###

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level.

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.

Who wants to change the fee structure?

Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing.

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income.

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

“It will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households.”
— James Sallee, associate professor at UC Berkeley

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing.

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement.

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive.

The proposed changes are designed to be more progressive, he said.

“It will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

What would the proposed fixed-charge fees pay for?

Revenues from the fixed charges would help cover utilities’ costs to provide customer service, including meters, poles, wildfire preparedness, operations and maintenance, according to the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates private utilities.

The fixed charge would not be the only portion of a customer’s bill. Customers would still be able to lower the portion of their energy bills that is based on usage by doing such things as investing in solar panels or strategically running appliances during non-peak times.

Why is this proposal controversial?

Supporters say it will help lower costs for low-income customers, who spend higher proportions of their income on electricity than other customers.

Critics of the proposed plan say it is unfair to those who have been trying to conserve energy.

Some state Senate Republicans say the proposed utility billing changes would make living in California less affordable and could discourage energy conservation. If energy bills are based on someone’s income and not on how much electricity they use, customers would little incentive to turn off the air conditioner during peak hours, they argue.

I would hate to think about people who are not using their air conditioning or fans during the summer because they can’t afford it. That’s no way to live.”
— Leah Jacobson, sociology grad student at UCLA

Del Mar resident Rosanna Alvarado Martin said she and her husband are both budget and environmentally conscious, so they recently signed contracts to install solar panels on both their Del Mar and University City residential properties.

Now Martin worries her electricity bills will go up no matter how much energy she saves with solar.

“This was really a kick in the gut. The whole thing is just really frustrating,” she said. “We’re looking to retire soon. So we’re looking to have some control over what our expenses are going to be in retirement, and this solar, to me, was one way we could do that.”

On the other hand, Leah Jacobson, a sociology grad student at UCLA, said she’s in favor of the proposed changes because they might bring stability to her monthly bills. A few times her bill has shot up to more than $400 a month, she said.

“There have been a couple times in the last year where our bill has jumped up a couple hundred dollars and we haven’t been able to figure out why,” Jacobson said.

“Thankfully, we were in a position where the amount is usually affordable when it doesn’t jump up like that. But I would hate to think about people who are not using their air conditioning or fans during the summer because they can’t afford it. That’s no way to live.”

Another major issue: data collection. To implement the changes, the state will have to categorize approximately 14 million households into income brackets, and a third-party administrator probably will have to verify their incomes, state and utilities officials say.

Because California’s Employment Development Department and the state’s long-time debit card contractor Bank of America have been plagued by cases of fraud, some critics worry the state won’t be able to keep people’s financial information confidential.

“The proposed fixed charges, without clarity on how Californians’ income will be verified, are not only questionable but also raise concerns about data privacy,” Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a Republican from El Cajon, told CalMatters. The utilities “are not set up to do income verification, nor should they be, as this is a major privacy concern.”

So far Democrats, who passed the bill with the fee-structure changes, have not spoken in a unified way about the proposed changes.

Why are California energy rates so high in the first place?

California’s average retail electricity price is nearly double the national average.

While the state has been at the tip of the spear of the green energy movement with early adoption of wind and solar, it lags behind other states in replacing aging and failing power lines, according to a 2022 audit report to the California Legislature.

And because the state is so spread out geographically, it costs more to build and connect its infrastructure for energy generation, maintenance, distribution and wildfire mitigation. Those costs don’t vary by how much electricity customers use, but they are driven up by climate change as California becomes hotter and drier.

Nevertheless, all three utility companies showed gross profit gains last year. PG&E reported a 3% bump to $16.8 billion in gross profits, which subtract the costs of production from revenues. Similarly, Edison’s $10.9 billion in gross profits was 15% better than the prior year, and SDG&E parent Sempra’s profit, at $9.9 billion, was a 3% improvement. Once all other expenses are accounted for, including such things as lawsuits, depreciation and taxes, both PG&E’s and Edison’s net incomes shrank for 2021.

As more Californians replace their gas-powered vehicles with electric ones, consumption of electricity is expected to increase. Under new state regulations, 35% of new 2026 car models must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 100% in 2035. State officials say the 12.5 million electric vehicles expected on California’s roads in 2035 will not strain the grid.

Are there other proposals?

Among several alternatives, one comes from the Utility Reform Network (TURN), a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization headquartered in San Francisco.

Its proposal filed with the regulatory agency also calls for an income-based fixed charge, but its proposed fixed fees are much lower than what the utilities want.

The group says the utilities already profit enough from customer fees.

“The (utility commission) has to work out all those details and the devil is in the details,” said TURN’s Executive Director Mark Toney.

The public will have a chance to weigh-in on the proposals by submitting comments online or attending a commission meeting.

Though the state set a 2024 deadline for the commission to establish fixed monthly fees based on customers’ incomes, an administrative judge in the proceedings wrote in a recent filing that the earliest the change could be implemented is the end of 2026.

How much would customers pay?

In the power companies’ joint submission to the California Public Utilities Commission, they suggest these fixed fees for each customer’s income range.

• Households with incomes earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a $15 monthly fee in the Edison and PG&E service territories and a $24 monthly fee in SDG&E service territory.
• Households earning $28,000 to $69,000 a year would pay $20 to Edison, $30 to PG&E or $34 to SDG&E each month.
• Households earning $69,000 to $180,000 would pay $51 to Edison or PG&E, or $73 to SDG&E.
• Households earning more than $180,000 would pay $85 to Edison, $92 to PG&E or $128 to SDG&E.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Tracy Ann Long (Blount), 40, passed away on July 11, 2023 at her home in Fortuna.

Born in Oklahoma City on May 19, 1983. Tracy was the daughter of Robert Blount and Donna Long. She attained her G.E.D. and CNA licences. She was employed at Fortuna Wellness and Rehab for eight years working as a C.N.A and made a huge impact on the people whose lives she touched.

She enjoyed cooking delicious food, growing succulents, spending time with her loved ones, and especially doing things for her two boys . She will be remembered for her generous loving heart, and dedication to her family and job. We will never forget her bravery and how hard she fought ‘til the very end. She was the rock that held the family together and words can’t describe how greatly she is missed.

She is survived by her two sons Devon Anthony Blount-Chambers and Dustin Robert Blount-Chambers, her mother and father Robert Blount and Donna Long, a sister Stacey Anderson, and many other family members and close friends — Jenny Lynn Cardoza, Cassie Brilbeck — and many more people that loved her, along with her two cats, Little Foot and Bandit. She was predeceased by her first-born son Dylan Blount-Chambers.

The celebration of life will be held on September 10, 2 p.m. at Redwood Park, Park Drive, Arcata.

###

###

PREVIOUSLY: EUREKA COUNCIL PREVIEW: Mural Winner Chosen, Massage Parlor Accused of Prostitution, Affordable Housing Developments and New Parking Meters Highlight a Packed Agenda

###

Leaders and employees of the Wiyot Tribe made impassioned, multi-pronged arguments before the Eureka City Council Tuesday evening and wound up convincing the local government body to award the tribe’s land trust agency with contracts to develop affordable housing projects at two city-owned parking lot locations.

In doing so — unanimously — the council went against city staff’s recommendation, which was to award the bid to a firm called Eureka Community Partners. (Despite the local-sounding name, that outfit is a recently formed subsidiary of Illinois-based Brinshore Development LLC.)

In choosing Dishgamu Humboldt Community Land Trust, a component unit of the Wiyot Tribe, council members noted the importance of community investment, tribal sovereignty and addressing historical trauma.

The city had received three responses to a request for proposals to construct housing projects at two city-owned parcels: one at the corner of 5th and D streets (much to the litigious frustration of Rob Arkley) and the other at 6th and L streets (next to City Hall).

A 15-person review panel rated the three bids using a scoring matrix and rated Brinshore’s bid highest, with a score of 89.9 out of 100 possible points, with Dishgamu garnering 76.2 points and Arcata-based Danco Builders coming in third with 69 points.

###

Before the council deliberated on the matter, several representatives of the Wiyot Tribe addressed its members.

“We came here tonight to really request that the city [council] deny staff recommendations and accept our proposal from Dishgamu Humboldt,” Tribal Administrator Michelle Vassel said.

She went on to argue that the scoring criteria used in the selection matrix was unfairly biased against the tribe and that the City of Eureka failed to engage in required government-to-government negotiations on these parcels prior to issuing a public request for proposals. 

“We’ve been working on this project for more than two years and have spent a considerable amount of time in the community, going to … street fairs and farmers markets and doing the legwork in this community [to learn] about what this community needs,” Vassel said.

She also said that the tribe’s work was derailed by an unexpected swap with the Pierson Company, whereby the city traded three other municipal parking lot parcels with the developer for parcels near Winco for another affordable housing project.

Vassel and Tribal Chair Ted Hernandez also defended the merits of their own bid, noting the experience of their partners — including general contractor Pacific Builders and financial consulting firm Travois — as well as the tribe itself.

”We’ve been building housing in this community since time immemorial, and I think that should be considered,” Vassel said. She pointed out that the tribe included “extensive community benefits” in its application, including green building material, commercial kitchen space, childcare centers, sidewalk coverings, garden space, a bus pass program and supportive services.

She also said the tribe has the ability to leverage federal funding via existing grant monies and its tribal government standing.

“We feel that these additional amenities should be seen as assets in the community and should therefore be thoughtfully considered in comparison to the other responses,” Vassel said.

Hernandez suggested that there’s a need for more education about tribal sovereignty but also said, “I always welcome everybody here into our territory. If you live here, you’re a part of us.”

Marnie Atkins, a Wiyot Tribe member and secretary on the tribal council, said the tribe should have been given the right of first refusal years ago, when this project was first in development.

”Something got missed, and the notification might not have happened in a timely fashion,” she said. Atkins encouraged the council to take another look at their proposal with an eye toward appreciating the tribe’s “human resources, financial resources, partner resources and longevity in this community.”

“We’ve been here since time immemorial … ,” she said, drawing a contrast to Brinshore. “I’d like to see us take care of each other [and] take care of our community.”

###

The Wiyot Tribe’s plans include 93 housing units between the two locations. At 5th and D there would be 41 units, as currently designed, including 14 one-bedroom, 16 two-bedroom, six three-bedroom and five four-bedroom units. Fifteen of those units will be reserved for very-low-income tenants, 10 units for low-income tenants and 16 units for moderate-income tenants.

At the 6th and L parcel the design calls for 52 units, including 24 studios, 20 one-bedroom and eight two-bedroom units. Again, fifteen units will be set aside for very-low-income tenants, 11 units for low-income tenants and 26 for moderate-income tenants. This project is also designed to serve independent elders.

Eureka staff explained that, per the latest thresholds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the median income in Humboldt County for a four-person household is $83,800, which means that a household of four earning $65,950 per year is defined as low income and a four-person family earning $41,250 per year is considered very-low income.

”I know I made around that when I started as a planner with a master’s degree,” Eureka Development Services Director Cristin Kenyon said, possibly in response to recent push-polling efforts by the Arkley-affiliated “Citizens for a Better Eureka,” whose materials include ominous warnings of “more subsidized affordable housing for very low-income residents in Eureka.”

The group is aiming to get a measure on the next General Election ballot to halt these parking lot conversions by amending the city’s General Plan.

“These are working-class salaries, and these units are for working-class families who will be required to have a job and pay rent,” Kenyon said.

Appearing via Zoom, Brinshore Senior Vice President and Development Manager Whitney Weller acknowledged the gravity of the issues that had been raised during the meeting.

“This is a — I’m just going to be honest — this is a difficult conversation,” she said, “and we are listening carefully and we’re respectful to the process and certainly to the local community and their concerns.”

She proceeded to defend her company’s bid as “solid” and “responsive” to the proposal, though she seemed to sense which way the wind was blowing.

Another rep from Brinshore, Senior Vice President of Development Emily Abeln Director of Development Emily Ware, spoke via Zoom, saying, “We responded to this RFP with no knowledge of who else was going to respond, but we hear loud and clear some of the input that we heard today, and we really respect whatever decision is made.”

During the public comment period, many people spoke in support of the Wiyot Tribe, though a few folks argued that these particular parking lots are not the best location for new housing development. 

When the matter came to the council for deliberation, Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach said this decision was really a “good, better, best” situation that includes “a couple of very excellent proposals.” But she argued that the Wiyot proposal was more about “community building” while the Brinshore bid represents more “commodified housing.” 

“Commodified housing is part of what’s landed us here in this situation to begin with,” she said.

DeLoach made a motion to accept the Wiyot Tribe’s bid, and Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez quickly seconded. Fellow Councilmember Leslie Castellano later quipped that everyone on the council wanted to second that motion.

After some expressions of appreciation for the content and tone of the conversation, the council quickly moved to the vote, which was unanimous in its approval.

Press release from the Blue Lake Rancheria:

In a change of command ceremony on July 14, 2023, Kevin Miller was sworn in as the new chief of police of the Blue Lake Tribal Police Department. Chief Miller is a welcome addition to the Blue Lake Rancheria’s command staff.

He comes to us after retiring as a Humboldt County Sheriff’s lieutenant with over 25 years of service. He was sworn in by Interim Chief of Police Floyd Stokes, who has been serving during the department’s transition phase and who will remain as the department’s lieutenant.

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal was present at the ceremony to swear in Chief Miller as a reserve deputy sheriff. The Blue Lake Rancheria Tribe’s cross-deputization agreements with both Humboldt County and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs makes the status of its tribal police officers unique—they now have the authority to enforce federal, state and tribal laws on the Rancheria.

[DISCLOSURE: The Blue Lake Rancheria is a minority owner of the Outpost’s parent company, Lost Coast Communications, Inc.]

###

Crab pot rope is usually used for crabbing, of course. But what happens to it when the fisherfolk are done using it? Well, usually it either ends up getting thrown away or sitting around, sad and tangled in a garage somewhere. But for Seaside Weavers – a small, Eureka-based business run by couple David and Maya Cooper – that used crab rope is pure gold, just waiting to be given new life by being woven into a “MerMat.”

What the heck is a “MerMat,” you ask? It’s the name the Coopers have given to their heavy-duty doormats, woven from 100 percent recycled crab rope that they source from fishing boats all around northern California. 

“It’s just been amazing,” Maya Cooper told the Outpost while sitting at the Seaside Weavers booth at last week’s Friday Night Market in Old Town. “We just made one mat and now we have this whole life. You never know where it’s gonna take you when you put your foot on the path.”

The Coopers said they first got the idea when they were at their son’s wedding in New Hampshire, saw a mat made from recycled lobster rope and thought it might be cool to do a similar thing out here, using crab rope. Then, one day, David – who was a truck driver for Pepsi at the time – was making a delivery in Crescent City and had parked near where some fishermen were going through their gear. He asked them if they had any rope they were done with, Cooper said, and they handed him a big pile. 

David then learned how to build a loom and taught himself to weave, mostly from watching YouTube videos, he said. When he finally made his first mat, David came out and grabbed his wife to show her what he had created. She was thrilled and David started making the mats regularly, weaving at their Eureka home and selling the mats to people they know. 

Then in early 2021, the couple decided to sell their new wares at the Fig Twig Mother’s Day Market and had to create enough inventory to have a booth. David decided to take a week off from work and in that time he managed to weave 29 mats to bring to the market. The booth completely sold out in about an hour, David said, and that’s when he knew that this business could actually take off. After that, David decided to retire a little bit earlier than he had planned so that he could focus on weaving mats. 

David Cooper explains what these mats are to a potential customer

Each mat is woven from 150 (for the smaller mats) to 200 feet (for the larger mats) of rope collected from crabbers stationed in Crescent City, Bodega Bay, Fort Bragg and San Francisco and our own Humboldt Bay. The Coopers now have relationships with the fisherfolk and collect rope from them individually and also from a collection bin they put out on Woodley Island. Usually the fishermen are very happy to provide the rope, the Coopers said, because there is really nothing else for them to do with it once it is no longer suitable for crabbing, and they usually just have to throw it away anyway. 

Once they get the rope, David begins the pre-weaving process, which can sometimes be very involved, depending on the condition of the rope. Sometimes they get lucky and are given rolls of clean rope that the crabbers decided not to use because it had some sort of defect. Other times they are given huge piles of dirty, tangled rope that David has to spend hours, or even days untangling. After the untangling is complete, David cleans the rope and removes any debris. 

“Usually each mat takes a little over an hour in front of the loom,” David said. “But there are hours of preparation.” 

Sea Weavers’ mats, which run between $65 and $75, might seem a little pricey for a doormat, but the MerMats are incredibly durable and will withstand our soggy Humboldt weather. Even though the rope may no longer be good for fishing, it can still get a lot of life as a mat and “will last for generations,” Maya said. Also, because the Coopers use a variety of different used rope, no two mats look alike. Because each mat is so unique, Maya gives them all their own name, often something whimsical and sea-themed. 

“The rope has had a long life already and is a spirited being,” Maya said. “It’s being reintroduced into the world in its new format. And that’s part of why we name them – we want you to bond with it, because you’re going to have it for a long time. Like a puppy.” 

Though David weaves the mats, Maya also does some weaving of her own, using the rope leftover from the mats to make baskets – both hanging baskets to use for plants and regular baskets that can be used for anything you want! Since a big goal of the Sea Weavers business is keeping the rope out of the landfill, it’s important to the Coopers to not waste any of the rope. 

Sustainability is very important to the Coopers and Seaside Weavers even received a Zero Waste Humboldt “Zero Hero” award in 2021, of which the Coopers are very proud. 

Some of the Seaside Weavers’ baskets

In addition to promoting zero waste, the Coopers are also dedicated to supporting our local fishing industry by buying local and promoting local fish as part of their business. At their booth at fairs and markets, Seaside Weavers sells cans of local fish and provides a list of local fishing boats and how people can get on their notification lists to receive updates on when they are coming in with fresh seafood.

The Coopers also help support the Commercial Fishermen’s Wives of Humboldt – a nonprofit that works to educate the community on the fishing industry, funds scholarships and promotes fisher and vessel safety – by selling hats embossed with the Seaside Weavers logo, and donating 100 percent of the proceeds to the nonprofit organization. 

If you’re interested in purchasing Seaside Weavers’ mats, baskets or hats, you can buy from their website (they deliver for free between Trinidad and Fortuna), find their products at any of these retail locations, or look for their booth at any of the upcoming Friday Night Markets in Old Town. The friendly couple will enthusiastically talk to you about their products, process and their mission.

“We get to come out and meet people and share what we’ve been making with our hands,” Maya said. “We’re having so much fun!” 

###

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors returned to the contentious and somewhat complex subject of short-term rentals (Airbnb, Vrbo, etc.) during this week’s regular meeting. 

A little over a month ago, the board adopted a 45-day urgency ordinance that placed a temporary ban on new short-term rentals (dwelling units that are rented to guests for 30 consecutive days or less) to give staff time to form new rules for such uses. During this week’s regular meeting, the board considered a 22-month extension to the urgency ordinance.

“The purpose of this is to discourage people from rushing to initiate short-term rentals during the period when an ordinance is being adopted,” Planning Director John Ford explained. “The adoption of the moratorium and the extension of the moratorium do not change the way the county is going about treating short-term rentals. … It is important that the regulations do get adopted and that we’re able to proceed without having to have people arguing about whether or not they’re pre-existing or not.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn asked whether the proliferation of short-term rentals “has reached the level where we need to have [an] ordinance or a moratorium going forward,” noting that he has not seen much of an interest in short-term rentals in the unincorporated areas of his district.

“I’ve never gotten a lot of complaints,” he said. “I mean, I’ve had some issues [and] we’ve talked to you and we’ve addressed. I think the way we do this is we address an issue. … If you have one bad apple, you don’t throw the whole bushel out. You know, you try to save what you can.”

Ford | Screenshot

Ford, however, stated that the county receives “a consistent flow of complaints” regarding short-term rentals. “In the last five weeks, we received five, so we’ve received about one per week,” he said.

While the exact number of short-term rentals in Humboldt County is unknown, Ford estimated during the board’s June 6 meeting that there are roughly 1,000 short-term rentals operating in the county, most of which are unpermitted. 

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell also raised similar concerns about how the ordinance would impact rural communities where “housing is now abundant and people are struggling to pay their mortgages.” 

Ford acknowledged the difference in the number of short-term rentals in urban versus unincorporated areas of the county. “Rural areas have a different set of needs,” he said.

“There should be some different criteria in the more rural areas versus areas that are really concentrated around [Humboldt] Bay, which are more characteristic of neighborhoods,” he said. “In areas where maybe the economy is struggling a little bit more, maybe some discretion – more discretion – could be allowed to allow there.”

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo spoke in favor of limiting short-term rentals, noting that she “actually knows several people who have been displaced from units that have been renovated and turned into short-term rentals.”

“Part of that was that there is a cap under the Tenant Protection Act where you can’t raise rents more than ten percent or five percent plus the cost of living change, whichever is lower, over a 12-month period,” Arroyo said. “I do think there are some bad actors who are using the opportunity to renovate and then turn something into a vacation rental to get around that. … I think since we’re seeing some shortage of housing, there’s no financial incentive for that.”

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson emphasized that the item before the board was an extension to the short-term rental moratorium – “an extension that already exists” – and would not change existing property owners’ ability to operate an existing short-term rental, “It is just to prevent a rush to create new [rentals] while the county is developing a draft ordinance.”

“This was done to address an issue that, in other jurisdictions, where some property owners rush to convert long-term rentals – where people are living – into [short-term rentals] before what they perceive is a deadline for potential grandfathering of existing units,” Wilson continued. “This has, in many cases, caused the displacement of long-term renters, sometimes families with children and we’re … then we will have done our job.”

Fifth District Supervisor and Board Chair Steve Madrone acknowledged Bohn and Bushnell’s concerns about how the ordinance would impact rural residents. “It varies all over the county as to what’s actually going on and in Southern Humboldt, in the middle of where the cannabis industry has been struggling, there are a lot of units available.” However, he said, Fifth District residents are being displaced.

“I can tell you, in the Westhaven area, [short-term rentals are] absolutely displacing many residents,” Madrone said. “I’ve had many calls from people that are very desperate and, once they get displaced, they have a very difficult time finding new housing because the market around the [Humboldt] Bay area and here in the northern Humboldt/Trinidad area, it is pretty saturated in terms of demand.”

Arroyo asked about the timeline for the county to adopt the ordinance. Ford noted that the 22-month and 15-day extension to the temporary moratorium “is kind of the maximum amount of time” the county would need considering staff are tentatively planning to present the draft ordinance to the Board of Supervisors by the end of the year.

“We’re going to go down to Southern Humboldt on Aug. 9 [and] we’re going to have a meeting in the greater Eureka area on Aug. 16,” he said. “We’re looking at having a Planning Commission workshop on Sept. 7 and … that will start public hearings with the Planning Commission. Presumably by the end of this year, it’ll be in front of the Board of Supervisors.”

After quite a bit of back-and-forth discussion, Arroyo made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation “as written.” Wilson seconded the action, adding, “At the very least, these conversations are signaling and advertising that we’re having this conversation and that people should come in and be part of it.”

The board voted 3-2, with Bohn and Bushnell dissenting, to approve staff’s recommendation. But because the item required a four-fifths vote for approval, it did not pass. 

Madrone questioned whether the board would be able to pass the affirming motion. “I don’t think you need a four-fifths vote to affirm that you can’t get a four-fifths vote, if that makes sense,” Ford replied.

The board went back and forth on the subject for a bit longer. Eventually, Wilson made a motion to deny the moratorium extension but affirm the board’s intention to maintain June 6, 2023, as the date by which preexisting uses will be established. Any ordinance that the county comes up with will distinguish between short-term rentals that were operating before that date and afterward. Arroyo seconded the motion.

The board voted 3-2, with Bohn and Bushnell dissenting, to approve the convoluted action. 

###

PREVIOUSLY: Humboldt Supervisors Shoot Down Billboard Ban (For Now), Approve Temporary Short-Term Rental Moratorium and Proposed Budget for Next Year

###

Other notable bits from Tuesday’s meeting:

• The board received a report from staff regarding the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury’s recent investigation into the county’s Child Welfare Services division. The board reviewed the Grand Jury’s recommendations and discussed what the county has to address some of the issues outlined by the Grand Jury. Staff acknowledged that there were some aspects that the county could not presently address, including staffing issues in the division and budget limitations.
• The board also approved several minor amendments to the county’s solid waste collection franchise agreements with Recology Humboldt County, Recology Eel River and the Humboldt Sanitation Company for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
• The board passed a retirement resolution acknowledging the invaluable work of Anne Holcomb, the recently retired executive director of Food for People.

For 25 years, some of California’s best-known early childhood services have been funded by an almost ironic source: Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

That was the deal voters made when they passed Proposition 10 in 1998, levying a tobacco tax and dedicating the money for programs that would help families with young children.

The arrangement was never supposed to last forever. Advocates for youth services have known from the beginning that fewer people would smoke over time, and the funding would fall.

Now, the money for so-called First 5 California programs is starting to plummet and First 5 leaders around the state say they are beginning to trim their budgets and cut back on programs. The trend is accelerating following last year’s approval of Proposition 31 to uphold a state law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products, compelling youth programs to adjust their budget assumptions.

“We all expect revenues to go down, the question is what will be the magnitude,” said Michael Ong, chair of the state’s Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee.

The cuts are unfolding in different ways based on local decisions. For example, the First 5 in Stanislaus County most recently cut one of its PlanetBaby! programs, which provide support for pregnant women and moms of babies up to a year old. That comes in addition to other recent funding cuts for programs supporting foster children and dental health services.

First 5 funds a broad number of programs in partnership with nonprofits, local hospitals, clinics and county health and education offices. Services vary by county, but some of the programs they fund include: children’s mobile immunization clinics, dental services, developmental screenings, family case management, parenting classes, and home visits from a nurse for first-time mothers.

First 5 California revenue falling

By 2026, the First 5 Association of California expects to receive almost 30% less from tobacco tax compared to 2021. It came up with yearly projections based on updated tobacco tax estimates from the state’s Department of Finance.

Last spring, First 5 projected it would receive approximately $348 million from California’s cigarette taxes this budget year. After voters passed the flavored tobacco ban, updated estimates show that First 5 expects to receive $38 million less than that.

By 2026 that number could go down to $280 million, according to the projections. How much of that each local First 5 gets is based on a formula that takes into account a county’s birth rate.

It’s far less than First 5 received from tobacco taxes two decades ago. In 1999-2000, First 5 received about $690 million in tobacco tax revenue, the most ever, according to First 5 California.

“We all expect revenues to go down, the question is what will be the magnitude.”
— Michael Ong, chair of the state’s Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee

California tacks on $2.87 tax to each standard pack of cigarettes. From 1989 to 2019, California’s smoking rate among adults has dropped from 22% to 10%, according to UCSF research.

Experts say tobacco tax projections should be taken cautiously as revenues are difficult to forecast immediately after a major change, such as the flavored tobacco ban.

Ong, chair of the state tobacco oversight committee, said First 5s would ideally try to diversify their sources of revenue if they can. “But that’s a pretty tall order for county governments,” Ong said.

Statewide, tobacco tax dollars make up about 73% of First 5’s annual budget, although this largely varies by county. For example, First 5 in Kern County relies almost entirely on tobacco taxes. Meanwhile, the First 5 in Monterey County said in its most recent annual report that almost 40% of its funding now comes from grants and philanthropy.

How to replace tobacco tax money

Last month, a Kern County grand jury released a report where it determined that its local First 5 would need to find additional revenue streams, other than tobacco, “to offset this downward spiral.” One possibility, according to the report: have California and local governments increase alcohol taxes.

And while taxes aren’t an easy sell to voters, especially in a red county like Kern, it’s important to consider all options, said Amy Travis, executive director of First 5 Kern County.

“We know it (tax) works,” said Travis. “We know tobacco use is declining, so I think it’s a matter of asking what’s next? Is that alcohol, marijuana, sugary beverages?”

Shammy Karim, executive director at First 5 Stanislaus County said any new funding stream should come at the state level to maintain some uniformity and equity in the types of services available in all 58 counties.

“I used to work in Santa Clara County, and in Santa Clara County, I could reach out to Google or Apple or other Silicon Valley organizations and say, here’s what I need. And most of the time, I would get it,” Karim said. “I don’t have the opportunity to do that here.”

“We know tobacco use is declining, so I think it’s a matter of asking what’s next? Is that alcohol, marijuana, sugary beverages?”
— Amy Travis, executive director of First 5 Kern County

In Orange County, some immediate cuts are coming in the form of less funding for nonprofits that run shelter beds for families with young children.

“We didn’t pull the rug underneath them but we have been working on a plan to reduce our funding in the homeless services arena,” said Kim Goll, the executive director of First 5 Orange County. While First 5 is not the only funder of these shelter services, losing their share could result in less staffing, for example, Goll said.

“Our community will feel those cuts and we’ll be a smaller organization because of the flavor ban.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.