, we can be cautiously optimistic that there is a gradual downward trend in county cases, testing positivity rates and hospitalizations,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, county health officer. “We need everyone to understand this is a reason to keep up what we are doing and not let down our guards.”

Previous health orders remain in effect. Contra Costa Health Services urges residents to continue wearing face coverings when they go out or are near people outside their households, observe physical distancing, stay home from work or school when they do not feel well and wash their hands thoroughly and often.

Details of the update, including the full text of the order, are available at cchealth.org/coronavirus.

$15,000 for outdoor dining in downtown Rivertown; $15,000 for Chamber of Commerce to administer

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2020, the Antioch City Council approved allocating $300,000 in CARES Act funds allocation of $300,000 in CARES Act funding and reprogramming of $120,000 in the Economic Development Department budget towards COVID-19 small business relief including $15,000 for the Antioch Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of administering the small business grant program.

Economic Development Director Kwame Reed provided the staff presentation.

The Business License Tax Relief will be allocated as a reduction or as a rebate (after the full cost of the renewal has been paid) of $100 on the renewal of existing Antioch businesses.

To be eligible for the relief the business must meet the qualifications below:

• Have a current/active business license as of March 17, 2020
• Have paid or will have paid for a renewal prior to March 16, 2021
• Have no more than 50 employees
• Do not have a national-brand affiliation

This is a one-time relief and only eligible to one owner per business.

Small Business Grants will be funded by the City’s CARES Act allocation. The CARES Act states that payments from the Fund may be used to cover costs associated with the provisions of grants to small businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures. Businesses will be able to apply for $5,000 grants. This amount will allow 60 grants to be provided to support eligible Antioch small businesses.

To be eligible, business must:

• Have a physical location in the Antioch city limits
• Hold a current Antioch business license for one (1) year prior to January 1, 2020
• No more than 25 employees
• Demonstrate they were unable to operate due to the Shelter Orders or sales were down more than 25% from the previous quarter or the same quarter last year Priority will be given to retail, personal service businesses, restaurants, and businesses that have not received federal assistance (PPP, EIDL, etc.).

No public comments were received.

Mayor Sean Wright recused himself, since he’s both a small business owner and the COO of the Antioch Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts then acted in his place in overseeing discussion of the item.

Councilman Lamar Thorpe said, “I’m excited about this, and particular that the Chamber plays a role. My only question is oversight. Where does that rest? I appreciate the Chamber. But they do have some ideologues, out there. So, I want to make sure the oversight is the city and not those who have a political agenda.”

“The economic program manager and I will have oversight of the funding,” Reed said. “The funding will come from the City not the Chamber.”

“I am happy to hear this will be for all businesses that fit the criteria not just Chamber members,” Wilson said. She then asked if members of the Economic Development Commission will be involved.

The EDC was the commission to develop the program and made a presentation on what they labeled the “COVID-19 Recovery, Retention, and Thriving Plan” to the City Council on August 11, 2020.

Reed responded that he will check with the EDC Chairman to decide. “But we don’t want to slow down the process.”

Wilson then asked about the timeline.

“Ultimately it will be two weeks once the information has been established and created,” Reed said. “We are pushing for the applications to be due early October.”

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock thanked, “Kwame and the commission for doing this.”

She asked about those businesses, such as hair salons and barber shops, that aren’t open, “can they still apply and hold on to those funds?”

“Yes,” Reed replied.

Motts said she was concerned that all businesses receive the information. “Did you say a one-week application period?”

“Yes,” Reed responded.

“I’m going to request council will consider an amendment…and that is for an establishment for outdoor dining for downtown,” Motts then asked. “It’s $15,000 from the CARES Act in emergency funds that I’m asking for…for barricades. We have a private investor investing millions of dollars in downtown…we have some significant wins. It would be great if the city could support their efforts.”

Thorpe then asked about outdoor dining in downtown. “It seems to me they’ll have to block off some parking. I don’t think that will cost $15,000 to the city.”

“I’ve checked with the city manager and it does require the purchase of barricades,” Motts said. “It might require the closing of one of the streets. But, for the streets that are open, we have to make sure there are barricades.

Ogorchock then asked, “that’s going to be coming up on the agenda (under Item 11), can we be discussing this, now Attorney Smith?”

“I was thinking whether this fit within the scope of the discussion, but I hadn’t come to a conclusion,” City Attorney Thomas Smith said.

“This should come under the Waterfront Committee later in the agenda,” Ogorchock said.

“That’s just about dissolving the Waterfront Committee,” Thorpe stated. “I’m not sure if this fits within the scope of this discussion.”

“To the extent that this creates barriers to accommodate outdoor dining it would be legitimate for the discussion of the CARES Act,” said City Manager Ron Bernal.

“Given that, it can fall within that scope…the talk about the expense of $15,000,” Smith said.

“It’s not my desire to take away but to add,” Motts shared.

“To spend $15,000 to block off some parking spaces…but if it does, it does,” said Thorpe.

“I just wanted to add that as City Manager Bernal mentioned, if a business wants to apply for a grant for putting out barriers for outdoor dining they can,” Reed explained. “At this time, I don’t believe there has been any additional funding allocated for this particular venture.”

“This came out of a committee, out of our Waterfront Committee,” Motts explained. “We’re already half-way through August and this won’t happen until October. There will come a time when outdoor dining won’t be feasible. I think this request is pretty reasonable.”

Thorp then asked Bernal, “assuming a restaurant in downtown came to the city and asked to set aside parking spaces in front of their business, you have a right to do that, right?”

“Yes,” Bernal responded. “The cost Mayor Pro Tem Motts came up with is to put out water filled barrels in case cars might run into them. The cost of putting out barriers of about 120 feet in length is about $10,000. I put in another $5,000 for putting them out, as a conservative estimate.”

“I didn’t think we were going to go purchase barriers,” Thorpe stated.

“I’m personally fine with Joy’s recommendation,” he added.

“I’m fine with the idea of outdoor dining,” Wilson said. “With the recommendations that the Economic Development Commission brought forward that it doesn’t take away from that. I’m concerned if we carve away it will impact their recommendations.”

“If the $15,000 is in addition to not part of this funding from the CARES Act, I’m unclear about that,” said Attorney Smith.

“So, the increase in funding from $300,000 to $315,000 does exist in the CARES Act,” Bernal said. “Director Reed brought back a budget $60,000 more than what he had originally.” So, the council can add the $15,000 to the budget.

“My recommendation would be to increase it to $315,000,” Motts said.

“Is it something that we’re going to have to come back and look at,,,which restaurants are going to get it, or will it be out of the $5,000 grant?” Ogorchock asked.

“I believe this would be a separate thing,” Motts said.

Thorpe then said, “the resolution is for $315,000, we’re not taking it from anywhere else. With that I will make a motion.”

“I’m not done with my question,” Ogorchock said.

“You can’t continue once a motion is made,” Thorpe said.

“It doesn’t matter,” Ogorchock responded.

“Yes, it does matter,” said Thorpe.

“The city would actually go out and purchase the barricades,” Reed said. “It would be coming through the CARES Act that the city could utilize.”

“Thank you,” Ogorchock responded.

“I will read the motion,” Thorpe then said. He then moved approval of allocating $315,000 for the business relief program.

Ogorchock seconded the motion and it passed on a 4-0 vote.

Cycle 16 of Workforce Development Program

By Brian Boyle, Communications & Development Associate, St. Vincent de Paul of Contra Costa County

The Workforce Development Program at St. Vincent de Paul is a paid jobs training program aimed at helping the unemployed re-enter the workforce and find stable employment. The 24-week Pittsburg, CA based program teaches members techniques to find a job, offering training in resume development, interviewing, and workplace success techniques in a supportive & compassionate environment. Mandatory orientation sessions for people interested in applying to the program will take place on 9/12/20 & 9/15/20 from 9:00 AM – Noon in Pittsburg. To register call (925) 439-5060.

The Workforce Development Program aims to help tear down the barriers that stand in the way of employment for individuals who have struggled to obtain and maintain employment. Participants are matched with mentors and take weekly classes to continue developing necessary workplace skills. A new class of participants are selected every six months.

Participants gain paid, part-time, (22.5 hours per week), work experience in a St. Vincent de Paul thrift store or SVdP’s trucking and transportation department. Additional training in retail operations include cash register operations, inventory display and optimization, and warehouse operations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen millions of people suddenly find themselves out of work. In these hard times, it is more imperative than ever that applicants gain skills to be competitive in the job market. The Workforce Development Program at St. Vincent de Paul seeks to address that need, and prepare participants for the realities of the working world.

St. Vincent de Paul of Contra Costa County has provided safety-net services in the county for over 56 years, serving 81,000 people annually and distributing over $1M of direct financial assistance and over $1.5M of in-kind aid. Over 750 SVdP volunteers and a small staff lead operations in Contra Costa including the SVdP Family Resource Center in Pittsburg, 28 branches and 3 Thrift Stores. One of the largest charitable organizations in the world, St. Vincent de Paul is an international, nonprofit, Catholic lay organization of more than 800,000 men and women who voluntarily join together to grow spiritually by offering person-to-person service to the needy and suffering in 155 countries on five continents.

Contact: Barb Hunt, Development Director

(925) 330-6732

St. Vincent de Paul Society of Contra Costa County

2210 Gladstone Dr.

Pittsburg, CA 94565

b.hunt@svdp-cc.org

www.svdp-cc.org

Position still not filled 11 months after creating it.

By Allen Payton

After approving a resolution 11 months ago to allocate up to $120,000 to hire an Unhoused Resident Coordinator as a consultant, during their meeting Tuesday night, Aug. 25, 2020, the Antioch City Council approved changing the position to a part-time city employee, instead. The change allows City Manager Ron Bernal to hire someone to fill the position, rather than send out another request for proposal (RFP).

The city had put out an RFP last fall, but only received one response, which was from Focus Strategies. The council awarded them the contract on January 28, 2020 in the amount of $73,500.

But the organization’s president, Megan Kurteff-Schatz, said they don’t do the hands-on work that the city was looking for in a coordinator.

“They won’t be able to do everything in the RFP. But they’re very capable,” said Nickie Mastay, City Finance Director, during the January 28th meeting.

So, one of the tasks assigned to Focus Strategies by the City Council was to work with staff on the Unhoused Resident Coordinator class specification. The salary range and part-time annual cost of the position was reduced by $20,000 to $100,000 maximum, but at the same rate of $50-$60 per hour. The coordinator will be under the general direction of the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee.

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts said, “as homelessness continues to be a problem in our community…I just think, I want to make a comment, how important this is to have a person on staff, even part time…helping people to transitional housing.”

Councilman Lamar Thorpe then made the motion to approve the motion.

Far too much of our city manager’s time has been spent…this position will have someone specifically focused on this…I think this is well worth the investment,” Mayor Sean Wright said.

The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.

Asked if he had someone in mind for the position or if it will be advertised, and if so when he hoped to have the person on staff, Bernal responded, “This will be advertised and go through the normal hiring process. I don’t have a time frame at this time but want to move on this as quickly as HR can facilitate.”