HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10102006 - D.3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA !
I
I
Date: October 10, 2006 Public Comment
The Board called for Public Comment. The following people spoke: i
Dr. Joel White, Coalition for a Healthy California, ACS, Contra Costa County Tobacco Prevention
Coalition, concerning a Board of Supervisors resolution in support of Proposition 86 (handout provided);
Gerald Williams, Human Relations Commission, regarding difficulty in withdra-vNing funds for the
annual Bridging the Gap Award event on October 27, 2006; �
Liz Williams-Thomas, Human Relations Commission, regarding difficulty in withdra«ing funds for
the annual Bridging the Gap Award event. [The County Administrator will explore the matter
immediately, and contact the Commission.) i
The following persons submitted comment via email:
I
Cheryl Dudziak, resident of Pleasant Hill, request that the Oak Park elementray School property
up for bid in November be zrezoned or entitled for use as educational facility or for low density housing;
A concerned citizen, resident of Monterev Pines on Carlson Boulevard, Richmond, regarding
assistance needed for a pest problem on the premises;
I
Tony Ibarra, suggesting the County consider offering, a private ate label credit card to raise funds for
improvements to the County and schools and school programs.
I
i
i
I
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION«'AS TAKEN
i
i
i
I
<ccOUcontra.napanet. To: <commemsOcob.cccounty.us>
r� net> cc:
�4= S::bjec-.: Data posted to torrr 1 of
09:2612006 09:38 AM htto:i%vwnw.co.contra-testa.ca.us%deparUcao agendacorrme-�;s_`orn.rt
m j
------------------- =>:,_,-_rx
x
=_e=.a-r-e:
-vG_`G...._C
JGa G .G+Y.
vCTc�-Cmoo
'
Remcze :Ser:
L.>E- =CC_a._. ... �.. .. -l.� _-.L!�. �.S-... _.5l __vim 9. --ndowS S _
Q _.a-_
.".i .r _
yc -ger
= G_. G T .4-G~ _ _ __. ... a _ _ GL`- ..... -G.-I Y .� .-.
G_. =l_�C _C �Gl =G_ll a
s _e K_ 5rv._ v
." ne ...-. ...�.
_
ian
I
I
I
I
I i
l
0
I
I
<cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comme^tsscco.cccoun=.v.us>
net> cc:
F- Sibiect: Data posted to form 1 of
- "
10'02 2006 01:12 PAS ntt `v✓vnv.co.contra-costa.ca.us!de artcao'age-.dacom-nents—for—.r:
P�' P
m
v=-Ca__ _ - I
- _ I
R e
emcze s
_ a-=- -____Gi..- __-. .__
nas
--igs die
_ -�'zchen
_ __
_„_, _ _ >_y_,_ _
Ox. a___..-__ __ _T'.- _ _r...-=- .�.__ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I <ccOr'scontra.napanet. To: <commen;sl&coo.ccccu^!y.us> I
P4%i-llM net> cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
10-03'2006 0 :18 PM :;hp; v4vjw.co.contra-costa.ca.us deparbcao'agendacommer-.t; fo-m.n:
i
I
I
..>x,x._r:- xx__t.-x,.�_:>__x__-__> I
!ic ay_eec: .__ Ca 96519
r_:e -
Ke _ I
tct-rno c I
_.. .�._ L.._..
I
u a7ze Card-.- ..__e_ea _c
e _. 4 _ m4
... ` _ _ ..JGµ `_r..._� K ...._._...
✓e
J._ ..J i JG--
C�ezzin
ana a::
I c_ F _. ... _ :: l ... - a _ _
�` 1 1C � - ..l ✓
__ ev _ _ __ _-____
=, I
i
I
- I
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
3 ��o ZOA
I
Contra Costa County Resolution Supporting Proposition 86 �
The Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 i
«'11EREAS,Proposition 86,the Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 is a state initiative which if
passed by voters in November 2006 would raise the state's tobacco tax by an additional
52.60/pack. According to the California(Department of Health Services,the tax increase
alone would prevent 700,000 children currently under 17 years of age from becoming
smokers in adulthood; high school and middle school student smoking prevalence would
decline by 42.8%; more than half a million smokers in California would quit smoking; and
WHEREAS,Proposition 86,the Tobacco Tax Act would produce more than $2 billion in
annual revenue to fund children's health insurance,emergency room care,nursing
education, disease prevention,medical research and programs that will reduce smoking,
especially among children; and
WHEREAS,4.5 million Californians smoke and nearly 75,000 a year try their first
cigarette, and these smokers put a significant burden on our economy and our hospitals
and healthcare systems costing an estimated $228.080.000 annualh in Contra Costa
Countv in direct and indirect medical costs,worker absenteeism and lost productivity; and
WHEREAS,Proposition 86.the Tobacco Tax Act would significantly reduce the burden on
state and local healthcare agencies of treating the uninsured by providing basic health
insurance coverage including primary care and hospitalization to California's 800,000
uninsured children—nearly 10% -- by expanding eligibility and simplifying enrollment in
the state's Medi-Cal and Healthy Families public health insurance programs for children;
and i
M*THEREAS.Proposition 86,the Tobacco Tax Act would provide funding for outreach to
enroll currently eligible children into the Medi-Cal and the Healthy Families programs,
generating additional revenues to local communities including 51,112 annually in state and
federal funding for each child enrolled or a total of S390 million in additional annual
revenue if all currently eligible children are enrolled; and
WHEREAS.Proposition 86,the Tobacco Tax Act is expected to generate significant �
additional savings for the 17 counties ,including Contra Costa, operating their own
children's health coverage initiatives because these children would now be eligible for state
i
programs funded by tobacco tax revenues; and i
i
WHEREAS,Proposition 86 would provide more than 700 community-based clinics
I
throughout the state,including clinic sites in Contra Costa County, alone,with much
needed dollars to continue to provide primary health care services to uninsured and j
underinsured children and adults,thereby alleviating the overuse of local emergency i
rooms; and
VN'HEREAS,Proposition 86,the Tobacco Tax Act is expected to reduce state and local !
government healthcare costs over time through reduced tobacco use and tobacco related
disease as well as through expanded state health programs; and
I
I
i
WHEREAS,Proposition 86,the Tobacco Tax Act will provide needed funds for emergence i
rooms and critical care services (seventy California hospital emergency rooms have closed
their doors in the past ten years). Reducing smoking and funding emergency care will help
keep community emergency rooms open; and,
WHEREAS, Proposition 86,the Tobacco Tax Act will increase sales tax revenues to local
governments by tens of millions of dollars annually; now; therefore be it "
RESOLVED,that the Contra Costa County does hereby support Proposition 86, the '
Tobacco Tax Act of 2006,which will reduce smoking,especially among children and fund
critical healthcare priorities such as children's health insurance, emergency room care,
i
disease prevention and medical research; and be it further
i
RESOLVED,that a suitable copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Coalition for a I
Healthy California and to the County's legislative representatives in Sacramento,and to
the Speaker of the California Assembly, Senate President Pro Tempore, and to the
Governor.
I
i
I
_ I
I
i
http:;'N«N-�..-.N-esprop86.com'
I
Prop 86
i Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 I $ 2310090009000
j Health & Disease Research $105.000,000
Prevention $887,250,000 I
Treatment $1,107,750,0001
I
I
Health and Disease Research $105,000,000 5.0% . 1
Tobacco-Related Disease Research S 35,700.000 1.7%
Cancer Registry S 15.225,000 0.7%
Breast Cancer Research $ 27,037.500 1.3%
Cancer Research S 15.487,500 0.7%
Lung Cancer/Lung Disease Research S 11,550.000 0.6%
I
Health Maintenance & Disease Prevention $887,250,000 42.3% I
Tobacco Control Media campaign S 59.889,375 2.9%
Tobacco Control Competitive Grants S 39,926,250 1.90/0
Local Health Deots. $ 37.708:125 1.8% 1 1
Tobacco Control Evaluation S 4,436:250 0.2%
Dept. of Education -Tob Ed S 31.053,750 1.5%
Tob. Ce-trot Enforcement(50%-DHS%local law enf.,
25%AG office, 25% BOE) S 19,963,125 1.0%
BreasUCervical Cancer Early Detection S 70.980,000 3.4%
I Heart Disease &Stroke Prevention S 75.416.250 3.6% I
I
Obesity Prevention.Nutrition/Physical (70:0 DHS, 30'-.'°Dept
j of Ed)Form Oversight Comm. S 68.761,875 3.3% I
Asthma Prevention (60% DHS fund prog. 40% DOE) S 37,708,125 1.8%
Colorectal Cancer Prev;Treatment S 37,708,125 2.0%
California Healthy Kids-Insurance S 403.698.750 19.2%
Health Treatment and Services $1,107,750,000 52.8%
Tobacco Cessation Services/DHS S 19,385,625 0.9% 1 1
Prostate Cancer Treatment $ 19,385,625 0.9%
Comm. Clinics Uninsured $ 63.695,625 3.0% i I
Rural Emergency Care Physician Services S 8,308,125 0.4%
i Emergency Care Physicians -CHIP S 63,695,625 3.0%
Medically Underserved Account $ 8.308,125 0.4% j
Nurse Workforce Education S 99,697,50 4.7% i
Emergency Trauma Hospital Services S 825.273,750 39.3%
I
Backfill to existing tobacco tax accounts
Hospital Services S 20227,000 I I
Physiciar Services S 4.576,000
CA Ch:;d-en;`Families Trust Prop 10 -Guaranteed "make-whole backfill
I
j
AMERICAN
LUNG
' 06 t ASSOCIATION. I
i
I
49 N Cvi
y
c °a O _ to
[p cn
o C h V ate.. a 0) CD
+3 FPr U � d M -
C C Y
O O v N F-
'.:. :c .0 L
O
C co V r+ to d
i.. U) C C /U N d Ot? till `" U
O A v U v `�° i
O Gs' w `°
O 1) a °' O t» G. a d = too m o
t0 cZ c U U .� m a o ,� o C,7
N C c E o a o d a o a c Cc
rt- iQ x VOW C_3CjQ CL
ILI
O =
X O a O
F = �6
LU
Q CD
0 CM
CN CL
O
_ '0 Ess
S
.a
dC Q
w-._ xi-„-• --'- --- �.-- �. �. lLC O 113 -
O to .
aZS a
c o m m Ess
o
o
rn
to 4J
.E Q.
N 5 'ii�i r't -_-
-
to d r N
0 0 ad co N
= C.3 r m � d 0 T� Cj � O -_
- £- Om V E w ff3 N E co
V m _ o c T
N?L M U*)O tl9 C d9'
to O u3 c O
� 0
C
co m
} C t6 U r
L rrE
0
l
e
3
r_ -
3
r
i
I
Contra Costa County I
Proposition 86 - Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 Fact Sheet
What the Proposition 86 -Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 could do for Contra Costa �
County in terms of: j
I
Children's Health Insurance
I
Proposition 86 funds would provide access to health insurance to
approximately 10,000 children in Contra Costa County. (Children's Partnershio)
I
Emergency Care Services
I
Emergency rooms in Contra Costa County would be eligible for funding
from the tax, as funds from it will go directly to local emergency room care.
Nurse Education I
I
California has the lowest number of nurses per capita in the nation. (sari I
Francisco Business Tmes, May 19 1006) Proposition 86 would fund critical nursing
Ieducation to close the gap.
Disease Prevention, Treatment and Research I
• Tobacco Control.: Funding of enhanced tobacco control programs could
reduce the number of deaths from smoking and reduce smoking related
casts: Every year, 6,569 people die from smoking related diseases in Contra i
Costa County. Healthcare expenditures related to smoking in the county I
were nearly $235 million in 1999. (California Department of Health services) The
cost per smoker was $1,444 based on 1996 surveys of smoking prevalence. 1
;American Lung Association)
I I
a Breast and Cervical Cancer: The funding for breast and cervical cancer
I screening for under-insured and un-insured women would be tripled. Breast
cancer remains the most common cancer in women, which when found
early has a 5-year survival rate of over 95% when found early. Hispanic and
Asian American women are at higher risk of developing cervical cancer than
African American and white women. There are expected to be 810 new
cases of breast cancer and 150 deaths from it in Contra Costa County.
(American Cancer 5ooety)
o Colorectal Cancer: Colorectal cancer is nearly 90% curable when detected
early, but on average less than 50% of people are getting tested. Availability
of free screening would provide access to more people, especially those who
are under-insured. It is expected that in 2006, 450 Contra Costa County
residents will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 150 will die from the
disease. (American CancerSoc%ety)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I
I
I
i
a Prostate Cancer: increased funding-of free treatment for prostate cancer i
would ensure treatment_for the most common cancer in-men. In 2006, it is
projected that 740 men in Contra Costa County will be diagnosed-with
prostate cancer and that 95 of them will die from it. ((American Cancersocie��)
9 Asthma: In 2003, 159,000 people in Contra Costa County reported that they
had asthma and 15,000 people visited the emergency room or urgent care
clinics due to asthma attacks. Prevention programs funded by Proposition 86 i
could reduce these statistics. (American Lung Association)
a Heart Disease and Stroke: Contra Costa County has 56,000 people who have
i
been diagnosed with heart disease, and heart and stroke prevention i
programs could reduce the number or citizens who develop the disease.
(California Health-Interview Survey, UCLA Center for Health Po/icy Research] -
Tobacco Use Prevention and Control
Contra Costa County's local lead agency `or tobacco control could receive an
estimated $1,320. (California Department of Health Services).
Adult smoking.: 109,000 adults in Contra Costa County were smokers in
2001. The tax increase is projected to reduce the number of smokers by
13.16% which applied to these statistics, would mean that almost 14,824
fewer adults in Contra Costa would be smokers. (California Health!ntenv-evv
Survey, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research)
Youth smoking:- The census estimates that the population of Contra Costa
County that is under 18 years of age is 263,607. The percentage of adult
smokers who start smoking at or before age 18 is almost 90%. (campaign for
Tobacco Free-Kids) Proposition 86 will prevent youth from starting to smoke by
increasing the price of cigarettes and funding tobacco control programs.
i
Community Clinics i
i
15 Community clinics in Contra Costa County would be eligible for funding
from the tax. Contra Costa community clinics provide 132,000 visits annually
to over 53,000 patients, and about 78% o!clinic patients, or 42,000 people,
are uninsured. (Community Clinic Consortium of Contra Costa Coun-ty)
_ I
Children and Families Trust Fund
I
Funds will be provided to the Proposition 10 account to make up any
reduced revenue caused by the decline in the tobacco use as a result of this i
initiative. j
I
I
i
i
a ----__='--=—__=_ -- ------ he31.r'. cal ilarrlta.com I
ti 0i_.—L �
CTOBA C(o 7AX OF 2006 -
i
The Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 achieves two goals: it will reduce smoking, especially among kids, and fund i
critical healthcare priorities such as disease prevention, medical research, children's health insurance and
emergency room care.
I
This initiative will increase the state's tobacco tax by$0.13 per cigarette($2.60 per pack)to provide immediate I
help to some of California's major health challenges. The initiative is expected to raise approximately $2.1
billion. After providing backfill funds to Proposition 10 programs ($170 million), the funds will be distributed as
follows: I
❑ VREaTMENT—52.75%
o Hospital emergency care services o Steve Thompson physician education fund
($7.6 million)
o Nurse education ($92 million)
( million) o Prostate cancer treatment($18 million)
o Community clinics ($58 million) o Tobacco cessation services($18 million)
o Emergency physicians ($66 million)"
❑ I R&vEufruoui—42.25%
o Children's health insurance($371 million)
o Tobacco prevention, education, enforcement programs($177 million)
o Cancer, heart, asthma and other disease prevention and control programs ($267 million)
❑ GUMMaUtCH—5%
o Includes tobacco-related disease and cancer research ($96.5 million)
The Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 language maintains a strict system of checks and balances to assure that all i
funds are used as voters intend. The Department of Health Services will be required to provide annual reports
describing all programs that receive Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 Trust Fund monies and the detailed use of those
funds. Reports will be available to the public on the department's web site. All monies from the Tobacco Tax
Act of 2006 Trust Fund are subject to audits by the Bureau of State Audits. I
The initiative strengthens existing and proven anti-smoking and healthcare programs. No new bureaucracies
or entitlements are created and no other funds will be used to offset any reductions in the tax collected.
The Tobacco Tax Act of 2006 is supported by a broad coalition, including the American Cancer Society,
American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association. They are sponsoring this initiative because
it will help keep kids from starting to smoke. They are also sponsoring this initiative because it provides
immediate and tangible solutions to some of California's major health challenges.
Language within the initiative also permanently transfers$25 million of the Hospitars allocation of Fhaposifion 99 money
to emergency physicians. I
I
Coalition For A Healthy Calr7omia—A waffim of health organizations promoting disease research,tobacco wntrol,errnergency we and
children's health services,v th major funding povided by California Hospital Committee on Issues,the American Cancer Society, j
Cafrfomia Division Inc.,American Heart Association and ft American Lung Association of Caldomia,1091278256
555 Capitol Mail,Suite 1425,Sarxarrredo,CA 95814
I
I
l
i
I
Economic and Health Effects of a State I
Cigarette Excuse 'flax Increase in California �
I
I
Execute Summary
I
I The Coalition for a Healthy California is sponsoring a comprehensive statewide ballot l
initiative to raise the tobacco excise tax by $2.60 per pack of cigarettes in order to
provide funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and
health insurance to eligible children. Revenue will also be allocated to specified
purposes including tobacco use prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related
laws, and research, prevention and treatment of various conditions including specific l
cancers, heart disease, stroke, asthma and obesity. This paper uses the best available
science to estimate the effect of the new tax on cigarette consumption, adult and youth
smoking rates, tax revenues, and long-term health outcomes. Tobacco excise taxes in I
California currently sum to 87 cents per pack of cigarettes. In 2004, the average price
of cigarettes in California was$3.95 per pack. The additional tax would raise the I
average price of cigarettes to $6.55 per pack. !
I i
Effect on cigarette consumption �
o A$2.60 excise tax increase per pack of cigarettes would reduce the number of I
cigarettes consumed in California by more than one quarter(26.3 percent). I
a Californians would consume approximately 312 million fewer packs of cigarettes I
each year with the new tax. Half of this reduction would be due to fewer smokers,
and half would be due to reduced consumption by the remaining smokers_
Effect on adult smoking
® More than a half million smokers (502,108) in California would quit smoking because
of the tax increase-
* Based on the adult smoking prevalence of 14 percent in 2005, the tax increase
alone would reduce adult prevalence to 12.2 percent (a 13.2 percent decrease).
Effect on youth smoking
i
a Approximately 120,000 high school students and 30,000 middle school students
would either quit smoking or not start smoking because of the tax increase. I
• High school student smoking prevalence would decline from 13.2 percent in 2004 to
approximately 7.6 percent (a 42.8 percent decrease).
o Middle school student smoking prevalence would decline from 3.9 percent in 2004 to
approximately 2.2 percent(a 42.8 percent decrease).
• The tax increase alone would prevent more than 700,000 children currently under 17
years of age from becoming smokers in adulthood.
I
I
Tobacco Control Section 1
California Departrnent of Health Services
May 26,2006
I
i
_ I
I
I I
c I
Economic and Health Effects of a State Cigarette Excise Tax Increase in California
Effect on tax revenues
o Annual revenue solely from the $2.60 tobacco tax increase would be approximately
$2.27 billion.
• State sales tax would also increase because of higher sale price, generating an
additional $58.6 million a year.
• Total California tax revenues from cigarettes (excise tax of$3.47 per pack of
cigarettes plus five percent sales tax)would increase more than $3 billion a year.
Effect on long-terata health outcomes
• Approximately 120,000 deaths due to smoking would be prevented among current
California adult smokers who quit smoking.
• Nearly 180,000 deaths due to smoking would be prevented among California youth I
currently under the age of 17 years.
o Nearly$16.5 billion would be saved in long-term health care costs.
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
Tobacco Control Section 2 i
California Department of Health Services i
May 26,2006
I
I
I
i
YES
BENEFITS TO LOWER-INCOME CALIFORNIANS I
86 AND THEIR FAMILIES
I
i
Proposition 86 will reduce smoking and save lives.
I
BACKGROUND
vuww.yesprop86.com
Because smoking levels are highest among people with lower incomes, cigarette I
companies argue that tobacco tax increases are regressive taxes that penalize
lower-income persons disproportionately. In reality, it's the harms from smoking that are regressive with lower-
income communities already suffering disproportionately from smoking-caused healthcare costs and related i
disease, disability and death.
I
An investigation of the impact of Proposition 86 reveals that lower-income Californians will benefit
I
disproportionately from the tax through quitting or cutting back their consumption of tobacco and by receiving
benefits from the programs funded by the tax.
FACTS
■ Smokers with family incomes below the national median are four times as likely to quit when cigarette
prices go up as compared to those with higher incomes. (Centers for Disease Control, MMW R47(29):605-609.
July 31, 1998.)
■ Those who quit or cut back on smoking because of the tax won't pay it or will pay less of it. One estimate
projects that there will be a 42.9% reduction in youth smoking from the $2.60 tax. (Campaign for Tobacco
Free Kids. "Projected Public Health Benefits & Related Cost Savings From a S2.60 Cigarette Tax Increase in
California' March 2006.)
■ Lower-income Californians understand the benefits they will receive from the Tobacco Tax Act of 2006. i
Sixty-five percent of voters with household incomes less than S30,000 support the $2.60 per pack tax. I
Similar support is found in higher income brackets. (Fairbank Maslin Maullin & Associates California Tobacco
Tax Survey. February 2006.)
■ Given the higher portion of lower-income smokers who will quit or cut back, lower-income smokers as a
group may actually reduce their overall expenditure on cigarettes as a result of this tax. The extra income
available in lower-income households where smokers quit will provide an important benefit which might i
barely be noticed in higher-income homes.
■ Where the tax revenues are spent to promote the health and wellbeing of lower-income families, lower-
income smokers will enjoy those benefits as well. Some will continue to smoke, but their family members
and friends may cut back or quit, and their kids may be spared a life of addiction.
■ Lower-income families. including smokers, will benefit most from the many healthcare programs funded by
the initiative. including, but not limited to:
• $756 million for emergency rooms that provide a disproportionate share of care to those who
can least afford to pay for emergency medical care: i
• S117 million to cancer programs (breast, prostate and colorectal) designed to serve
uninsured and underinsured low income participants.
• S8 million to the Steve Thompson Fund, placing doctors in underserved rural areas; i
• S58 million to community clinics serving lower-income/uninsured Californians:
• S367 million providing health insurance to 800.000 low-income children. i
Yes cn Propos?tion 86—A coa!if;on of heath organizations promoting disease research.tobacco control.emergency care
and chi dreds heal'h serjices. '.Major funding by California Hospital Comr,i!,ee on Issues.sponsored by i
Californ'.a Association of riospitals and Heaith Systems and me Amercar,Can;Pr Society.California Division Inc.
555 Capitol I•?ail.Sdiie 1425.Sacramento.CA 95814
I
o �
Q
i
YES ON PROPOSITION 86
YES
SPONSORS
86
I
American Cancer Society •American Lung Association of California
American Heart Association • California Hospital Association I
The Children's Partnership • Children Now
Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund
California Emergency Nurses Association
v vvvv.yesprop86.com Association of California Nurse Leaders
PICO California • California Primary Care Association j
American College of Emergency Physicians. California Chapter
Emergency and Acute Care Medical Corporation
I
LIST OF SUPPORTERS
(PARTIAL LISTAS OF OCTOBER 3. 2006)
i
EDUCATION,WOMEN& CHILDREN'S ORGANIZATIONS Filipinos for Affirmative Action
La Raza Network, Inc.
California State PTA Latino Coalition fora Healthy California
California WIC Association Latino Issues Forum !
Children's Defense Fund - California
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) !
Children's Health Initiative for Fresno County !
MAAP, Inc(formerly the Mexican American
Children's Health Initiative of Greater Los Angeles Alcoholism Program)
Children's health Initiative of San Luis Obispo County National African American Tobacco Education
County of Riverside Commission for Women Network
First 5 Marin Children& Families Commission
National Latino Congreso
First 5 Tulare County National Latino Council on Alcohol &Tobacco
First 5 Yolo County Prevention
Healthy Kids of Santa Cruz County NICOS Chinese Health Coalition
Healthy Kids Sonoma County Orange County Korean American Health
Maternal and Child Health Access Information and Education Center
Ojai Unified School District Orange County Korean U.S. Citizen League
San Fernando Valley Mexican American Political
ETHNIC COMMUNITY Association
Vietnamese American Cancer Foundation —
100 Black Men of the Bay Area. Inc Orange County
Asian American Senior Citizens Service Center— Vietnamese REACH for Health Initiative Coalition I
Orange County Urban Latino African American Cancer(ULAAC) i
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum Disparities Project
Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center
Asian Health Services BUSINESS & LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health American Federation State. County & Municipal
Employees (AFSCME CA People)
Organizations !
California Black Health Network Asian Business Association. San Diego
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network Bay Area Council i
CAPITAL (Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together California Labor Federation. AFL-CIO
for Advocacy & Leadership) California School Employees Association (CSEA) I
I
I
Yes on Proposition 86—A coalil.on of haith organizations promoting disease research.tobacco control.emergency care
and children's health services. Major funding by Califomia Hospitals Committee on issues.sponsored by
Calrfomia Association cf Hospitc s a^d Health Systems and the Amercan Cancer Society,California Division Inc.
555 Capitol fAM.Suite 1425.Sacramento.CA 95814
I
.I
s
YES ON PROPOSITION SG
LIST OF SUPPORTERS—PACE 2
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce COMMUNITY HEALTH
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Alameda Health Consortium
Orange Chamber of Commerce &Visitors Bureau AitaMed Health Services Corporation
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Antelope Valley Gay & Lesbian Community Center
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Central Coast Alliance for Health
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Clinic Sierra Vista
Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Clinicas De Salud Del Pueblo. Inc.
Local 535 Clinica Monsenor Oscar A. Romero
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce CommuniCare Health Centers
United Farm Workers Community Clinics Consortium
Community Clinic Consortium of Contra Costa
CIVIC& ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Community Clinics Association of Los Angeles
Community Health Councils, Inc.
California Park& Recreation Society Community Health Education Institute
CALPIRG (California Public Interest Research Group) Community Health Partnership
Health Access California East Valley Community Health Center
League of Women Voters of California EI Camino Children and Family Services. Inc
Sacramento Mutual Housing Association EI Concilio del Coronado de Ventura
Working Partnerships USA EI Proyecto Del Barrio
The Greenlining Institute Gardner Family Care Corporation
United Way of Santa Cruz County Gardner Family Health Network, Inc
Golden Valley Health Centers
Harbor Free Clinic
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS & ORGANIZATIONS KHEIR Center
American Academy of Pediatrics, California District La Clinica de La Raza
California Association for Nurse Practitioners Lifelong Medical Care
(£ California Association of Physician Groups (Merced County Health Care Consortium
California Medical Association ,Mission City Community Network, Inc.
Neighborhood Healthcare
California Physicians Alliance Nei 9
California School Nurses Organization North East Medical Services
f San Francisco Paramedic Association Northeast Community Clinic
Northeast Valley Health Corp.
Northeastern Rural Health Clinics
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Queenscare Family Clinics
BREATHE California of the Bay Area Sacramento Community Health Center
BREATHE California Central Coast Salud Para La Gente Inc.
BREATHE California. Golden Gate-Public Health Samuel Dixon Family Health Center. Inc.
Partnership San Benito Health Foundation
BREATHE California of Los Angeles County Santa Cruz Women"s Health Center
BREATHE California of Sacramento—Emigrant Trails Schuman-Liles Clinic
Earth Resource Foundation Shasta Community Health Center
East Palo Alto Asthma Task Force South Bay Family Healthcare Center
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention Tarzana Treatment Center, Inc.
(RAMP) T.H.E. Clinic. Inc.
Solano Asthma Coalition The Children's Clinic. Serving Children & their
The Clean Air Club Families
The Los Angeles Free Clinic
i
I
YES ON PROPOSITION 86 LIST OF SUPPORTERS-PAGE 3 j
Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center. Inc Coalition of Lavender Americans on Smoking and
Valley Community Clinic Health (CLASH)
Venice Family Clinic Foundation For A Smokefree America i
Vista Community Clinic National Network on Tobacco Prevention
Watts Healthcare Corporation San Diego-Tijuana Border Initiative
Westside Family Health Center San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Control Coalition
Westside Neighborhood Clinic San Joaquin Tobacco Outreach/Prevention I
Wilmington Community Clinic Program (STOPP)
Winters Healthcare Foundation Tobacco Education Research Oversight
Worksite Wellness LA Committee
Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program
CANCER ORGANIZATIONS Scientific Advisory Committee j
I
Association of Northern California Oncologists HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATIONS & HOSPITALS
Breast Cancer Action I
California Breast Cancer Organizations Alliance Medical Center i
California Cancer Care. Inc. Alliance of Catholic Health Care
California Prostate Cancer Coalition All for Health. Health for All i
i
Cancer Survivorship: San Diego American Diabetes Association I
Intercultural Cancer Council California Association of Alcohol and Drug j
Intercultural Cancer Council Caucus Program Executives, Inc. (CAADPE) i
Northern California Cancer Center California Association of Public Hospitals
Partnered For Progress California Center for Public Health Advocacy j
Save Ourselves. The Breast Cancer Organization of California Food and Justice Coalition
Sacramento California Children's Hospitals Association
Southern California Cancer Pain Initiative California Public Health Association—North
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Central California School Health Centers Association
Valley Affiliate Californians for Patient Care j
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Inland Californians for Responsible Choices
Empire Affiliate Center For Behavioral Epidemiology and
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation— Los Community Health(CBEACH) I
Angeles County Affiliate County of Santa Cruz Health Department
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation— Dental Health Foundation i
Orange County Affiliate Eisner Pediatric & Family Medical Center
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation— Evergreen Professional Hypnotherapy
Sacramento Valley Affiliate Family Health Centers of San Diego
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation—San Health and Social Policy Institute i
Diego Affiliate Health For All
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. San Health Improvement Partnership of Santa Cruz
Francisco Affiliate County
Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. Northern Health Officers Association of California
California Affiliate Health Plan of San Mateo
Institute for Healthcare Advancement
TOBACCO-RELATED ORGANIZATIONS La Jolla Gastroenterology Medical Group
LA Care Health Plan i
Action on Smoking and Health Local Health Plans of California
Antelo Valley Alcohol Tobacco & Other Drug Policy MarinLink
Coalition National Association of Social Workers. California
Americans For Nonsmokers' Rights Chapter j
California Tobacco Control Alliance I
I
I
YES ON PROPOSITION 86 LIST OF SUPPORTERS—P...4
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Congressman Bob Filner
Dependence —Orange County Congressworrar)Barbara Lee
National Health Foundation Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren
National Health Services. Inc- Congresswomen Doris Matsui
OHAC Congressman Pete Stark
Parkway Endoscopy Center Congressman Henry Waxman
Public Health Institute
Safety Net Coalition of Santa Cruz County California Latino Caucus
SF Human Services Network
School Health Clinics of Santa Clara County Senator Elaine Alquist
Social Model Recovery Systems. Inc- Senator Gil Cedillo
Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs. Inc Senator Wesley Chesbro
Southern California Public Health Association Senator Joe Dunn
St. John's Well Child and Family Center Senator Martha Escutia
Strategic Alliance For Healthy Food &Activity Senator Liz Figueroa
Environments Senator Dean Florez
Temecula Valley Endoscopy Center Senator Sheila James Kuehl
TRI-PAC Health and Wellness Advocacy Senator Alan Lowenthal
Try Again. Inc Senator Deborah Ortiz
Tulare County Medical Society Senator Gloria Romero
United Hospital Association Senator Nell Soto
Senator Jackie Speier
Senator Tom Torlakson
FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS
Berkeley Organizing Congregations for Action Assembly Member Karen Bass
California Church IMPACT Assembly Member Patty Berg
Congregations For Civic Action Assembly Member Ed Chavez
Congregations Organizing for Renewal Assembly Member Judy Chu
Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Assembly Member Rebecca Cohn
Organization —PICO Assembly Member Noreen Evans
Greater Long Beach I C O Assembly Member Dario Frommer
Inland Congregations United for Change Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg
L.A. Voice—PICO Assembly Member Loni Hancock
Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches Assembly Member Dave Jones
Lutheran Office of Public Policy—California Assembly Member Johan Klehs
North Valley Sponsoring Committee Assembly Member Paul Koretz
Oakland Community Organizations Assembly Member John Laird
Orange County Congregation Community Assembly Member Mark Leno
Organization Assembly Member Lloyd Levine
Peninsula Interfaith Action Assembly Member Sally Lieber
People and Congregations Together Assembly Member Ted Lieu
San Diego Organizing Project Assembly Member Carol Liu
San Francisco Organizing Project Assembly Member Cindy Montanez
The Interfaith Council Assembly Member Gene Mullin
Assembly Member Joe Nation
Assembly Member Pedro Nava
FEDERAL &STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS Assembly Member Jenny Oropeza
California State Treasurer Phil Angelides Assembly Member Fran Pavley
California State Superintendent Jack O'Connell Assembly Member Mark Ridley-Thomas
Assembly Member Ira Ruskin
a
1
I
4
i
YES ON PROPOSITION Ss LIST OF SUPPORTERS—Paces
Assembly Member Lori Saldana Council Member Randal Bressette. City of Laguna
Assembly Member Simon Salinas Hills
Assembly Member Juan Vargas Council Member Eric Garcetti. City of Los Angeles
Assembly Member Lois Wolk Council Member Larry Carr. City of Morgan Hill �
Council Member Michael Harris. City of Pleasant
Hill
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES& ELECTED OFFICIALS Council Member Sandra Benitez. City of Riverbank !
League of California Cities Council Member Kevin McCarty. City of I
Sacramento
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Council Member Scott Peters. City of San Diego j
Riverside County Board of Supervisors Council Member Nora Campos. City of San Jose
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Council Member Jan Epstein. City of San Mateo
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Council Member Carol Rowley, City of San Ramon i
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Council Member Dominic Caserta. City of Santa
Clara i
Yolo County Board of Supervisors Council Member Richard Bloom, City of Santa
Monica
City Council of Calabasas Council Member Ken Genser, City of Santa Monica
City Council of EI Monte Council Member Cliff Barrett. City of Scotts Valley
City Council of Fillmore Council Member Dave Roberts. City of Solana
City Council of Hawaiian Gardens Beach
City Council of Pasadena Council Member David Margrave. City of South
City Council of Richmond Pasadena
City Council of West Hollywood Council Member Joseph Gonzales, City of South
EI Monte
Supervisor Steve Kinsey. County of Marin Council Member Jeffrey Prang. City of West j
Supervisor Charles McGrashan, County of Marin Hollywood
Supervisor Lou Calcagno, County of Monterey Council Member Oscar Villegas. City of West
Supervisor Harold Moskowite. County of Napa Sacramento
Supervisor Roger Dickinson, County of Sacramento Council Member William Marble. City of Woodland I
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier. City and County of !
San Francisco Mayor Todd Campbell. City of Burbank
Supervisor Fiona Ma. City and County of San Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis. City of Carlsbad
Francisco Acting Mayor Floyd Petersen. City of Loma Linda
Supervisor Valerie Brown, County of Sonoma Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa. City of Los Angeles
Supervisor Mariko Yamada, County of Yolo Mayor Dennis Kennedy. City of Morgan Hill
Sheriff Leland C. Adams III. County of Sierra Mayor Bill Judge, City of Orinda I
Vice Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto, City of Palo Alto
i
Council Member Marlen Garcia. City of Baldwin Park Mayor Anthony Volante, City of Port Hueneme
Council Member Maxwell Anderson. City of Berkeley Mayor Ronald Loveridge. City of Riverside
Council Member Helen Ramos. City of Colton Mayor Gavin Newsom, City of San Francisco
Council Member Juan Romo• City of Cudahy Vice Mayor John Ewan. City of San Luis Obispo
Council Member Michael Smith. City of Dixon Mayor Robert Holbrook, City of Santa Monica
Council Member Marcia Sabian. City of Firebaugh Vice Mayor Bonnie Hurlhey. City of Shasta Lake
Council Member Robert Wieckowski• City of Fremont Mayor Pro Tem Pete Sanchez. City of Suisun City
Council Member Cynthia Sterling. City of Fresno Vice Mayor Otto Lee. City of Sunnyvale !
Council Member Delia Gutierrez. City of Gonzales Trustee Shelly Masur. Redwood City School
Council Member Doug Emerson, City of Hollister. District
Council Member Curren Price. Jr.. City of Inglewood
Council Member Louie Lujan, City of La Puente
I
I
!
I
t
YES ON PROPOSITION 86 LIST OF SUPPORTERS-PAGE6
POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS Paula Paine
Alice B- Toklas LGBT Democratic Club Hazel Powr.s
California Democratic Party Allan Roth
Dean Democratic Club of Silicon Valley Steven Roberts
Los Angeles County Democratic Party Harlene Rosenblum
Placer County Democratic Central Committee Vickie Ryan
Progressive Student Movement Jayden Schrenk
San Francisco Women's Political Committee Charles Leathers Sibblis
Stonewall Young Democrats Ronald Slack
Stonewall Democratic Club. Los Angeles Rebecca Stafford
Yolo County Democratic Central Committee Darrell Steinberg
Sylvia Tillman
Phil Ting
BUSINESSES & INDIVIDUALS Janice Titcomb
B & G Rentals Pamela Turk
Common Sense Media
- ISN Global Enterprises, Inc
Consulting Pacific Health
r= 9 Grou p
E Red Ink Studios
Reece Capital Ventures. LLC
Veronica Barragan
,- Lucille Bell
>' Robert Berger
Michael Bjosge
Robin Brodowsky
Chris Brown
?_ Joni Caballero
Gina Contreras
Kim Ellis
Ron Emard.
,E
Linda Fabela
Janet Flores
Freetage Family
Cris Graves
Janet LaPlante
Bonnie Link
Fabiola Lopez
Teri Mayer
Jeanette Nelson
i
OUR OPINION
I
i
Y =-- - New cigarette
PaI:lanb Tribune
tax will save
t�
California live s
� = ^i F r
r . � �9r=
F you're looking for a measure on the
FE t- = Nov. 7 ballot that could have a profound
e _ � �, effect on the lives. health and welfare of
Californians.Proposiron 86 could be
11 MCI vour ticket. i
It imposes at, additional 52.60 tae on packs
of cigarettes and other tobacco products for.he
express purpose of cutting tobacco consist p-
SUNDAY tion and raising money for a varier.:of health
mI
programs. hospital emergency sen•tces. and re-
October 8, 2006 search..prevention and treatment of tobacco-
spawned illnesses ranging from cancer and
heartdiseaseto asthma.
Our currert tobacco excise tat is 87 cents per I
pack.which now cost S3.93 or more. This mea- i
sure-would push the price to S6.55 per pack—
and generate an extra S58.6 million in sales tae
revenue because of the S2.60 price hike.
Proposition 86 would raise S2.1 billion a
tear. starting in 2007-08. to be divided among
assorted health programs. Revenue should de- I
cline gradually as more people quit smoking—
a 25 percent drop is expected—and fewer i
people take up the habit because of the elevated i
cost.
That's the good news.An estimated half-mil-
lion Californians are expected to stop smoking j
because of the tax increase.And. it should pre- I
vent many young people from getting hooked on
the deadly habit.which costs society billions for
health care. j
An estimated 273.000 California high school.
students— 13.2 percent of the total—row
smoke.Another 41,900 under age 18 start each i
year. They consume 59.8 miiion packs-of ciga-
rettes a year and cigarette firms spend
S15 billion per.annum topromotesmoking. i
much of it targeted at kids.
California Department of Health statistics in-
dicate the tobacco tae increase in Proposition i
86 would prevent more than 700.000 children
under age 17 from becoming smokers.About i
120.000 current high school students and
30.000 middle school students would-quit or
not start.
Over time.at least 300.000 premature deaths
among adults and youngsters wlll be averted.
with a commensurate drop in the medical costs
that accompany tobacco-related illnesses.That
translates into saving 1180.000 youngsters under I
age 17-and 120.000 adults from dyirg of j
smoke-related ailments.
That doesn't mean welikeeven-thing about -
this ballot measure. For instance. its a constitu-
tional amendment. which is_nappropriate for
this type of tax hike. The funds it generates also
are protected from appropriation for education
or other purposes in a state financial emer-
gency. I
Supporters of Proposition 86 include the Cal-
ifornia Hospital Association and such organiza-
tions as the American Cancer Socier_.-and the �
i
American Heart-and Lang associations. Its pri-
mary opponents are tobacco companies. We're
certain to see a-multitude of anti-Prop- 86 TV
spots over the next few weeks. since R.J- Rey-
nolds has voiced to spend up to 640 million to i
defeat it and other tobacco firms are expected to i
i
push the anti-86 pot toward8100million. I
One potential negative effect from tete higher i
tax is an anticipated increase in black market i
tobacco sales.A study of 23 tax increases in I
other states indicate. however. that the Increase j
in such illicit activity is negligible.And.while the
number of packs sold legally declines,state rev---
enues grow becauseofthe tax increase. I
This is a relatively simple proposition.The i
white hats and black hats are obvious.And, no
other measure on this year's ballot is ant to save
as many lives.Althougft punitive taxes such as
this are far from ideal, the benefits Californians
should derive from this measure are incalcu-
lable.-Vote ves on Proposition 86. i
I
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) j
I
Complete this form and place
/ittiinfthe box near the speakers' rostrum before
/addressing
the Board.
Name: C_^= �� � UVr�-Cts/ -- Phone: Tl
Address: City:
!.Address and phone number are optiona please note that this card will become a public record kept on file ;
utith the Clerk of the Board in assocrati r +ith this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
1-11 wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
— I
My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against
i
I
r
I wish�to�s�p�ea�k�on/the, subject f: �Z2
I
-' I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: !
i
Please see reverse for instruction: and inmpoltanl information
I
I
I
t
INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS:
•1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speakers rostrum before your agenda itern is to be
considered.
z
2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the
podium.
1 Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)
6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the
office of the Clerk of the Board along itifith the other meeting materials.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 3I
Complete this form d place it in the box ear the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
� I
j Name: �i��'�d+�/� (.�Z :� Phone.
I
Address: City:
I
(Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file
tsith the Clerk of[tie Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization: Jt
(Z-G
l ,
CHR," I
I
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: I
I I
I I
My comments will be: _FJ_ General ❑ For ❑ Against �
I
r, I wish to speak on the subject of:
I � I
I
I i
I
I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
I
i
I I
Please see re;,erse for instructions and important inforinatlorl I
i
s
i
INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS:
1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be
considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the
podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three min�.ates. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)
6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the
office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other meeting materials.