Oversight Committee not holding Council accountable to 80-10-10 split

By Allen D. Payton

The City of Antioch is supposed to be spending the funds from Measure W’s one-cent sales tax measure, passed by the voters in November 2018, on an 80-10-10 split, with 80% for maintaining public safety, 10% for youth services and the remaining 10% to support quality of life, and fiscal stability and accountability. However, the 2023-24 budget spent only 60% of Measure W funds on police, last year’s budget increased the amount to 65.4% and the current fiscal year’s City budget allocated 70%. Plus, last year’s budget only allocated 4.6% to Youth Network Services.

Funds in Fiscal Year 2024-25 instead were spent on Code Enforcement and homeless services, as well as street lighting and landscaping.

According to the adopted 2025-26 City Budget, “The adopted fiscal year 2023-25 budget allocated 60% of funds to the Police Department, 20% to Quality of Life and 20% to Youth. For fiscal year 2025-26, City Council is allocating 70% to the Police Department, 15% to Quality of Life and 15% to Youth” ignoring the original intent of the council that voted to place the measure on the ballot.

Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Report

According to the Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Report on Measure W  provided to the City Council on March 24, 2026 (relegated to the Consent  Calendar under agenda item 5.N.), “In FY24, the City received $20,160,685 in Measure W revenue and allocated funds at 60% Police, 20% Quality of Life, and 20% Youth.”

For the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2025, “The largest share of Measure W funds—65.4%, or $13,077,475—was directed to the Antioch Police Department. These funds supported a portion of police personnel costs ($40,376,709 in total department personnel expenditures) and services and supplies ($11,436,353). Measure W revenue represents approximately 24.5% of the Police Department’s total FY25 expenditures of $53,413,941, sustaining patrol operations, 911 response capacity, and related public safety services.”

Also, according to the report, the other Measure W revenues were spent in FY 2024-25 in order of greatest amount to least, as follows:

• Recreation 15.4%;
• Code Enforcement 8.6%;
• Youth Network Services 4.6%;
• Quality of Life 4.4%; and
• Landscape Enhancements 1.6%

2024-25 Measure W Expenditure Report Details

Under section 3 entitled, “Alignment with City Council Stated Priorities” the report offers details for each of those expenditure categories, but does not identify which council stated the priorities nor cite when that occurred. The report reads as follows:

• Youth Violence Prevention and Community Safety

The Public Safety and Community Resources (PSCR) Department received $878,748 (100% Measure W funded) for Quality of Life programs. Within the department’s broader operation, the Violence Intervention and Prevention unit had a budget of $281,094 with $137,814 expended, during the fiscal year while the Housing and Homelessness unit budgeted $351,575 and expended $207,645. Community Engagement budgeted $27,697 with $27,629 expended. These programs directly address community safety, violence intervention, and quality of life for Antioch residents.

• Youth Afterschool and Summer Programs

A combined total of $3,998,811 in Measure W funds supported youth-focused programs. Youth Network Services received $919,813 (100% Measure W funded) for personnel ($477,538) and services and supplies ($442,275). Recreation received $3,078,998, representing 46.7% of the department’s total expenditures. Recreation’s programs include youth afterschool activities, summer programming, and community recreation services.

• Code Enforcement and Community Cleanup

Code Enforcement received $1,714,021 in Measure W funds, constituting 81.6% of the division’s total expenditures. The division’s work addresses illegal dumping, nuisance abatement, and property maintenance standards—directly supporting the Council’s priorities of cleaning up parks and combating blight. Personnel costs totaled $1,785,197, with services and supplies at $314,916.

• Landscape Enhancements

A total of $325,000 (100% Measure W funded) was transferred to the Lighting and Landscape Districts for maintenance and enhancements across the city’s public landscaped areas, contributing to park and neighborhood beautification.

History of Measure W

As previously reported, during their meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to place a ballot measure that would extend and double the transaction and use tax, or sales tax, permanently from the half-cent sales tax of Measure C, passed in 2013, to one cent. (See related article)

The council members discussed the draft version of the proposed one-cent sales tax measure. It allocated 60% of revenue for the maintenance of public safety, 20% for youth services, and the remaining 20% for supporting quality of life and fiscal stability and accountability.

But during the meeting the council discussed changing these amounts from percentages of 60-20-20 to an 80-10-10 allocation had the support of three council members. That split was advocated for by both Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock, who included it in her motion which was seconded by Councilman Tony Tiscareno, and Mayor Sean Wright during his comments.  

20-Year Sunset Clause, Public Oversight Added

Then during a special meeting on August 7, 20218, the Council on a 3-2 split vote, approved adding a 20-year sunset clause and including language to continue the Citizens Sales Tax Oversight Committee to the measure with then-Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe and Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting against. Placing the measure on the ballot required a two-thirds vote of the council, or favorable votes by four of the five councilmembers.

The council held another meeting two days later on August 9th at which the two who opposed it switched course. They joined the other three councilmembers for a unanimous, 5-0 vote to included both the 20-year sunset clause and citizens oversight language in the ballot measure.

Council Meeting Minutes on Measure W Votes

According to the minutes of the council meeting on July 24, 2018, the original motion is reported as follows:

“Councilmember Ogorchock moved to 1) Adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Antioch Calling for a Municipal Election on November 6, 2018 to Request City Voters Extend and increase the City’s Transaction and Use Tax from One-Half Cent to One Cent to Provide for Public Safety and 911 Service, Support Youth, and Maintain Other Quality of Life Services; and, 2) Enact an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Antioch Submitting a Proposition to The Voters of the City of Antioch to Amend Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Title 3 of the Antioch Municipal Code to Increase the City’s Transactions and Use Tax from a Half Cent to One Cent and to Impose This Tax Until Repealed by the Voters. 3) Maintain Public Safety target for Antioch Police Department at 80 percent, support youth services 10 percent, support quality of life/fiscal stability and accountability at 10 percent.

Councilmember Tiscareno seconded the motion”

In addition, the minutes read, “Mayor Wright…noted that he would support 80 percent of the tax being allocated to public safety.”

However, following input from the city attorney and city clerk, the motion adopted by the council did not include specific allocation figures. According to the meeting’s minutes for the item: “Following discussion, Councilmember Ogorchock amended her motion. Councilmember Tiscareno agreed to second the amended motion, which was approved as follows:

“On motion by Councilmember Ogorchock, seconded by Councilmember Tiscareno, the City Council unanimously 1) Adopted a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Antioch Calling for a Municipal Election on November 6, 2018 to Request City Voters Extend and Increase the City’s Transaction and Use Tax from One-Half Cent to One Cent to Provide for Public Safety and 911 Service, Support Youth, and Maintain “Other Quality of Life Services; and 2) Enacted an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Antioch Submitting a Measure to The Voters of the City of Antioch to Amend Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Title 3 of the Antioch Municipal Code to Increase the City’s Transactions and Use Tax from a Half Cent to One Cent and to Impose This Tax Until Repealed by the Voters. With the following changes:

• Amending the Ordinance under the ‘Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved’ to read: ‘that the People of Antioch do ordain as follows:’
• Striking the word ‘Proposition’ from the Ordinance and replacing it with ‘Measure’.”

Again, the additional clauses adding a 20-year sunset and citizen oversight to the measure were adopted at later meetings in 2018 before the measure’s final language was placed on the ballot.

Measure W Ballot Language

The final ballot language included in the measure which passed with 66.11% of the vote but only needed a simple, 50% plus, one vote was as follows: Antioch’s Quality of Life Measure. To maintain Antioch’s fiscal stability, police patrols, 911 emergency response, youth violence prevention programs; ensuring water quality/safety; repairing streets; cleaning up parks/illegal dumping; restoring youth afterschool/summer programs; other essential services; shall the measure be adopted approving an ordinance to renew the sales tax at the one-cent rate, raising approximately $14,000,000 annually,  expiring in twenty years, with mandatory annual independent financial audits, and independent citizens oversight?

Although the first motion to place Measure W on the ballot, which had majority council support, included the 80-10-10 split, it is not part of the actual ballot language, meaning the city council is not bound by those amounts and can spend the funds in any way they deem necessary.

Yes on W Campaign Message

Yet, that’s how the measure was sold to the voters and how Antioch residents expect the funds to be spent.

Since the measure passed, the new Department of Public Safety and Community Resources was formed, with attempts by some council members to redefine and expand the meaning of “public safety” in Antioch to include more than just police services. Yet, the campaign in support of Measure W was very specific.

In a letter to the editor on Oct. 30, 2018, then-Mayor Wright wrote, “Measure W gives us a choice to increase our financial ability to make our community safer, create more activities for our youth after school and to improve our quality of life.”

Plus, in a Yes on W campaign ad run on page two of the Antioch Herald October 2018 edition, under “The Whys on W” headline it read, “Maintaining 911 police response and number of officers patrolling the streets.” At the time, there were 97 sworn officers on the Antioch Police force.

That was in spite of the commitment by the city council of hiring 22 more police “immediately” from the funds generated by Measure C, the half-cent sales tax precursor to Measure W, which passed in 2013 when there were 90 sworn officers on the force.

The ad also offered the other Whys, including, “Maintaining quality of life and financial stability; Ensuring water quality and safety; Cleaning up illegal dumping; and Restoring after school and summer programs for youth.”

Committee’s Incorrect Claims

While the Oversight Committee’s report claims, “Expenditures across all funded departments were within budgeted amounts for FY25, demonstrating sound fiscal management of Measure W resources,” it’s clear the revenues have been not been appropriately allocated. In fact, past and current councils have been robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the old saying goes, which is what those who opposed the measure were afraid of.

Furthermore, the committee concluded its report claiming, “Measure W revenues for FY25 were expended in a manner consistent with the City Council’s stated priorities,” they’re ignoring the fact the council majority at the time they voted to place the measure on the ballot supported the 80-10-10 allocation split. So, even if the city council has since then, or in 2024 before adopting the FY 2024-25 budget, voted to change the allocation split of Measure W revenues, the funds were not “expended in a manner consistent with the City Council’s stated priorities” and are definitely out of alignment with the original intent.

Committee Needs to Represent and Advocate for Original Intent of the Council, Will of the Voters

Every year, the Oversight Committee’s report should include the city council’s original intent of allocating the revenue from Measure W on an 80-10-10 split and remind the current council members and public of that fact. Simply reporting how the council and City spent the funds based on information provided by City staff isn’t good enough. They need to hold the current council members accountable and advocate on behalf of the voters and residents of Antioch that they fulfill that intent. Otherwise, what’s the point of having an oversight committee? The members need to remember that although they were appointed to the committee by the city council, they’re not there to please the council but to represent the will of the people. Hopefully, the five new members who are expected to soon be appointed will.

Council Needs to Return to Original Intent of Measure W Revenue Allocation

As the city council works to finalize the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget they need to be reminded of the original intent of the allocation of Measure W revenues and increase the amount being spent on police to 80%. While it’s good the council has expressed support for increasing the total number of sworn officers on the Antioch Police force, the allocation of the correct percentage of Measure W funds should be a key part of that. The good news is the projected revenue from Measure W for the next fiscal year is expected to increase by almost $120,000 to a little over $20.1 million. So, that will help some and it makes the math simple: $16.08 million to police, $2.01 million to youth services and $2.01 million to quality of life budget items. It all comes down to priorities.

By Marc Joffe

On Tuesday, a Contra Costa Superior Court judge declined to expedite a lawsuit demanding changes to proponents’ ballot arguments for Measure B, the county’s proposed five-year, 0.625% sales tax increase. That decision means voters will receive a County Voter Information Guide containing false and misleading statements about the tax increase.

This is not just a problem with Measure B. And it could get worse as advocates for taxes and bond measures make increasingly aggressive claims, irrespective of the facts, and without fear of a judicial remedy.

The case, filed March 27 on behalf of two Contra Costa voters, targets both the Primary Argument in Favor of Measure B and the Rebuttal Argument to the Primary Argument Against Measure B. The respondents are the five authors of those arguments, including a sitting County Supervisor.

The legal challenge was brought under California Elections Code section 9190, which allows voters to seek a writ of mandate during a 10-day public examination period to require that ballot arguments be amended or deleted if they are “false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements” of the law.

The Dubious Claims

The complaint identified over a dozen specific claims in the ballot arguments alleged to be false and/or misleading. Here are three that are especially notable.

Exaggerated $1.5 Billion Loss: The argument claims that “according to the county health director, our health system will lose more than $1.5 billion over the next five years.” This appears to have been based on Board of Supervisors materials which mentioned a $300 million annual loss for the five year life of the tax.

But at the March 3 Board meeting Supervisor Candace Andersen flagged the original $300 million annual loss figure as inaccurate. The Board’s adopted Resolution No. 2026-40 was amended to project cumulative losses of approximately $239 million through 2029. The County’s own budget presentation cited a six-year cumulative figure of $509 million. This is roughly one-third the amount we will see in the voter guide.

And even the $509 million estimated loss is unlikely to materialize. With Democrats almost certain to regain control of the House (and possibly the Senate), they will be able to implement their stated intention of reversing HR1’s federal budgetary changes that impact Medi-Cal.

Further, about a quarter of the remaining estimated funding loss is attributable to scheduled reductions in federal subsidies to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) like Contra County Regional Medical Center. As we discuss on our Stop Measure B website, DSH funding cuts were first included in the 2010 Affordable Care Act and have been repeatedly postponed by Congresses controlled by both parties. It is reasonable to expect these postponements to continue through at least 2031 when the tax sunsets.

Groceries, Food, Housing, and Medical Care: The argument states “Measure B won’t increase the cost of groceries” and “It exempts food, housing, and medical care.” The petition notes that the words “food,” “groceries,” “housing,” and “medical care” appear nowhere in the Measure B ordinance’s exemptions. Hot prepared foods are subject to sales tax, as are non-food groceries. Lumber, cement, and roofing materials (items associated with housing) are taxable. Over-the-counter drugs are taxable.

90,000 People “Will” Lose Health Insurance: The argument states that “more than 90,000 people will lose health insurance” if Measure B fails (emphasis added). The word “will” makes this statement false and misleading under California election law.

Contra Costa Health staff gave supervisors a broad range of the number of beneficiaries who may lose Medi-Cal coverage due to new rules, with 90,000 being near the midpoint. These projections are estimates, contingent on future legislative and administrative decisions that have not yet been finalized. No one can say with certainty how many residents will lose coverage.

There is a further problem that the ballot argument glosses over. Even if Medi-Cal rolls shrink in Contra Costa County, it does not necessarily mean our neighbors are becoming uninsured and will flood emergency rooms. People cycle off Medi-Cal for many reasons: they move away, they obtain employer coverage, they age into Medicare, or they pass away. Proponents misleadingly conflate any reduction in Medi-Cal enrollment with people left without coverage.

Implications Beyond Measure B

Unless you read this article or the plaintiff’s court filings, you will not be aware of these inaccuracies. And that points to a serious defect in California election law.

Ballot proponents (or opponents) can make false and misleading arguments, and get away with it, because the court process usually cannot unfold quickly enough to meet the County’s aggressive timetable for editing, translating, printing, and mailing ballot guides.

To remedy this problem, process reforms are needed. Either several additional days should be added to the pre-election timetable for claims like the ones against Measure B to be heard and adjudicated. Alternatively, California should move away from printed voter guides and instead post them on the web. Not only would that provide more time to edit inaccurate arguments prior to public exposure, but taxpayers would also save money on printing and mailing costs. It would be good for the environment too!

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

By Patrick McCarran, Real Estate Broker

Each of the four types of standard agreements—Exclusive Right to Sell, Open Listing, and Exclusive Agency—is a legally binding contract that authorizes a broker and her sales associates to produce a buyer for a home, according to the conditions specified in the contract.

Depending on the type of listing agreement, you can expect to see most of these terms detailed in the document.

• Terms of the Agreement

The length of time the contract will be in effect typically runs anywhere from 30 to 90 days, depending on the local market. Under Terms of the Agreement, you’ll also find the price of the home. You should arrive at the home’s market value after considering the Comparative Market Analysis and other market factors with your agent.

• Commission

It may come as a surprise that commissions are not set by the industry and are negotiable. Real estate professionals expect to earn between 6% and 7% of the sale price, depending on the market and the services offered. The home is generally offer on the MLS and the commission is split with the buyer’s agent.

• Multiple Listing Service (MLS)

This section authorizes a real estate professional to list your home with the MLS. While you have the right to opt out of listing with the MLS I do not recommend it. The MLS can dramatically increase exposure and with it help maximize your home’s value The MLS is the main portal to the Internet and will increase the chances of selling your home.

• Lockbox

Basically, a hollowed-out padlock or miniature safe holds a key to your home. The lockbox allows convenient access for Agents showing the home. Only an Agent with an electronic key can gain entry. The visit is recorded and accessible to find out who showed the home and when.

• Description of the Property and Its Condition

Here you’ll find a description of the property and its general condition as well as the condition of its major systems—mechanical, plumbing and electrical. Along with the description should be a list of the items that will stay with the home, for instance, the washer and dryer, and those items you intend to remove such as a special light fixture.

• Marketing Plan

While the marketing plan is not specifically in the agreement it can be added as an addendum. The marketing strategy should be discussed and structured to cast a wide net and might include advertising, open houses, the multiple listing service, signage, fact sheets, color flyers, and so on.

Your Realtor will complete the listing agreement based on your input, so you may want to take time before you meet to consider your response to each section of the contract. The more prepared you are, the less likely you’ll have a misunderstanding down the road.

Patrick McCarran is a local Realtor and Broker DRE# 01325072. He can be contacted by phone or text at (925) 899-5536, pmccarran@yahoo.com or www.CallPatrick.com. An independently owned and operated office. In association with Realty One Group Elite DRE# 0193160. Equal Housing Opportunity.

^{Paid advertisement}

By Marc Joffe

Bay Area transit agencies are seeking another half-cent sales tax in November. While most of the $980 million a year in new revenue will go to BART, Muni and AC Transit, smaller agencies will also receive extra tax money, evading the need to reform. Contra Costa County will continue to have multiple bus operators, including two sharing the territory east of the Caldecott. Before voters agree to pour more public money into this hodgepodge of agencies, they should ask whether there are opportunities for reform.

Central and Eastern Contra Costa County are currently split between two distinct bus agencies. Tri Delta Transit covers eastern communities like Antioch and Brentwood, while County Connection serves central hubs including Walnut Creek and Concord. Together, they cover a combined service area of more than 800,000 residents. Both feed riders into BART, yet they maintain completely separate executive teams, planning departments, procurement offices, and administrative staff. In 2024, these two agencies spent a combined $79.8 million to deliver 4.1 million bus rides at an average cost of $19.39 per trip—of which passenger fares covered just $1.33, leaving taxpayers to subsidize the remaining $18.07 per ride.

The financial unsustainability of this arrangement is glaring when looking at farebox recovery and utilization. Passenger fares cover just 7.8 percent of operating costs at County Connection and an even worse 5.5 percent at Tri Delta Transit, meaning taxpayers shoulder nearly the entire burden for systems where 40-foot buses frequently circulate with almost no one on board. The redundancy also affects riders, with Tri Delta’s Route 201X running deep into Concord and County Connection’s Route 93X crossing into Antioch.  Riders navigating this corridor face separate fare structures and schedules simply to preserve two entrenched bureaucracies where one would clearly suffice.

My recent California Policy Center analysis of the state’s 85 transit operators highlighted the need to consolidate smaller agencies to rein in administrative overhead, a problem acutely visible at County Connection. The agency employs 249 people directly and negotiates with three distinct labor unions, driving salaries and benefits to $28.7 million, which consumes 62 percent of its $46.4 million operating budget. Tri Delta Transit, conversely, demonstrates the fiscal advantages of leveraging private sector efficiencies. Rather than inflating a massive public payroll, Tri Delta contracts its bus operations to a private company, Transdev, keeping its own overhead lean while retaining fleet ownership. Tri Delta has also pioneered microtransit with its Tri MyRide app, recognizing that deploying a shared van is far more sensible than running a near-empty 40-foot bus on a fixed loop through low-density neighborhoods.

The perverse incentives of the current funding model guarantee that meaningful reform will be ignored in favor of demanding more tax revenue. Merging the two agencies under a single general manager and board, while competitively contracting all operations, could save millions in administrative, operating, and capital costs.

It is important to recognize that Contra Costa bus agencies are not providing a meaningful solution for climate change or congestion. Federal transit data cross-referenced with the Department of Energy’s Transportation Energy Data Book reveals that Contra Costa’s highly subsidized buses average just four passengers and burn 8,400 BTU of energy per passenger-mile, which is more than double the energy intensity of a typical SUV and triple that of a passenger car.  Furthermore, Google’s Environmental Insights Explorer indicates that buses account for a statistically insignificant 0.31 percent of all trips in the county, meaning that additional bus funding from the new sales tax won’t alleviate congestion on Interstate 680 or Highway 4.

Subsidized suburban transit should be viewed strictly as a social safety net for those who lack alternatives, not as a green infrastructure project or a cure for regional traffic. When voters go to the polls in November 2026, they should firmly reject the new sales tax measure. Until regional planners dismantle these redundant bureaucracies and implement competitive contracting across a unified eastern and central Contra Costa County transit network, taxpayers are merely subsidizing an inefficient status quo.

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

“They should go back to the drawing board and give us a cost savings plan that demands more sacrifice from BART management, senior staff, and retirees.”

By Marc Joffe

BART has published a plan to balance its budget in the event voters reject the half-cent additional transit sales tax slated for the November 2026 ballot. BART’s plan appears to be well thought out but imposes far more inconvenience on riders than is necessary to close an expected $376 million deficit.

The most visible change is the station closures. Under its more extreme Phase 2 plan, BART would close 15 stations systemwide, including these five in Contra Costa: Orinda, North Concord, Pittsburg Bay Point, Pittsburg Center, and Antioch. Oakland Airport station would close, but SFO would stay open. Five other stations in Alameda County south of Oakland would be shuttered, as would four stations in San Mateo County south of Daly City. (See related article)

But most of these stations should not close. As BART itself recognizes, the savings from shuttering stations are not that large. And there is an alternative that would achieve a large portion of the expected savings, which is to operate the stations on an unstaffed basis. This idea may seem strange to BART riders expecting to see a station agent, but the fact is that many train stations in California operate without staff, including several on Capitol Corridor and Caltrain. Even Pittsburg Center on e-BART often operates without staff.

That said, both Pittsburg Center and North Concord have very low utilization (less than 1000 riders on an average weekday) and are reasonable candidates for closure. Indeed, BART should demolish the North Concord station and sell the parking lot to a developer for conversion to single family housing, a use consistent with the adjoining neighborhood.

Pittsburg Center, being in the median of Highway 4, does not offer a similar redevelopment option. It is one of three stations on the eBART extension connecting Antioch, Pittsburg and Bay Point using standard-gauge diesel multiple-unit trains which are incompatible with the rest of BART. The BART retrenchment plan envisions closing the whole eBART extension. A better choice would be to find a private operator to take it over.

That operator should be given discretion over fares and the option to convert the line to driverless technology in hopes of achieving a profit or at least minimizing the need for taxpayer subsidies.

As anyone who has visited an airport in the last few decades knows, driverless trains are nothing new. Outside the Bay Area, they are used for non-airport systems such as Honolulu’s Skyline and Vancouver’s Skytrain. Paris, Singapore, and other cities have successfully converted some of their lines to autonomous operation and Washington DC’s Metro is looking into doing the same thing.

Over the longer term, the entire BART system should be driverless: it could achieve large operational cost savings while maintaining or even increasing service frequency. Yet BART is not giving serious consideration to transitioning to driverless trains. When BART Director Matt Rinn spoke to CoCoTax in November I asked him about the idea and saw that he was unfamiliar with it. Staff should be discussing this option with the governing board.

They don’t do so because BART operates primarily for the benefit of staff and the labor unions that collect a portion of their salaries via dues. Riders are second, and taxpayers are a distant third.

Contra Costa taxpayers already pay plenty for transit, and, this November, it is time for us to tell BART and other agencies “no more.” They should go back to the drawing board and give us a cost savings plan that demands more sacrifice from BART management, senior staff, and retirees.

One change that should be considered is a 10% salary reduction for all BART employees receiving over $100,000 per year. Based on my analysis of 2024 wage and overtime data, this option would save $54 million. Costly overtime hours should also be limited: in 2024 alone five BART employees collected over $200,000 in overtime a piece.

BART’s plan defers advanced payments for retiree health benefits. This saves $38 million, but only by pushing the cost onto future taxpayers when the fund holding the advance retiree health funding is exhausted. Instead, the BART retiree health benefit should be eliminated just as it was for Stockton employees when that city went bankrupt in 2012. With BART facing functional bankruptcy in 2026, a similar economy is needed. Retirees can get subsidized healthcare through Covered California or Medicare just as those of us who work in the private sector usually do.

Salary and benefit cuts in addition to the layoffs BART already has planned may seem harsh, but these are the types of reductions companies have to make when they are losing money and there is less demand for their product. Because BART now needs more of our money, we have the power to veto any cost-saving plan that fails to prioritize the needs of beleaguered taxpayers and riders. Let’s exercise that veto. In November, say NO to the transit sales tax.

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

By Patrick McCarran, Real Estate Broker

We off to a good start for the Winter Weather and so “an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Mother Nature can be harsh and is often fickle and the weather can change in a week or a day.  Get prepared now so you are ready for what comes next rain or shine, actions you take now can protect your property and prevent major damage.

One of the most important tasks is clean your gutters, often your gardener offers this service or check the Grapevine, the water can back up and leak in your house causing major damage. Check your down spouts to make sure they are clear and pointed away from the house or directed to the gutters in newer homes. Repair or replace roof shingles around any area that allows water to penetrate the roof sheathing. Don’t be fooled to think that tile roofs are maintenance free, the tiles break for various reasons and the rubber collars around vents deteriorate with age. So don’t wait for the leak in middle of a storm, call a roofer today to have them checked out. Check for holes or air leaks in the attic and crawlspace. Check that flashings, a thin metal strip, around the doors, windows, thresholds, chimney and roof are in tact. Apart from major flooding, most damage occurs when water seeps in through cracks and leaks. Make sure that windows and doors are well sealed. Seal any cracks and holes in the foundation and exterior walls.

Homeowners insurance can help protect you financially in case something happens to your property or its contents.  I know I have said this before, but it is very important to keep in mind that standard policies cover standard replacement, If you have significant upgrades see your insurance agent for a rider or increased coverage. Flood and earthquake damage is not covered under the traditional homeowners’ insurance policy and may be purchased separately. Periodically review your homeowner’s insurance policy to make sure that you are adequately covered to rebuild your home and replace its contents.

Now is a good time to call an HVAC company to have a checkup on your heater because we all know they tend to break on a Sunday or New Year’s Eve.

Install a spark arrestor on your chimney, eliminating brush and debris from around your property to prevent fires.

For earthquakes anchor appliances, dressers, TV, computer and other items to the wall you can buy straps at your local hardware store.  You may consider applying a safety film to non-tempered windows and glass doors to protect form shards of glass if broken. Install a gas auto shut-off device, any reputable plumber should be able to do this.

By taking precautions to protect your home, you can possibly help keep damage to a minimum when disasters strike; or in the case of severe damage, make sure that you have the financial means to rebuild.

For more information go to www.ibhs.org or www.fema.gov.

Patrick McCarran is a local Realtor and Broker DRE# 01325072. He can be contacted by phone or text at (925) 899-5536, pmccarran@yahoo.com or www.CallPatrick.com. In association with Realty One Group Elite DRE# 0193160. An independently owned and operated office. Equal Housing Opportunity.

^{Paid column.}

Legal experts warn it’s “A Child Predator’s Dream Bill”

By Greg Burt, Vice President, California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — Governor Gavin Newsom has once again proven his contempt for California parents. Yesterday afternoon, he signed AB 495, a bill that fundamentally undermines parental rights and opens the door for abuse, kidnapping, and government interference in family life, all while claiming it “protects parents and children.”

After months of warnings from parental rights advocates, faith communities, and constitutional attorneys, Newsom ignored every concern. In a calculated act of deception, his office released a statement claiming AB 495 safeguards parental authority. In reality, this law allows any adult, without verification, without parental consent, and without even notifying parents, to make medical and educational decisions for a child.

CFC President: Newsom’s Assault on Parental Rights Endangers Children

“Governor Newsom is deliberately trying to deceive parents by claiming this bill protects them, when in fact it does the opposite,” said Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council. “AB 495 strips parents of their constitutional rights and hands them over to unverified strangers. It is unconstitutional, it is illegal, and no school or medical facility should recognize or accept the authority of a Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit without a verified signature from a parent or legal guardian. Newsom knows exactly what this bill does, but he’s hoping the press and the public won’t read it for themselves.”

“AB495 allows…any adult claiming to be a relative within five degrees of kinshipcan sign a Caregiver Authorization Affidavit giving them the ability to ‘authorize any other medical care.’ And all this can be done with no parent signature, no notary, no verification and no parent notification required.”

Despite claims to the contrary, AB 495 allows ANY adult to use the new Caregiver Authorization Affidavit as “sufficient to authorize enrollment of a minor in school and authorize school-related medical care.” Then any adult claiming to be a relative within five degrees of kinshipcan sign a Caregiver Authorization Affidavit giving them the ability to “authorize any other medical care.” And all this can be done with no parent signature, no notary, no verification and no parent notification required. This law will allow unvetted adults to make medical decisions, enroll children in school, and act as de facto guardians, even though parents would remain legal guardians.

Legal Experts Warn: “A Child Predator’s Dream Bill”

“Governor Newsom deceptively describes AB 495 as a caregiver planning tool for undocumented immigrant parents. It’s more accurately described as a child trafficker’s and child predator’s dream bill,” said Dean Broyles, Esq., President and Chief Counsel of the National Center for Law & Policy. “Its sweeping application is not limited to immigrant families, does not require any parental notice or consent, and lacks even the most basic safeguards to protect children. Anyone falsely claiming kinship can easily sign the affidavit, access a child, obtain medical care, and enroll them in another school. Even the most basic safeguard of a notary is not required to confirm the true identity of the person accessing your child.  AB 495 violates fundamentally constitutionally protected parental rights, endangers California’s children, and will be appropriately legally challenged and struck down.”

“With AB 495, state-sanctioned kidnapping is now legal,” warned Julianne Fleischer, Senior Legal Counsel at Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “This is more than overreach — it is a betrayal of families and a blatant disregard for parental rights. This unprecedented intrusion into parental rights marks a deeply concerning moment for our state — one for which Gavin Newsom must answer.”

“Governor Newsom’s actions define him, not his smooth talk and 100-watt smile,” added Erin Friday, Esq., President of Our Duty – USA. “Behind that veneer, is a man who consistently signs bills that eviscerate parental rights. Handing a child over to an adult five degrees separated by marriage, divorce, or blood based upon an unverified one-page document with any pre-authorization of the parents, is beyond the pale.”

CFC Calls for Defiance and Parental Vigilance

California Family Council is calling on schools, hospitals, and clinics to refuse to accept any Caregiver Authorization Affidavit that is not verified or notarized by the child’s legal parent or guardian.

“Governor Newsom may have signed this bill into law,” Keller said, “but parents are under no moral or legal obligation to accept its legitimacy. This bill violates both the Constitution and common sense. No one, not a school administrator, not a doctor, not a government bureaucrat, has the right to override a mother or father’s authority.”

CFC urges parents to take immediate action to protect their families:

* Update emergency contact lists at schools and medical offices to include ONLY those adults you trust to make educational and medical decisions for your child.

* Submit written directives stating that NO ONE outside your listed contacts is authorized to pick up or make decisions for your child.

* Support efforts to legally challenge AB 495 and restore parental rights in California law.

“This coalition will not rest,” Keller concluded. “We will work with our partners, our attorneys, and thousands of California parents to overturn this unconstitutional law. Parents, not politicians, are the rightful guardians of their children.”

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

“To put Proposition 50 on the ballot for the voters of California to decide, the California legislature had to violate the California Constitution multiple times.”

By Mark Meuser, Attorney

I am tired of hearing that California is redistricting to combat President Trump and Texas redistricting efforts. Texas was forced to redistrict because the Biden DOJ sued Galveston County and lost which changed the law thus making four Texas Congressional Districts unconstitutional.

When Texas drew its congressional districts in 2021, they created four congressional districts where they combined two minority communities to create a minority-majority district (Coalition minority districts).

On March 24, 2022, the Biden DOJ sued Galveston County Commissioners because Galveston did not draw a coalition minority district for the Black and Latino population.

On October 13, 2023, a Federal Judge agreed with Biden’s DOJ and found that Galveston County was required to draw a Commissioner seat by combining two minority communities.

On November 10, 2023, a three Judge panel of the 5th Circuit found that combining two minority groups to create a minority-majority district was unconstitutional and thus asked for an en banc panel to review the issue to overturn prior precedents.

On Aug. 1, 2024, the en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded “that coalition claims do not comport with Section 2’s statutory language or with Supreme Court cases interpreting Section 2.” The Fifth Circuit ruled coalition minority districts are unconstitutional.

On July 7, 2025, President Trump’s DOJ sent a letter to Texas highlighting the 5th Circuit Order, pointing out that there are four coalition minority congressional districts that are now unconstitutional and that Texas needed to fix the problem.

Texas made a prudent choice to redraw the congressional districts so as to save their taxpayers the expense of litigating the losing case of defending minority coalition districts.

Texas did not have to redraw four minority coalitions districts because of President Trump. Texas had to redraw the lines because Biden sued Galveston County and the law was clarified that coalition minority districts were unconstitutional.

It is important to understand that the 2021 lines drawn by the California Independent Redistricting Commission have never been challenged in Court as unconstitutional because districts were drawn to create coalition minority districts.

Since Texas law requires that the Texas legislature draw the congressional districts, the Texas legislature followed the law.

However, the California Constitution prohibits the California legislature from drawing congressional districts and instead places that responsibility on the Independent Redistricting Commission.

To put Proposition 50 on the ballot for the voters of California to decide, the California legislature had to violate the California Constitution multiple times.

The California legislature is asking the voters of California to forgive them for violating the California Constitution when they should have asked the voters for permission to draw the maps.

I was a part of two lawsuits filed before the California Supreme Court asking the Court to stop Proposition 50 before it went to the voters because the California legislature violated the California Constitution. Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court refused to require the California legislature to defend their unconstitutional acts and simply dismissed the Writ without even deciding the merits of the matter

While I am preparing the next lawsuit that will be filed, it is important that the voters of California stand up against the unconstitutional actions of Gavin Newsom and the California legislature by voting No on November 4th to Proposition 50.

The next time someone tells you that Newsom had to Gavinmander the State of California, remind them that the reason Texas had to redraw Congressional Districts is because Biden sued and lost which resulted in Texas having to redraw its lines.

Meuser practices election and constitutional law at the Dhillon Law Group.