[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6511252,"mediaKeyId","5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff","parentId",5332911,"title","Board adopts series of assessment and engineering reports, levies assessments for fiscal year 2025–26","audioSeconds",2746,"startMs",17652000,"endMs",20398000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff&start=17652&end=20398","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff/thumbnail_17652000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6511252/Contra-Costa-County/California/Board-adopts-series-of-assessment-and-engineering-reports-levies-assessments-for-fiscal-year-202526","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511252-9999edcb3641768f1c25d072013eb35f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770720389&Signature=E15VxR8-uEtqIUwnkXwfYMX~oSBQ-4JkmgL6zaYCGU7DEZVmMYrNKgCvRFvLrouBtQ7Yj-WIStp-Y5xwHSQm9FrQFAF3g2LgZh47Ko5nQEkUv~2ucQOdLH-jwBU3Od6hg8C4Mo-64CshaQjEv6t~2lcpiD0jUpUjyaR-fpCYtiav2IOXtA3uOOMARo6Rpt1FNv3Z20R6edSDgdN-dTFnXa4gDs3gz6dWDznl7haiYAJ5NT7-h8F1~UN4IsLL6jDMnLjSgWY8x3VYqKD-w25aDWxmqOVZ6dZAQWAdTFhQx2w5CtjwRtYvq-nVGcL8kaGawXjbRBdFeBGVA~vekEjQlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Contra Costa","date","2025-07-08T08:24:00Z","article","The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on July 8 held public hearings on several routine engineering and assessment reports and adopted the resolutions required to levy the annual assessments for multiple county service areas and assessment districts for fiscal year 2025–26.

Public hearings were held and final reports adopted for a number of county‑administered assessment areas, including the countywide street lighting County Service Area L‑100, mobile home park landscaping, Alamo Springs landscape County Service Area M‑30, Contra Costa Center transit‑village landscaping County Service Area M‑31, and a T‑1 public transit assessment in east county. The flood control district also opened and closed its statutory hearing on the municipal regional permit stormwater utility assessments for the county and 17 cities.

Nut graf: The votes were routine by custom for these annual engineering items, but they legally authorize rates and place assessment levies on the property tax rolls. Supervisors heard no speakers on the items and voted unanimously to adopt the staff recommendations and to place established assessments on the county tax roll for the coming fiscal year.

Votes at a glance (select items)

- County Service Area L‑100 (countywide street lighting): proposed service charge $14.94 per equivalent dwelling unit; no CPI adjustment; Tentative annual report confirmed and assessment adopted (unanimous).
- County Service Area M‑28 (Willow Mobile Home Park district): proposed assessment $131,068.35 (single parcel); tentative report confirmed and assessment adopted (unanimous).
- County Service Area M‑30 (Alamo Springs landscaping): proposed maximum $186.15 per parcel; tentative report confirmed and assessment adopted (unanimous).
- County Service Area M‑31 (Contra Costa Center Transit Village): proposed residential and commercial rates (residential: $89.19 per unit; commercial: $0.1569/sq. ft.); tentative report confirmed and assessment adopted (unanimous).
- County Service Area T‑1 (public transit in east unincorporated area): proposed maximum $553.89 per developed equivalent dwelling unit; tentative report confirmed and assessment adopted (unanimous).
- Assessment District 1979‑3 LL‑2: consolidated landscape assessment; annual levy adopted and forwarded to auditor for tax roll (unanimous).
- Flood Control District stormwater utility assessments for 17 cities and unincorporated county: hearing held, no public comment, assessments adopted and forwarded to tax roll for collection (unanimous).

What these votes mean

The decisions confirm the tentative annual reports prepared by county staff and authorize staff to place the approved assessments on the property tax roll for fiscal year 2025–26. These annual adjustments fund routine landscape maintenance, street lighting, transit area landscaping, and stormwater compliance services and are part of the county’s regular engineering and special‑district budget cycle.

Ending note

The proceedings were routine and drew no public comment. The board also addressed a series of other agenda items after the hearings; staff will publish the adopted assessment rolls and rates and forward the levies to the auditor‑controller for tax‑roll collection as scheduled.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Contra Costa - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on 2025-07-08 9:00 AM - Jul 08, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Supervisors adopted multiple annual engineering and assessment reports July 8, confirming rates and authorizing levies on the fiscal year 2025–26 tax roll for several County Service Areas and assessment districts.","taxTitle","Contra Costa County, California","taxId",3335,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511261,"Contractor raises bid‑protest and transparency concerns as board passes consent items; Public Works responds",313,3496000,3809000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff&start=3496&end=3809","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff/thumbnail_3496000.jpg","/articles/6511261/Contra-Costa-County/California/Contractor-raises-bidprotest-and-transparency-concerns-as-board-passes-consent-items-Public-Works-responds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511261-fd5803671469ea5cf39b2f03018fda96/orig.mp4?Expires=1770720389&Signature=hrXS1TNlLG1AclrBO-WJHbqJNEZiwAJqvxw-tuo9SVwwMoVTWTKOMON-ZXg4nEfVYXirJ31ADTeiFA9JWrH3onbNw2Syn6OcD5cHDNS5aU~rnkWHJJEYUGneAcI4urVg4nzfUAST0earfpr601OyGJkWby18vJ~ZVuwsRU4o1Z0sLDr0aiDA1CX0k57iEnLJXHBan4qjuD3W2BkwAu2spVDOR-ZgtNSFPb7uMoUhrQqvLArw8N9XHOq5warUSquRrW93l6BQxKTeA~K9OYuMsinItqn5p~Jokw5H1TcGArYfB7pNfc6ojA6VjZG0uEsSrxfg9rAXwm3~AkJx5EnFVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A small Contra Costa contractor used the public comment period at the July 8 Board of Supervisors meeting to object to contract awards and bid‑protest handling by the county's Public Works Department. The board approved its consent calendar later in the meeting, but allowed Public Works to respond to the contractor's concerns.

Mike Villa of MVP Construction told the board he has participated in the county JOC program for five years and said his firm has not received project assignments despite meeting performance standards. Villa also alleged the county planned to award a purchase order to a bidder that submitted an explicitly non‑compliant bid—“1 that explicitly excluded a special warranty,” he said—while his fully compliant, lower bid was disregarded.

Public Works response

Jeff Acuff, Division Manager of Capital Projects Management for Public Works, told the board the change orders under consideration involved Mark Scott Construction and Aztec Contractors, not MVP, and said county project managers have raised repeated performance concerns about MVP over five years. “Through five years of working with MVP, we've never been able to establish that level of trust,” Acuff said in chambers. He said project managers have reported complaints and issues when MVP was assigned work, and that is why fewer projects have been assigned to the firm.

Nut graf: The county allowed Public Works to comment during the consent‑calendar discussion and then voted to adopt the full consent calendar (consent items C1–C150) by motion. The contractor’s comments were heard but not sufficient to prompt withdrawal of the consent items or separate board action; Public Works defended its selection and assignment practices and emphasized ongoing efforts to match contractors to projects.

What commissioners asked and did

Chair Candace Anderson invited Public Works Director Warren Lai to respond; Acuff provided details about which contracts were affected and reiterated that the contested change orders did not involve MVP. Supervisors did not remove the consent items for separate consideration. Supervisor Ken Carlson moved approval of the consent calendar and Supervisor Chanel Scales‑Preston seconded; the board approved the consent agenda unanimously.

What the contractor asked for

In his public remarks Villa asked the board for \"fair transparency contracting\" and an explanation for why extensions and assignments appeared to favor other bidders. He asked why the county would ignore compliance requirements “to favor a non‑compliant bidder.” The transcript records that Villa had previously emailed the board and that he raised the question in the public comment period so the board could hear the firm’s concerns directly.

Next steps

Public Works said it would not withdraw the items under question and will continue to manage contractor assignments through its JOC program. The contractor’s public comment was recorded; if the company pursues a formal bid protest process the county’s procurement rules provide a formal appeals pathway that would be pursued outside the board meeting.

Ending note

The exchange illustrates frequent tensions in public contracting between county administrators’ discretion to match contractors to projects and firms’ concerns about fairness and compliance. The county’s response was to point to project managers’ ongoing performance concerns as the reason for assignment differences, while the contractor renewed calls for transparent, rule‑based procurement.","A small Contra Costa contractor used the public comment period at the July 8 Board of Supervisors meeting to object to contract awards and bid‑protest handling by the county's Public Works Department; Public Works responded and the board approved the consent calendar.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511269,"Board approves ‘Contra Costa Thrives’ guaranteed-income pilot after debate over eligibility and evaluation",1441,5342000,6783000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff&start=5342&end=6783","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff/thumbnail_5342000.jpg","/articles/6511269/Contra-Costa-County/California/Board-approves-Contra-Costa-Thrives-guaranteed-income-pilot-after-debate-over-eligibility-and-evaluation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511269-1614ae1bad973ea1ad458119ecec0eb1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770720389&Signature=i-SrfzQNMQZwwPA~L2EEOpyDkKdUuNMq1Vq0cUE7-nE~ASuak-U089hl0vO5zg44QJ9UoI6cyTH5zrjkSmn2CBsU0MFDW45c1WRL1B~mkZQq2XL~bJkkqDOmkX02cDj28xpcjDc~eJmxZ40O1XlR8JczO27UbsEpO6SnMToNEsSvdYcgdvLkskmsPiLpi5Ib7RMCmbyM4JqsQ6BHdAdSs-GtlEmtuGa9BnA4HxIxQkIUVVln3KOWEZOiiYkGEbqhc6h4meql-T8w5XJu7JDXJ7SPVlcBp5zOQk6bfNM4gmalD2UwlXkojsy1939haSXmC~mfBd9un5Aq6pcnXHeTZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on July 8 approved a pilot guaranteed‑income program, Contra Costa Thrives, that will deliver monthly cash payments to about 170 people drawn from county program caseloads over an 18‑month period, funded with Measure X and AB 109 money.

County Director of Employment and Human Services Marla Stewart presented the plan and said the pilot will use $3,250,000 in Measure X funds plus $1,000,000 in AB 109 funding to test outcomes for four target populations and to fund an evaluation. “We are recommending a long‑term evaluation to you because that's one thing that's missing in this field,” Stewart said during the presentation.

The proposal directs EHSD to enroll recipients from four county programs—independent living services for former foster youth, CalWORKs welfare‑to‑work families, probation clients returning from incarceration, and Adult Protective Services clients age 60+ at risk of homelessness—and to use existing case managers to provide voluntary supportive services. Selected participants will receive a total of $18,000 each distributed over either 12 or 18 months, with three payment‑option schedules available and a tapering in the last six months to reduce the risk of an abrupt “cliff” when payments end.

Stewart told supervisors the plan is designed so most funds go to direct payments: “With our plan, we can dedicate 75% of the budget to direct payments,” and she said the county team proposed contracting UC Davis to manage a literature review and evaluation. The presentation identified a proposed $615,111 allocation for a five‑year longitudinal evaluation (roughly 14% of the pilot budget), roughly $160,000 of which would be participant incentives.

Nut graf: The board approved the pilot after hour‑long discussion in which supervisors and community members voiced competing priorities—some urged broader eligibility that would include people not currently enrolled in county programs, while county staff and other supervisors argued that using existing casework relationships reduces administrative costs and allows a greater share of scarce funds to go directly to payments. The vote authorizes EHSD to implement the pilot as presented and to begin payments in mid‑January 2026, with a long‑term evaluation to follow.

Details of the pilot and debate

EHSD project manager Ayesha Teal and Stewart said the county expects roughly 1,400 referrals from caseworkers across the four program areas, with UC Davis to conduct random assignment for the first three populations (probation, CalWORKs parents, and foster youth), and a different screening process for older adults served by Adult Protective Services. Stewart said the county will hold mandatory orientation sessions for candidates to explain benefits‑counseling (how GI affects eligibility for other programs) and financial counseling before candidates consent and are randomized to the recipient or control groups.

Probation Chief Eamon Krause and other department leads participated in the planning team in chambers, Stewart said. She described the plan as built from several sources: the Measure X Community Advisory Board allocation direction, the Contra Costa GI Collaborative's proposal, a UC Davis literature review, and feedback from community meetings.

Several supervisors said they favored funding direct payments while cutting evaluation costs; others argued for keeping a longer‑range evaluation to produce evidence that could inform state or federal policy. \"We will do whatever you want,\" Stewart told the board when supervisors asked whether the evaluation could be shortened. Supervisor John Gioia pushed for a larger share to go to recipients; Supervisor Chanel Scales‑Preston said evaluation funds could be reduced so more people can be served, and asked that community partners be involved in any evaluation design.

Public comment and community demands

Dozens of community members and community‑based organizations urged the board to broaden eligibility beyond county clients, saying many people in need are not connected to county programs and that contracting community organizations would improve outreach and trust. Joanna (representing the Contra Costa Guaranteed Income Coalition) told the board, “This plan is not guaranteed income. This is now a process that's been sequestered by the county,” and urged removing eligibility barriers that require county program enrollment.

Speakers from RISE, Monument Impact and other community groups urged removing public‑benefits requirements and involving trusted community organizations in outreach and administration. Several said the proposed randomized controlled trial and a five‑year longitudinal evaluation were costly and urged lower‑cost evaluation approaches that center participant priorities. RISE staff said their own direct cash transfer pilot served close to 100 young people from 175 referrals and offered alternative models for outreach and evaluation.

Board action and next steps

A motion to approve the EHSD recommendation passed (voice vote; recorded as unanimous in the meeting transcript). Supervisors asked staff to form a work group with community partners to refine evaluation design and consider whether to include a portion of recipients who are not current county clients; the motion recorded that EHSD should return with contracts, implementation timelines and a final assessment roll. Stewart said payments would start Jan. 15, 2026, if implementation proceeds on schedule.

What the pilot will and will not do

- The pilot will enroll only people who are engaged in one of four county programs at the time of selection; household members may benefit but selection is tied to program caseloads.
- The pilot will not enroll undocumented‑status households as a separate category; county staff said citizenship evidence is not required for several of the county programs used for recruitment, and minors in CalWORKs households are served regardless of parents' documentation status.
- The control group will receive incentives to participate in evaluation activities but will not receive monthly GI payments.

Ending note

Supporters say the pilot will provide immediate financial reprieve and generate local evidence; critics say the county should not restrict eligibility to county clients and should partner more deeply with community‑based organizations for outreach and administration. EHSD told the board it can modify the evaluation design and the program parameters if the board directs it to do so; supervisors asked staff to return with refined evaluation options and to continue community engagement as implementation proceeds.

","The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on July 8 approved a pilot guaranteed‑income program, Contra Costa Thrives, that will deliver monthly cash payments to about 170 people drawn from county program caseloads over an 18‑month period, funded with Measure X and AB 109 money.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511266,"Board sets community engagement process for ARPA/general‑fund reserves, agrees to up to $15,000 per district and delays final allocation to October",700,13578000,14278000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff&start=13578&end=14278","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff/thumbnail_13578000.jpg","/articles/6511266/Contra-Costa-County/California/Board-sets-community-engagement-process-for-ARPAgeneralfund-reserves-agrees-to-up-to-15000-per-district-and-delays-final-allocation-to-October","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511266-46b628a642da53389c8ed9b5e8e74c8e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770720389&Signature=cF7X1aXo5Qew74IF3OvtlTYm9dNMjDGhdBMKA8apjB8n5E7qAuAxkmIWQ4IFFgYp-ql9x67bsm~UPmLcbbLxR5PGN8D88dIv2dnF0sSLkEKVBq8uY8YrKbNLgL6LxSD~HM7a-zFPnVuuN7uXi~2UgJtGnF-EBiOgT-JM73q8OOyWQ0F-ymaUPoFDYfeQ92QCw72sqVwsieTz~CXMbVIoD8DI3BLCVxWmSUTXVKecpVZ6qgaiYzrf3jXzEuaYXqvLakrv9m-yOHDwx5u63fEZNG2l-tr-TRa2WTN2PPTGB53h--LRK7XQRqI2y9lM3I4SWC0cq7nkhc9iFlkAUYxr8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on July 8 approved a plan to fund district‑level community engagement as it considers how to allocate COVID‑era reserve funds now held in the general fund, resolving to provide up to $15,000 per supervisorial district for town halls and outreach and moving the final allocation decision to an October board meeting.

The board had previously indicated support for $1,000,000 per district to support community processes. At the July 8 meeting staff presented cost estimates for in‑person meetings, including interpretation and facility rental, and noted those estimates can vary widely by district depending on the number of town halls each supervisor chooses to host.

Nut graf: Supervisors approved a motion to allocate up to $15,000 per district for community engagement, with a request that chiefs of staff work with county administrators to develop a common input form and return with implementation details. Supervisors also postponed the board's final allocation decisions to an October 21 meeting to allow more time for outreach and to await greater clarity on the federal budget and related needs.

What the board decided and why

Chief Assistant County Administrator Tim McDonald advised supervisors that simultaneous interpretation, full‑day interpretation, and facility rentals are major cost drivers and estimated $2,500–$5,000 per town hall depending on translation needs and duration. The board discussed options ranging from single large town halls to multiple smaller meetings in districts where geography or language diversity make wide outreach necessary.

Supervisor Diane Burgis proposed and the board approved a motion to allow each district discretion to spend up to $15,000; supervisors said they expected to spend less in some districts and more in others depending on local needs. The funds will be used for outreach and engagement to inform how to allocate remaining ARPA/general‑fund reserve dollars that the board intends to dedicate to community needs.

The board also asked staff to develop a standardized intake/feedback form that supervisors' offices can use at town halls and online so responses can be aggregated and compared across districts. Chiefs of staff will meet with county staff to design the form and return with a plan ahead of the fall outreach.

Timing and next steps

Supervisors set a target return date of Oct. 21, 2025, for final decisions on allocations after the fall engagement process. The earlier plan to return on Aug. 5 was delayed after supervisors urged more time for summer schedules and broader participation. Several supervisors said they preferred waiting to see the federal 2026 budget and other developments to better understand county funding gaps.

Community and staff considerations

Supervisors emphasized the need for translation, food, and accessible venues to encourage broad attendance. Several supervisors and public commenters urged partnering with community‑based organizations to reach residents who are not typically engaged through county channels. Staff noted the county has an existing “Empowering Enrollment” program to help residents access public assistance and will be launching an RFP to partner with nonprofits for outreach and enrollment work.

Ending note

The board's decision creates a modest—but flexible—local engagement budget while delaying final funding decisions until fall so supervisors can present aggregated public input when considering how to allocate remaining ARPA/general fund reserves.","Supervisors agreed to fund local community engagement for allocation of formerly reserved COVID‑era funds, approving up to $15,000 per supervisorial district for town halls and outreach. The board pushed the final decision on allocations to an October board meeting to allow more time for community input and federal budget clarity.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511257,"Board proclaims July 17 as Port Chicago Remembrance Day; local advocates, supervisors highlight exoneration of Port Chicago 50",388,2472000,2860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff&start=2472&end=2860","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5332911-ec859a8e8d39149515783a0c1fa8cfff/thumbnail_2472000.jpg","/articles/6511257/Contra-Costa-County/California/Board-proclaims-July-17-as-Port-Chicago-Remembrance-Day-local-advocates-supervisors-highlight-exoneration-of-Port-Chicago-50","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511257-5cc7e7146c3ccaa4a4acbc1036cc8955/orig.mp4?Expires=1770720389&Signature=ASqX6aQhUJVlSqFz22BpRXci2VNEGcGk3UYZBWfok8nt78gCKsQ21Ex7QReHEDNDjs7VxMjHPY-ClaAplrGwN7CDpnCYU8D3XxrROgEXsK2TOU7Yj8PkEjezdfOwACJboeTcnwCp8ahiOCgIlpm5FZWUd8YYyBsoAkZikrzTKzTAE9ydfjs1-Rv1YTaUlMsqmpr2yaV4zumQg-CqN-L9t7ys9ydXseVjrXeznnjOg3lTDLX8fWAcGI6CugBjsc5VuKWLMip8F3k5d4dB7Ee8yXdgOGT13BEd8w6X8bbl7hHE7OtDbE1xlecLh7~Jn4Xr5WP6YCdi7RWxtIg9Nm7ZzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on July 8 proclaimed July 17, 2025, as Port Chicago Remembrance Day, honoring sailors who died or were prosecuted after the 1944 Port Chicago explosion and recognizing the recent exoneration of the Port Chicago 50 by the U.S. Navy.

Supervisor Chanel Scales‑Preston introduced the proclamation and invited Yulee Padmore of the Port Chicago Alliance to speak. Padmore, executive director of the Port Chicago Alliance, thanked the board for the proclamation and framed last year’s exoneration as “a long overdue justice.” She told the board the community would continue to preserve the event’s history through school programs and public outreach.

Nut graf: The board’s proclamation memorializes both the 1944 explosion at the Concord Naval Weapons Station and the decades‑long effort by families and advocates that culminated in a recent, formal exoneration of sailors convicted after the disaster. Supervisors from across the dais praised the community and federal lawmakers for advancing the exoneration and said the county will continue to support remembrance and education efforts.

Board comments and community recognition

Supervisor Ken Carlson noted the project’s long history and the role of local advocates, including descendants and the Friends of Port Chicago, in pressing for recognition and remembrance. Several supervisors recalled visiting the site and supporting legislative efforts that led to the exoneration. Many speakers said the story—one of wartime deaths compounded by segregation and subsequent convictions—deserves continued public attention and education.

Padmore and other community members present thanked the board for the proclamation; supervisors joined Padmore and other supporters for a photograph following the ceremony.

Ending note

The proclamation was framed as both an act of remembrance and a recommitment to “a future where no service or sacrifice is diminished because of the color of their skin,” language drawn from the board’s adopted resolution and echoed by local advocates during the meeting.","The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors proclaimed July 17, 2025, Port Chicago Remembrance Day, marking the anniversary of the U.S. Navy's exoneration of the Port Chicago 50. Survivors’ descendants and local leaders said the proclamation affirms the county’s commitment to remembering racial injustice and preserving local history.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board adopts series of assessment and engineering reports, levies assessments for fiscal year 2025–26

Contractor raises bid‑protest and transparency concerns as board passes consent items; Public Works responds

Board approves ‘Contra Costa Thrives’ guaranteed-income pilot after debate over eligibility and evaluation

Board sets community engagement process for ARPA/general‑fund reserves, agrees to up to $15,000 per district and delays final allocation to October

Board proclaims July 17 as Port Chicago Remembrance Day; local advocates, supervisors highlight exoneration of Port Chicago 50