Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Opinion: CoCoTax says vote no on Measure G – a $1.88 billion burden Contra Costa can’t afford

By Leave a Comment

All graphics & charts source: CoCoTax

By Mike Arata

On June 2, Contra Costa County voters will decide whether to saddle themselves — and their children — with the largest bond debt in the history of the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD). Measure G asks for $920 million in new borrowing. With interest, the true cost climbs to $1.88 billion, with final payoff projected in 2059. CoCoTax has opposed this measure in official ballot arguments, in public presentations, and in a detailed response to a recent article in the Contra Costa College Advocate.

The case against Measure G is straightforward: it is far too much money, sought too soon given outstanding bond debt, by a district that hasn’t demonstrated the fiscal discipline to deserve it.

Already Drowning in Debt

4CD still owes on three bond measures as is:   2002’s Measure A ($120 million), 2006’s second Measure A, ($286.5 million), and 2014’s  Measure E ($450 million) —  totaling $856.5 million in principal alone. County taxpayers still owe nearly $727 million on those existing obligations, with the final payment on Measure E not expected until 2039. Measure G would pile $1.88 billion more on top of all that. If it passes, total bonded indebtedness reaches $2.61 billion, secured by Contra Costa County property values — with no senior exemption.

Enrollment Is Down 28% — Yet They Want to Build More

4CD advertises “nearly 50,000 students,” but that figure is misleading. California’s actual funding metric is Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES). According to the State Chancellor’s October 2025 FTES Report, 4CD’s count was just 21,940 — down 28% from 30,648 when Measure A passed in 2002. Expanding costly new facilities while enrollment trends sharply downward is the opposite of responsible stewardship.

“Deferred Maintenance” — Deferred Forever?

Roofing repairs, seismic retrofits, HVAC upgrades, and electrical work appear repeatedly in 4CD bond project lists going back to 2002. How many bond measures must pass before these basics get done? There’s a core problem: 4CD’s maintenance budget has crept from just 0.10% to 0.20% of Plant Replacement Value over the past decade, when the commercial building standard is 2–5%. Routine maintenance gets deferred so the general fund can support other priorities — including lavish administrative compensation — and then bond money pays for the fixes, with interest on top.

Executive Pay That Outstrips the Governor’s

While seeking $920 million in new principal from taxpayers, 4CD’s Chancellor drew a $404,238 salary (as of 2024) — plus $130,674 in benefits, for total compensation reaching $548,112. That salary alone exceeds the official pay of the President of the United States and far surpasses Governor Newsom’s $245,929.  Vice Chancellors, College Presidents, and Directors also earn hundreds of thousands in total compensation. Lavish pay and lean maintenance are two sides of the same General Fund coin.

Who’s Funding “Yes on G”?

The pro-Measure G campaign has raised nearly $400,000 so far — with the bulk coming from the tax-exempt Contra Costa College Foundation ($100,000), the DVC Foundation ($50,000), and multiple construction unions (IBEW Local 302, Plumbers Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and others). Contractor unions have a direct financial interest in a $920 million construction program. Ordinary property-tax-paying residents have no equivalent organized voice — a textbook example of what economists call “Public Choice Theory.”

The Bottom Line

Property owners already pay an average of $13.97 per $100,000 of assessed value toward 4CD’s existing bonds. Measure G adds another $10 — and that rate could rise if the county’s assessed values don’t grow at the 4% annual pace 4CD projects, projections that, by 4CD’s own admission, “are not binding upon 4CD.”

4CD should maintain its existing buildings with its existing budget rather than repeatedly turning to taxpayers for borrowed billions. Vote NO on Measure G.

More information: NOonMeasureG.info

Arata is an Executive Committee member of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Upcoming Events

CoCoTax Lunch, June 26: Former State Senator Steve Glazer Discusses BART Accountability
Friday, June 26, 2026 | 11:45am – 1:15pm PDT

CoCoTax Lunch, July 24: County Budget Overview with County Administrator Monica Nino
Friday, July 24, 2026 | 11:45am – 1:15pm PDT

For more information about the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association visit cocotax.org.

Bay Area transit tax effort submits over 305,000 signatures for November ballot measure

By Leave a Comment

Multiple Bay Area transit agencies would benefit from the five-county sales tax measure. Photo: MTC. Map source: Connect Bay Area

Connect Bay Area far surpasses the 186,000 signatures required to qualify BART, regional transit funding measure 

By Jeff Cretan, West Advisors

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA — The Connect Bay Area campaign today announced it has submitted more than 305,000 signatures to qualify a regional transit funding measure for the November ballot — blowing past the 186,000 valid signatures required.

The success of this effort is built on one of the largest grassroots transit organizing efforts the region has ever seen and major support from business and labor organizations.

The Connect Bay Area five-county sales tax measure would provide long-term operational funding for major Bay Area transit agencies, while supporting projects to strengthen and connect transit systems across the region. It will protect major transit agencies like BART from devastating service cuts and help VTA grow to better serve residents, workers, and businesses.

Connect Bay Area also strengthens accountability for transit agencies. SB 63 – the legislation authored by Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguin that enabled Connect Bay Area – set strong accountability requirements to take effect before the measure even gets on the ballot. The measure requires independent financial reviews and continued efficiency improvements from transit agencies.

Unprecedented Grassroots, Labor, and Business Support

The Connect Bay Area Campaign has grown in support over the last several months with more than 80 elected officials and more than 90 labor groups and advocacy organizations signing on in support. Major businesses from across the region have helped to fundraise over $5.5 million so far to get the measure on the ballot and prepare for the November election.

Since launching in January, Connect Bay Area has mobilized more than 1,000 volunteers and advocates across Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Supporters gathered signatures at transit stations, farmers markets, community events, neighborhood meetings, and major public gatherings throughout the Bay Area.

The overwhelming signature total reflects the broad support for transit and the awareness of urgency surrounding the future of Bay Area public transit.

Without sustainable transit funding, the Bay Area could face catastrophic service reductions:

  • BART: Up to 15 station closures, elimination of two lines, and service cuts of up to 70%
  • Caltrain: Hourly train service, no weekend service, and weekday shutdowns after 9 p.m.
  • Muni: At least 20 bus routes eliminated and service reductions of 30% or more
  • AC Transit: Service cuts of at least 16%

The more than 300,000 signatures – which were the result of both a paid effort and an advocate-led grassroots effort – will now be officially counted and validated by the Departments of Elections for each of the five counties over the next few weeks before the measure can officially be placed on the ballot.

“We’re blown away by the over 1,000 Bay Area volunteers, transit advocates, and labor partners who  contributed to getting transit funding on the November ballot,” said Lian Chang, co-lead of the Connect Bay Area grassroots signature gathering effort. “This is the largest grassroots signature-gathering effort in the history of the Bay Area and represents thousands of hours spent by people from all backgrounds and all corners of our five-county region to protect this thing—transit—that matters to millions of Bay Area residents. Everyday more voters are getting on board to support our economy, social justice, the environment and reducing congestion. And we’re just getting started.”

“This is a resounding statement by Bay Area voters that they believe in the value of our regional transit systems and how important they are to keeping our region moving,” said Libby Schaaf, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council. “Now we must turn our attention to November and protecting the many billions of dollars we’ve invested over many decades to build these systems while also making them more efficient, cost-effective, safe and convenient for the millions of commuters who rely on them.”

“Public transit is a cornerstone of our economy and an essential public good that keeps our region affordable for residents,” said Congressman Kevin Mullin. “Connect Bay Area will protect the public transportation service we all rely on while ensuring strong accountability so every dollar delivers reliable, safe transit.”

“The Bay Area’s public transit is a core pillar of our region’s ability to usher in a climate-smart, affordable, and just future,” said Amanda Brown-Stevens, Executive Director of the Greenbelt Alliance. “Greenbelt Alliance is excited to be a part of this grassroots coalition to help protect and enhance our public transportation and reduce pollution.

About Connect Bay Area

The Connect Bay Area campaign will bring a five-county sales tax to the ballot in November 2026 through a citizen signature gathering effort. The rate will be set at 0.5%, with the exception that San Francisco will be set at a 1% rate to provide additional support for Muni. This measure will provide long-term operations funding for major Bay Area transit agencies and support regional projects to strengthen transit throughout the Bay Area.

The Connect Bay Area measure will support the future of public transportation in the Bay Area:

  • Protect and improve service on BART, Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and AC Transit
  • Prevent catastrophic service cuts that could devastate the Bay Area
  • Keep traffic and emissions down, preventing gridlock and protecting climate progress;
  • Support the Bay Area’s economy, ensuring that downtown recovery and regional mobility remain strong.

Connect Bay Area has strong accountability and oversight provisions, including dependent financial reviews for every transit operator, regional coordination mandates to ensure systems work better together, and a citizen oversight committee to monitor spending and performance. A recent independent study required by Connect Bay Area found the agencies had saved $1 billion in operational efficiencies and set new actions for the agencies to take to further improve efficiency and service.

The Connect Bay Area Transit Committee is comprised of labor, business, and transit advocates, including Bay Area Council, SEIU 1021, ATU 1555, SPUR, and SAMCEDA, alongside an advocacy council of more than 20 organizations representing transit, housing, environmental, equity, and senior and disability groups.

For more information about the Connect Bay Area campaign or to get involved, visit https://connectbayarea.com/

 

Opinion: Falsely framed CC County budget story promotes Measure B tax increase

By Leave a Comment

By Mike Arata

A report on the 2026-27 budget, by a Contra Costa County public information officer, is essentially a tax-promotion advertisement for Measure B’s intended 0.625% sales-tax increase.  It omits essential facts, to the potential benefit of the County’s already overpaid administrative staff and its 15 highly compensated employee unions.  Consider the following:

  1. The County’s tentative $7.248 Billion budget for 2026-2027, were it to remain unchanged at the July 1 start of new Fiscal Year 26-27, would still be a massive 60.7% higher than FY20-21’s $4.51 Billion. (See p. 8 at link.)  November 2020 was when the County passed Measure X, itself a 0.500% sales tax increase. The Bay Area’s CPI inflation rate, meanwhile, has totaled 18.4% since Measure X’s passage (358.6 /302.9 = 1.184). The County’s spending increase since the end of 2020 is 3.3 x the inflation rate.
  2. Measure B, on the June 2nd ballot, would add another 0.625% in new sales taxes, raising every part of the County above the statutory 2% limit on LOCAL sales-tax rates, over and above the existing statewide 7.250% rate.  7.250% + 2.000% = an effective statutory-limit total of 9.250%.  If Measure B passes, sales-tax rates in the County will instead range from 9.375% to 10.875%.   An additional 0.500% transit sales-tax measure is upcoming on the November ballot.
  3. In bypassing the relevant statute, all the County’s tax promoters had to do was to get an on-call legislator to include Contra Costa County in an existing, illegitimate Los Angeles bypass bill (AB1768), say shazam(!) — and poof!  No more 2% limit on any local sales-tax rates here.  (Actually, Measure X itself took local rates in six Contra Costa municipal jurisdictions above 2%.)
  4. As is, the County’s 2026 own union-member employment head count is up 4% over 2025(slide 10) — 10,308 vs. 9,913.  And 9 of the County’s 15 union contracts expire 4 weeks after Election Day.  That’s a clue for the likely real purpose of Measure B.
  5. As of 2024 (last year available), 4,781 County employees were already above $150,000 in salary plus benefit compensation.  3,056 of those exceeded $200,000.  1,045 of those exceeded $300,000.  278 of those exceeded $400,000, with 78 above $500,000.  How many executive-level employees does the County need?  How many should we pay for?
  6. Measure X presented an urgent, COVID-time focus on healthcare and “life-saving services.”  Now, allegedly, “lives will be lost” without Measure B (pages 33-34 of 86 in Voter Guide).  In fact, Measure X’s millions have been used for multiple other purposes.  And Measure B’s authorizing ordinance, like Measure X’s, again exposes this new tax as “solely for general governmental purposes and not for specific purposes.” County politicians and administrators could spend Measure B’s millions on whatever they consider “governmental” — as they’ve already been doing in Measure X’s first 5 of 20 years.  Measure B could facilitate or directly bankroll the next round of employee enrichments.
  7. Measure X, the template for Measure B, was supposed to collect $81 Million annually in additional new sales-tax revenues.  Instead, it’s taken in over $120 Million annually (page 11 of 16), and Measure X has another 15 years to run.  Meanwhile, Measure X has accumulated $263 Million in unspent funds (same page).  Those dollars, rather than more new sales-tax revenue, could and should be dedicated to any healthcare deficiency that actually develops.
  8. And speaking of excess funds, the County has a General Fund balance of $1.21 Billion, of which the unassigned portion is $585 Million. Both figures are more that 4 times the County’s own announced standardfor reserves on hand (pages 18 and 56 of 269).
  9. County supervisors tried to get away with an alleged $307 million ANNUAL healthcare budget deficiency, (e.g. hereand here) until I and others pointed to figures stated by their own financial advisory firm (itself holding an $8 Million contract).  That reality was a potentially CUMULATIVE $307 Million by FY28-29, not an annual one.  Their chief financial advisor then returned with a new slide showing larger potential amounts in FY29-30 and FY30-31 — in a new presidential administration and 2 new Congresses from now.  As stated in ballot arguments, Measure B is at best premature.
  10. Due to some funding restoration already announced, the new budget deficiency projected in an updated County slide was a cumulative $219 Million by FY28-29 (though minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ meeting presented the amount as $239 Million).  Even that is speculative; and again, Measure X could cover that amount if needed, under its originally announced purposes.  And to begin with, much of the funding problem derives from withdrawal by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services of “federal Medicaid dollars to cover health care for individuals who are in the country illegally” (as “a backdoor pathway to subsidize open borders”).
  11. The County’s Measure B propagandists claim elsewhere that “It exempts food, housing, and medical care, so most of the money from this tax will come from corporate or large luxury purchases.”   But as the East Bay Times said (among many other factors in opposing Measure B itself), “State data indicates that the average person in the county currently pays at least $1,050 a year in sales tax.”  Food/grocery exemptions?  Not for prepared foods, soft drinks, beer and wine, ice, many convenience grocery store items, etc. — and not for restaurant bills.  Housing exemptions?  Not for materials used to build and maintain houses.  Exemptions for medical care?  Not for over-the-counter medicines.
  12. Rather than voting to continue engorging the already vastly over-funded and overcompensated County spending apparatus and apparatchiks:  attentive and fair-minded voters will vote NO on Measure B — thereby to leave taxpayers, especially those already struggling with affordability problems, with more of their own money to spend for items THEY see as needs.

Regarding the County’s self-serving Measure B scheme — and its dishonest 2020 predecessor, Measure X:  the response now should be “Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us!”

More information:  StopMeasureB.com

Arata is an Executive Board member of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

 

Transit tax ballot measure volunteer signature gathering effort collects 4th of 186,000 goal

By Leave a Comment

Multiple Bay Area transit agencies would benefit from the five-county sales tax measure. Photo: MTC. Graphics source: Connect Bay Area

Paid effort also working before June 6th deadline in 5 Bay Area counties

By Allen D. Payton

On Wednesday, April 22nd, volunteer transit advocates celebrated gathering 46,300 signatures for the regional transit sales tax funding measure to qualify it for the November ballot.

“’As of today, we’ve surpassed 46,300,’ wrote advocate Cyrus Hall in a celebratory email, according to a report by StreetsBlog SF. The goal was that by now they would ‘collect 45,000 grassroots signatures for Connect Bay Area by today.’”

While the effort must gather a total of the required 186,000 valid signatures of registered voters in the five Bay Area counties of  Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara by June 6, the Connect Bay Area has raised more than $3 million to fund the paid-for effort.

“Insiders told Streetsblog that the larger, paid signature-gathering campaign is also on track, although its exact tabulations are a guarded secret,” the report added.

As previously reported, the proposed half-cent sales tax increase in four of the counties and one cent in San Francisco will last for 14 year duration and would generate about $1 billion per year.

Revenue from the tax measure will benefit multiple transit agencies in the region including Tri Delta Transit, County Connection and WestCat, as well as AC Transit and BART which serve Contra Costa County residents.

Following is a county-by-county breakdown of the County Specific Dollars. It does not include money going to BART, Muni, AC Transit and Caltrain, or to regional improvements that aren’t designated by county, such as coordinated fare programs and accessibility improvements:

County Agencies:

  • Contra Costa Transportation Authority (2.5%, $26.51M)
  • Alameda County Transportation Commission (1%, $10.26M)
  • San Mateo County Transit District (4.7%, $50M)
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (25.1%, $264.07M)

Small Operators:

  • Contra Costa County small operators (1.5%, $15.75M)
  • Alameda County small operators (0.5%, $5.25M)
  • SF Bay Ferry (0.7%, $7M)
  • Golden Gate Transit (0.1%, $1M)

Without new and sustainable operations funding, the BART Board could shut down two of its five lines, close as many as 15 stations, and reduce service from 4,500 trains per week to just 500, with trains running only hourly and no weekend service. (See related article AH) related article CCH)

The false and misleading case for the Measure B Sales Tax

By 1 Comment

By Marc Joffe

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

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

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

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

The Dubious Claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications Beyond Measure B

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

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

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

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

BART Board votes 8-1 to close up to 15 stations if proposed tax measure fails

By 5 Comments

The BART Board voted to close four stations in Contra Costa County if the proposed Nov. sales tax measure fails. Source: BART

Contra Costa’s 4 representatives vote to adopt Alternative Service Plan to balance budget including 1,170 employee layoffs

Ridership still down 50% post-COVID

By Allen D. Payton

On Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026, the BART Board of Directors, on vote of 8-1, adopted an Alternative Service Plan outlining specific budget balancing details to solve a $376M deficit for the next fiscal year if no new funds become available to BART. According to a District press release, BART is facing a structural deficit of $350M to $400M because ridership is still down 50% compared to pre-pandemic levels and BART’s current funding model relies heavily on passenger fares.

As previously reported by the Herald, the stations on the list for potential Phase 1 closure in January 2027 include the 10 lowest ridership stations: North Concord, Orinda, Pittsburg Center, Oakland International Airport, West Dublin/Pleasanton, Castro Valley, San Bruno, South Hayward, South San Francisco and Warm Springs/South Fremont.

Phase 2 Closures Include Pittsburg/Bay Point and Antioch Stations

The Phase 2 – July 2027 Segment Closure Scenario, Contingent on Phase 1 implementation, would result in a 70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles; Segment closures would stop service on most system segments opened after 1976: Yellow line service would end at Concord, shuttering the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Antioch Stations; Orange line service would end at Bay Fair,; Blue line service would be discontinued shuttering the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station; Most stations south of Daly City would be closed except for direct service to SFO would continue for revenue retention; Service continues to Milpitas and Berryessa due to terms of BART/VTA agreements.

Based on Proposed Transit Tax Measure Failing

The plan is based on the assumption a sales tax increase measure proposed for the November ballot in five Bay Area counties fails. As previously reported, voters would be asked to consider a one-half sales tax increase in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and a one-cent sales tax increase in San Francisco County. The 14-year regional transportation sales tax would generate approximately $980 million annually with 60 percent dedicated to preserving service on BART, Muni, Caltrain and AC Transit, as well as San Francisco Bay Ferry and smaller transit agencies providing service in the five counties to keep buses, trains and ferries moving, including WestCat, County Connection and Tri Delta Transit. About one-third of the revenue would go to Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Santa Clara VTA, SamTrans and the Alameda County Transportation Commission, with flexibility to use funds for transit capital, operations, or road paving projects on roads with regular bus service.

Also, as previously reported, an effort is underway to gather signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The sales tax increase would be in addition to the half-cent sales tax for BART operations in Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco counties in place since the 1960’s.

Motion and Vote Details

Following public comments and discussion among the Board members a vote was taken on the following motion: The Board adopts the attached Resolution “In the Matter of Initially Approving an Alternative Service Plan to Take Effect January 2027 in the Event the Connect Bay Area Measure Fails to Receive Voter Approval at the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026 and BART is Unable to Secure Other Revenue Sources.”

The motion was made by District 4 Director Robert Raburn, seconded by District 1 Director Matt Rinn, and passed on a vote of 8-1 with the additional support of District 7 Director Victor Flores, District 2 Director Mark Foley, District 3 Director Barnali Gosh, District 8 Director Janice Li, Board Vice President and District 9 Director Edward Wright and Board President and District 5 Director Melissa Hernandez.

District 6 Director Liz Ames was the only member of the Board of Directors to vote “No”.

Rinn represents portions of Central Contra Costa County, all of Lamorinda and most of the San Ramon Valley, Foley represents portions of Central County and all of East County, Gosh represents all of West County and Hernandez represents portions of San Ramon.

Approved Plan Details

The plan includes specific cuts and financial strategies needed to balance both the FY27 (July 1, 2026-June 30, 2027) and FY28 (July 1, 2027-June 30, 2028) budgets. The plan includes service cuts, station closures, fare increases, a 40% reduction in system support services, laying off 1,170 employees and a series of deferrals and one-time resources. The plan does not name specific stations to be closed and makes clear the BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station closures. You can read the Alternative Service Plan resolution, resolution attachment and presentation to the BART Board.

BART has already made budget cuts across all departments and instituted a series of cost controls, including rightsizing service, labor savings, operational efficiencies, and reducing BART’s office space footprint. At the same time, BART has also worked to increase revenue by installing new fare gates, leasing out BART parking lots, and offering new fare products such as Clipper BayPass. View a detailed list of cost savings implement by BART at bart.gov/fiscalcliff.

Alternative Service Plan Details

To take place in January 2027:

  • 3-line service (Yellow, Blue, and Orange line service only, with limited peak service in only the peak commute direction on the Red and Green lines).
  • 30-minute frequencies on every line.
  • Closing at 9 pm seven days a week.
  • This service plan represents a 63% reduction in train hours.
  • 30% fare and parking fee increases (the estimated average fare would increase from $4.98 to $6.38).
  • Target approximately $30M in savings over 6 months from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
  • Continue deferrals of priority capital allocations and retiree medical contributions.
  • Balance remainder of FY27 with one-time resources and financial deferrals.

Following the January 2027 cuts, staff will continuously assess ridership and revenue impacts and the performance of all District functions to determine if further reductions can be safely and legally implemented.

To take place in July 2027 if feasibly safe:

  • Target over $175M in annual cost reductions through a cumulative 70% reduction in service hours:
  • Maintain 3-line service, 30-minute frequencies on each line, closing at 9pm.
  • Close up to 15 stations and/or up to 25% of system track miles.
  • The BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station or line segment closures.
  • Increase fares and parking fees up to a cumulative 50%. The estimated average fare would increase to $7.26.
  • Target annual operating expense savings of more than a cumulative $130M from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
  • Continue to defer retiree health contributions; defer most remaining capital allocations.

Contingency:

  • If at any point it is determined BART can’t safely or legally operate with available resources, stop passenger service.
  • Use existing District tax revenues to secure system assets.
  • Work to determine system’s future.

Use of the State Loan  

BART can’t use state loan money to avoid station closures and service cuts if no new revenue becomes available because without new revenue, there is no way to pay the loan back. The state loan primarily helps with cash flow if a November 2026 transit funding measure is successful. It is a bridge loan that gives BART reassurances money will be available to continue to deliver the best service possible until the sales tax dollars from the successful ballot measure become available for BART’s use. This is projected to happen in July 2027 but could take longer. If a funding measure succeeds, BART will use $97M in loan funds to help balance the FY27 budget.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Taxpayers Association president suggests merging Contra Costa bus agencies to save costs instead of tax increase

By Leave a Comment

By Marc Joffe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Contra Costa Taxpayers Association calls Supervisors’ ballot measure “Another Money Grab”

By Leave a Comment

5 years after raising sales tax with Measure X

By Denise P. Kalm, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Little more than five years after raising our sales taxes, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors is going back to the well. On Tuesday, they voted unanimously to move forward with another sales tax increase, further increasing the costs of everyday essentials and making the County even more unaffordable for seniors and working families alike. (See related article)

Although Supervisors express pride over how 2020 Measure X sales tax revenue was spent, many of us question whether the money is going to core government functions. A recent oversight report listed these Measure X funded projects: Office of Racial Equity and Social Justice, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Democracy Initiative, African American Holistic Wellness Center & Resource Hub and a Guaranteed Income Pilot. While many readers may agree with these projects, many taxpayers do not, and so they should be privately funded.

As the accompanying graph shows, County revenues have risen sharply in recent years with the passage of the Measure X and increased federal grants to County programs. When I quoted statistics from this graph, Supervisors questioned my accuracy, so let me assure them that the numbers come from the County’s own audited financial reports and budget.

Source: CoCoTax

A large share of the increase relates to Medi-Cal, a federal/state program that funds healthcare for low-income residents. Contra Costa County has aggressively involved itself in Medi-Cal, creating a pioneering Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) plan to provide care to Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

Between 2020 and 2025, the cost of Contra Costa County’s Medi-Cal Plan surged 157% from less than $900 million to almost $2.3 billion. A major contributor to this growth was the decision to extend Medi-Cal benefits to adult undocumented immigrants. According to state data, over 30,000 undocumented Contra Costa adults were receiving free healthcare through Medi-Cal last year.

Until recently, this was not a financial problem for the county because it was able to shift the cost onto the state and federal governments. But now this is becoming more difficult with Congressional Republicans, the Trump Administration and even the state government restricting reimbursements for undocumented immigrant coverage.

To continue growing this program, the Supervisors are now looking to residents to cover the tab by adding 0.625% to our sales taxes Countywide.

I realize that neighbors have a variety of views about immigration. Personally, I think the US should allow more of the talented people we need as well as a program to allow temporary, migrant workers to come here, which might go to support their request to immigrate here legally.

While I am for legal immigration, I do not agree that local communities should be on the hook to provide free medical care to anyone who comes here and completes an application. That policy is unsustainable, and unfair to the rest of us who pay a lot of money for healthcare. There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who would love to come to northern California and not have to worry about our high cost of living, including our high healthcare costs.

While I think we should welcome new neighbors, we should expect them to either shoulder the costs of living here or find friends, relatives, and charitable organizations that will help them do so.

Finally, the pro-tax side may portray your yes vote as a way to resist Trump and DC Republicans. But I urge you to hold two opinions simultaneously that may seem contradictory yet aren’t: you can hate the Administration’s hostile treatment of immigrants while also believing that local government should be fiscally responsible.  We have to manage our budgets carefully; those taking our tax money should be just as responsible.

If Supervisors are able to pass this sales tax in 2026 by a wide margin, there is every reason to think that they will come back for even more taxes in the years ahead with cities following them.  We already know that a transit sales tax increase of 0.5% is likely to be on the November ballot, another case of failing to manage BART and AC Transit money prudently.  So, I hope you’ll vote no in June, talk to your friends, and consider volunteering with our group to oppose this measure.

For more information about the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association visit www.cocotax.org.

Contra Costa Supervisors vote 5-0 to place 5-year 5/8-cent sales tax increase on June ballot

By 1 Comment

To pay for healthcare costs, offsetting cuts in federal budget

If passed, sales tax rate in 10 of the 19 cities in the county would increase by 0.625% to over 10%

By Allen D. Payton

During their regular, weekly meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors decided to tell the taxpayers that they love our money by giving an early Valentine’s Day gift of a 5/8-cent sales tax increase measure on the June ballot. As a general tax, a simple majority of voters will have to give it their support in order to pass. If they do, it will generate an estimated $150 million per year for five years for a total of $750 million, intended to pay for healthcare for county residents impacted by federal budget cuts.

To adopt the sales tax ordinance a 4/5 vote of the Board was required but it passed unanimously. According to the proposed “2026 Retail Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Ordinance”, all of the proceeds from the tax will be placed in the County’s general fund and used for purposes consistent with general fund expenditures of the County.

Screenshot of Board of Supervisors 5-0 vote on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, to adopt resolution placing sales tax increase on the June 2026 ballot.

Timeline to the Supes Vote

In the staff presentation for the proposed ordinance, the supervisors were provided with the timeline of events that led up to their vote: On November 18, 2025, the County Administrator’s Office offered a presentation on the State Budget and impacts of H.R.1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump which cuts healthcare expenditures. Then, on December 16th, the Health, Employment and Human Services departments provided an in-depth presentation on federal and state financial impacts. That was followed on January 20th by Board direction for seeking legislation allowing for an additional 0.625% general sales tax and development of a related taxing ordinance for a period of five years. Finally, during last Tuesday, February 3rd’s Board Retreat, presentations from Beacon Economics, the County Finance Director, California Welfare Director’s Association (CWDA) and the California Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems (CAPH) were made to the Board.

Projected Sales Tax Levels by City

If the measure passes, the amount of sales tax collected in each city in the county will increase by 0.625% or 62.5 cents for each $100 spent on taxable items. The presentation shows the sales tax increase would cause 15 of the 19 cities in the county to be above the local sales tax cap, including the tax cap changes from SB1349. That law, passed in 2020, allowed Contra Costa County to impose a sales tax of up to 0.5% for transportation projects, which is exempt from the state’s 2% cap. According to an April 2025 Issue Brief on Sales and Use Tax by the California State Association of Counties, “Today, the statewide sales tax rate on eligible taxable goods is 7.25%.”

According to the CA Department of Tax and Fee Administration, “The…7.25%…is made up of three parts:

  • 6.00% State
  • 1.00% Local Jurisdiction
  • 0.25% Local Transportation Fund

Some components of the state rate go to various local revenue funds.”

In addition, “Cities may impose a rate of up to one percent (1%).”

In California, the local sales tax cap is generally set at 3.5% above the 6% state sales tax rate for a total of 9.5%.

Following is the list of the new sales tax amounts by city if the county measure passes:

Source: Contra Costa County

The cities with the highest current sales tax rates in the state are Alameda and Albany at 10.75%. With the proposed Contra Costa sales tax increase, El Cerrito and Pinole would have the highest sales tax rate in both the county and state at 10.875%. Antioch would have the second highest in the county at 10.375%. That does not include other sales taxes that may be passed in 2026 including the regional transit tax slated for the November 2026 ballot, which would be an additional 0.5% Countywide. (See related article)

Gioia Offers Comments on Facebook, in TV Interview

In a post by John Gioia on his Facebook page, today, Feb. 11th, he shared a video of his comments during a KTVU FOX2 interview “about why a unanimous bi-partisan Board of Supervisors is placing a 5/8 cent temporary 5-year sales tax on this June’s ballot to protect our county’s hard working families from Trump’s devastating health, human services and food assistance cuts.”

“The average Contra Costan would pay about $10 per month to prevent over 50,000 people from losing healthcare and crowding emergency rooms that we all use and protecting emergency response times,” he added.

Resolution Details

The Resolution adopted by the Board includes the following clauses, “On July 4, 2025, the President signed H.R. 1, which enacted the deepest cuts in our country’s history to Medicaid and the federal food assistance programs;

“Medicaid and Medicare are the largest sources of revenue for the County’s public health and hospital/clinic system, which provide lifesaving and essential care to county residents, including Medi-Cal beneficiaries, Medicare recipients, and uninsured residents.

“H.R. 1 immediately freezes supplemental Medicaid funding and blocks the County from drawing down expected supplemental payments, producing escalating negative impacts on the County’s budget, while simultaneously making significant eligibility changes which will cause thousands of county residents to lose health coverage;

“Lack of health coverage often causes people to delay medical care resulting in sicker residents and will increase demand for emergency care sought by residents no longer able to access preventative healthcare after losing insurance coverage;

“More than 335,000 County residents rely on Medi-Cal for their health care, and the County is the primary health-care provider for this population;

“H.R. 1 also makes substantial reductions to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), limiting food assistance relied upon by approximately 110,000 county residents;

“As a result of the federal funding cuts and rising costs, the County projects annual revenue losses exceeding $300 million by 2029;

“The combination of decreased federal funding with the increased demands on the County’s healthcare and social services threatens ALL County services, from public safety to homeless services;

“An additional five-eighths of one cent countywide general transaction and use tax (sales tax) would generate an estimated $150 million annually for five years…”

Adopted Proposed Ballot Measure Language

The resolution also includes the proposed ballot measure language pending approval by the County Clerk’s Office:

“To help Contra Costa County address deep cuts in federal funding; support critical local services such as health care, supplemental food assistance, and other general county services; and reduce the risk of closures at Contra Costa’s regional hospital and health clinics, shall Contra Costa County adopt a five-eighths of one cent general sales tax for 5 years, providing an estimated $150,000,000 annually, not available to the federal government and subject to annual audits and independent citizens oversight?”

The primary election will be held Tuesday, June 2, 2026.

For more details see Discussion Item D.2. on the Board Agenda for their meeting on Feb. 10, 2026, and watch the meeting video beginning at the 2:20:18-minute mark.

Guest Commentary: There are better alternatives to BART’s cutback plan

By 2 Comments

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

By Marc Joffe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association