Top two candidates in Congressional, Assembly races set for November runoffs

By Allen D. Payton

Four new leaders were elected, and three leaders were re-elected in Contra Costa County Tuesday night. One countywide ballot measure passed, while two failed and the November run-off candidates were decided for both congressional districts.

New Leaders

As of the latest June 2026 Primary Election Night Results posted by the Contra Costa Elections Division Wednesday, June 3, 2026, 12:46:24 AM, three new candidates in competitive countywide races led by large margins. Dr. Dana Eaton dominates Dr. Jag Lathan for Superintendent of Schools with 99,939 votes or 73.44% to 36,139 or 26.565 of the vote; for Auditor-Controller, Peter Karumbi is ahead of Deepika Naharas 107,672 votes or 79.23% to 28,223 or 20.77% of the vote; and in the Assessor’s race, Vince Robb is beating both his opponents, Nick Spinner and Kismet Kathrani with 99,681 votes or 67.99% to 33,165 or 22.62% and 13,722 or 9.39% of the vote, respectively. Since Robb received more than 50% of the vote, there will be no top-two runoff in November.

Appointed Treasurer-Tax Collector Dan Mierzwa had no opponent and was elected to the position with 127,277 votes.

“I went all in just to go for this. I’m surprised at how high the percentage is especially since it was a race with two opponents,” Robb said when reached for comment. “I’m grateful to the voters of the county for placing their trust in me. I’m thankful they looked to my experience and the office overall and see we’re a well-oiled machine. The staff there is great. This is a victory for the staff, there, too. We treat people like they want to be treated. I look forward to serving the people and the businesses in Contra Costa for the next four years.”

Efforts to reach the winning candidates in the other contested countywide races were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Re-Elected Leaders

County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Kristin Connelly was the only incumbent County official facing an opponent, this year. She is way ahead of challenger Pratima Sonavne with 124,794 votes or 87.02% to 18,611 or 12.98% of the vote.

Incumbent County Supervisors John Gioia in District 1 and Ken Carlson in District 4 also ran unopposed and were re-elected to four-year terms on the Board. Gioia received 20,898 votes while Carlson received 30,446, so far.

Ballot Measures – Urban Limit Line Extended, But County Sales Tax, College Bond Fail

For the three countywide ballot measures, Election Night results show only one is passing. Measure A, the Urban Limit Line renewal by more than 2-to-1. The yes votes total 107,061 or 67.91% and the no votes total 50,593 or 32.09% of the vote.

But Measure B, the County’s half-cent sales tax failed with 66,118 yes votes or 41.41% to 95,300 no votes or 58.59% of the vote. Measure G, the College District bond which required 55% to pass also failed, only receiving 74,995 yes votes or 46.78% to 85,329 no votes or 53.22% of the vote.

(See separate article for local measures, later).

The latest results from the Secretary of State show the following:

November Congressional Candidates Set

In the race for the new 9th Congressional district which now includes Antioch, Pittsburg, portions of Oakley and most of San Joaquin County, incumbent Democrat Representative Josh Harder will face Republican John McBride in November. Harder has 40,267 votes or 57.7% to McBride’s 16,997 or 24.4%. The other three Republican candidates were Martin Veprauskas with 5,876 or 8.4%, Khalid Jeffrey Jafri with 5,330 or 7.6% and Parminder “Happy” Singh with 1,313 or 1.9% of the vote.

In the new 10th District, which includes most of Contra Costa County and a small portion of Alameda County, incumbent Democrat Representative Mark DeSaulnier will face Republican Jeff Frese. The congressman has 69,312 votes or 57.3% to Frese’ 18,253 or 15.1%. Two other Republicans, threepeat candidate Katherine Piccinini has 15,409 votes or 12.7% to Dr. Angela Griffiths’ 8,500 or 7.0% of the vote. Three other Democrats trailed with 4,045 votes or 3.3% for Joshua Hamilton, 3,420 or 2.8% for Mitchell Maisler and 2,026 or 1.7% of the vote for Bob Rowland.

In the new 8th District, which includes portions of West County, Democrat incumbent Democrat Representative John Garamendi with 51,388 votes or 53.4% of the vote, will once again face Republican Rudy Recile, with 30,750 votes or 32.0%, in November. Recile beat out two Democrats, Nicolas Carjuzza who has 10% and Aaron Rowden who has 4.7% of the vote.

November Assembly Candidates Set

In the 15th Assembly District (AD), which includes northern and eastern portions of the county, incumbent Democrat Annamarie Avila-Farias had only one opponent in the primary, Arthur Webb, registered No Party Preference referred to as independent. She was leading him by 40,930 votes or 66.5% to 20,616 or 33.5% of the vote.

In the 16th AD, which includes Walnut Creek, Lamorinda and the San Ramon Valley, incumbent Democrat Rebecca Bauer-Kahan will again face Republican Joseph Rubay in November. She’s beating him and independent candidate, Chirag Kathrani, by 48,559 votes or 61.4% to 27,811 or 35.2% and 2,676 or 3.4% of the vote, respectively.

In the 14th AD, which includes most of West County, incumbent Democrat Buffy Wicks will face Republican challenger, Borgar Solnordal in November. She is leading him and Green Party candidate, Mark Rendon, by 43,584 votes or 78.7% to 6,924 or 12.5% and 4,839 or 8.7% of the vote, respectively.

Finally, in the 11th AD, which includes portions of far East County, incumbent Democrat Lori Wilson will face independent candidate Jenny Leilani Callison in November. Wilson is beating her and independent Rochelle Carter by 44,608 votes or 63.4% to 17,572 or 25% and 8,199 or 11.6% of the vote, respectively.

Ballots Still to Be Counted

Ballots postmarked by Tuesday will still be counted if they arrive at the County Elections Division within seven days following the election. The Clerk has 28 days to certify the election, but that can happen much quicker with the low-voter turn-out which is common for non-presidential year primary elections. So far, votes from 23.88% of those registered to vote in the county have been counted. That number is expected to increase but not by much.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Would allow for expansion near Byron Airport, contractions elsewhere including next to Antioch

Will not affect Antioch’s ULL

By Allen D. Payton

On Tuesday’s Primary Election ballot in Contra Costa County is Measure A, the 2026 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line also referred to as the Urban Limit Line and Land Preservation Plan Amendment Measure. Voters are asked whether or not to extend the County’s current Urban Limit Line (ULL) for 25 more years, as well as expand and contract it, placing a net of almost 9,500 more acres outside the line.

The ballot language reads, “Shall the measure amending the Contra Costa County General Plan and the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance to continue protections to the County’s non-urban, agricultural, and open space areas by extending the term of the County’s Urban Limit Line through December 31, 2051; adopting an updated Urban Limit Line map; requiring voter approval, except under limited circumstances, to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres; and retaining the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, be adopted?”

The county’s first ULL was voter-approved in 1990 and was renewed in 2006 which lasted 20 years.

Each of the 19 cities have their own voter-approved ULL, which supersede the County’s ULL, in order to receive local street maintenance funds from Measure J, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation. The City of Antioch did that when voters there established their own line and moved the County’s line back out in 2004, after the Board of Supervisors moved it in and cut off the land previously planned for the Roddy Ranch golf course and housing development. That land was later sold to the East Bay Regional Park District and is planned for a park.

So, Measure A will not affect each city’s ULL, only land in the unincorporated portions of the county. But it will move outside the County’s ULL a section of land, currently outside the Antioch city limits bordered by Deer Valley and Empire Mine Roads, where long-time Antioch residents might remember the “party barn” was located, on property now known as Ginochio West in planning documents. It would be constrained to public or easement use.

Will Extend County ULL by 25 Years, Allow Expansion Near Byron Airport, Contractions Elsewhere

According to the County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of the measure,“In 2004, voters approved Measure J-2004, which extended a local transportation sales tax (Measure C-1988) by 25 years and allowed the County to receive a share of those sale tax proceeds provided the County had a voter-approved ULL.

“In 2006, voters approved Measure L-2006, which extended the term of the ULL to December 31, 2026. In order (for the County) to continue to be eligible to receive transportation sales tax proceeds after 2026, the ULL must be extended beyond 2026. This measure would extend the County’s ULL for 25 years, through December 31, 2051.

In addition, “the measure would amend the County’s 2045 General Plan and the 65/35 Ordinance to accomplish the following: (1) extend the term of the 65/35 Ordinance from December 31, 2026, through December 31, 2051; (2) require four-fifths vote of the County Board of Supervisors and voter approval to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres (except under limited circumstances); (3) provide for periodic reviews of the ULL by the Board of Supervisors and a required review involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) update and expand the criteria for moving land outside the ULL; (5) incorporate a revised ULL map that among other things delineates an area of future potential expansion near the Byron Airport; and (6) retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County’s prime agricultural land. This measure will become effective immediately if approved by a majority of the voters voting on the measure.”

The proposed County ULL would include contractions totaling 11,098 acres and expansion of 1,603 acres for net 9,495 more acres placed outside the Urban Limit Line. (See map). However, the acreage does not include the Byron Airport Potential ULL Expansion Area.

Yes on A Campaign’s Main Argument

The main argument of the Yes on Measure A campaign, paid for by Save Mount Diablo and supported by nine other organizations, is “The Urban Limit Line helps prevent traffic from getting worse. The more people have to drive, and the more cars on the road, the worse traffic gets. This election, say YES to protecting our open space and agriculture, safety from wildfire, limiting traffic, and encouraging housing where it makes sense.”

No on A Campaign’s Main Argument

The main argument of the No on Measure A campaign, paid for by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association is that “Measure A removes an additional 9,460 acres — equivalent to 14.78 square miles — from any possible urban housing use through 2051. That is larger than 10 of the 19 cities in Contra Costa County. Calling this a routine renewal misleads voters about what is actually on the ballot.”

The campaign also claims, “When Contra Costa restricts its land supply, families don’t disappear. They move — and commute back.”

Analysis: Growth is inevitable and acts much like a balloon, when it is restricted in one area, growth expands elsewhere. Such as in the Central Valley which feeds not only our state, but nation and world, and where land is cheaper and unfortunately, farmers can make more money selling to developers than farming. The result is commuters driving further to work and blowing more polluting smoke out of their tailpipes, defeating the goals of the environmentalists.

At the same time, there’s plenty of room inside the current ULL’s of the cities for more housing growth to occur, especially in East County. Plus, the measure includes a potential expansion near the Byron Airport where commercial and/or mixed-used development could occur, as the long-planned, four-lane Route 239 between Brentwood and Tracy are built, the runway is potentially extended, a fixed base operation and fuel farm are built there, and a possible transit stop located there, as well.

Read more information on the websites for both the Yes on Measure A and No on Measure A campaigns.

See the Full Text of the Measure.

Brentwood Union School District Superintendent will apply his student-centered approach countywide

“We have a moral responsibility to make sure our children’s education is better than the one that we received,” – Dr. Dana Eaton

By Lisa Tucker

BRENTWOOD – In January, Dana Eaton launched his candidacy for Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools. This is an open seat. 

“Students and learning are at the center of my work as superintendent of schools for the Brentwood Union School District and in my previous roles as a teacher and principal,” said Eaton.  “I have consistently championed early literacy, student mental health, supporting the whole child, and school safety as foundational priorities, and will continue to do so as Contra Costa Superintendent of Schools.” 

Dr. Eaton is serving his 13th year as superintendent of schools for the Brentwood Union School District and his 17th year as a superintendent overall.  According to his LinkedIn profile, he previously worked as Superintendent for the Jefferson School District in Tracy from 2009 to 2013. Eaton has a nearly 30-year career in education including as a teacher and principal.

He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies from San Francisco State University, a Master’s degree in Educational Leadership from Saint Mary’s College of California and a Doctor of Education – EdD degree in Educational Leadership from the University of La Verne.

Eaton currently serves on the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team State Governing Board, the state’s school finance oversight organization; the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence Superintendent Advisory Panel, the state’s support provider to school districts in need of academic assistance; and, is state president of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Superintendency Council, where he advocates on behalf of students, teachers, and educational leaders at the state and federal level.

“This experience has prepared me to help districts maintain sound fiscal practices and improve their Local Contral and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to provide outstanding educational opportunities to every student,” said Eaton.

Current Contra Costa Superintendent of Schools, Lynn Mackey, is retiring and will not run for re-election. She has endorsed Eaton, stating “Dana is a highly experienced, well-respected superintendent here in Contra Costa County.  He is deeply committed to public education, understands the role of the County Office, and brings steady, student-centered leadership.”

During a campaign fundraiser on April 7th, the candidate said, “I really believe in the power of public education. At the same time, I think we’re in a time when we are at risk for our children and our children’s children having an inferior education. I think that as adults who have benefited from a public education that we have a moral responsibility to make sure our children’s education is better than the one that we received. And that’s why I’m running for County Superintendent of Schools.”

In recognition of Eaton’s leadership, he was named ACSA Superintendent of the Year for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in both 2016 and 2023.  He was also named Brentwood Citizen of the Year in 2019 by the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce.

“As Superintendent, I will work to attract and support high-quality teachers and prioritize student success and learning whether in general education, special education, or alternative settings,” said Eaton.

Eaton comes from a long line of educators. His grandparents, mother, sister and wife all served their communities as teachers. Eaton lives in Brentwood with his family. 

The primary election is in June in which he faces one opponent. Whoever receives a majority of the vote wins and will begin their term in December.

For more information about Dr. Eaton and his campaign visit www.eatonforschools.com.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Jimmy Lee, Director of Public Affairs, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff

Memorial Day weekend marks the traditional start of boating season on the Delta. The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff is urging all boaters to stay safe while enjoying the water.

“Many boating accidents can be avoided by planning ahead,” said Contra Costa Sheriff David Livingston. “80% of boating fatalities could have been prevented by wearing a life jacket. Fol-lowing the law and these tips could help you stay safe on the water.”

California Boater Card Required – Anyone who operates a motorized vessel must carry a California Boater Card. Learn more at californiaboatercard.com.

Engine Cut-off Switch – Last year, California law required the use of an engine cut-off switch—also known as a kill switch or lanyard—on ves-sels under 26 feet. This safety device must be worn by the operator when at the helm and operating above 5 mph or dis-placement speeds. This law is designed to prevent runaway boat incidents in the event the operator is thrown from the helm, adding another layer of safety to California waterways.

Life Jackets Save Lives – All vessels, including stand-up paddleboards (SUPs), must carry a U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket for each person on board. Life jackets must be the correct size for the intended wearer and children under 13 must wear a life jacket at all times aboard a vessel, unless in a fully enclosed cabin. Everyone is strongly encouraged to wear a life jacket at all times on the water.

Boating Under the Influence (B.U.I.) – Operating a vessel under the influence of drugs or alcohol is illegal and dangerous. Boaters arrested for B.U.I. face similar consequences to D.U.I. drivers, including fines, license suspension, and possible jail.

Safe Navigation Practices – Always operate at safe speeds, especially in narrow channels or areas with limited visibility. Stay to the right side of the waterway. In crossing situations, the vessel to the right has the right of way.

Ski Flags and Observers – While engaged in towing activities, an observer who holds the ski flag, at the minimum age of 12 years old, must display the ski flag when required: a downed skier in the water, a skier in the water preparing to ski, a line is in the water extended from the vessel, and a ski or similar equipment is in the water in the vicinity of the vessel.

Blue Light Law – Boaters must slow to a no-wake speed when approaching/being approached by any law enforcement or emergency vessel displaying an illuminated blue light, whether the patrol vessel is moving or stationary.

Emergency Preparedness – Carry an emergency kit that includes a flashlight, warm clothing, a cell phone, VHF radio, and navigational charts. Before heading out, file a float plan. Learn how to create a float plan at: https://uscgboating.org/recreational-boaters/floating-plan.php

Carbon Monoxide Awareness – Be cautious of carbon monoxide buildup, especially when sitting on the swim platform or near the boat’s transom while the engine is running.

Youth Operation Rules – Children ages 12–15 may operate boats with motors over 15 horse-power or sailboats over 30 feet only if directly supervised by an adult (18+) who holds a California Boater Card.

Throwables Required – Boats 16 feet and longer must carry a U.S. Coast Guard-approved throwable flotation device, such as a life ring or square cushion, which must be easily accessible.

Additional Resources – The ABC’s of Boating safety handbook is available at most boating retailers. Visit dbw.ca.gov for more boating laws, safety tips, and California Boater Card information. For questions or non-emergency assistance, contact the Marine Services Unit at (925) 427-8507.

In emergencies, Dial 911 or call Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office Dispatch at (925) 646-2441.

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 standard for 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. here and 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.

1.79% decrease in revenue from the current year revised budget resulting in $125 million decrease in expenditures

By Kristi Jourdan, PIO, Contra Costa County Office of Communications & Media

(Martinez, CA) – On Tuesday, May 19, 2026, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the $7.248 billion Fiscal Year 2026-2027 County and Special Districts Budget during its regular meeting at 9 a.m., in Board Chambers in Martinez.

The budget reflects the Board’s continued commitment to delivering essential public services amid the growing challenges counties face as federal and state funding shifts. The projected revenue represents a 1.79% decrease from the current year revised budget. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 1.70% or $125.63M to $7.25B in FY2027.

“Contra Costa County is preparing thoughtfully and responsibly for what lies ahead,” said Board Chair Diane Burgis, District 3 Supervisor. “As we navigate continued fiscal uncertainty, our priority remains protecting essential services, supporting vulnerable residents, and maintaining long-term fiscal stability. Community input during budget discussions will help guide the County’s priorities and decisions in the coming year and beyond.”

The budget is balanced using a combination of ongoing revenues and one-time departmental funds, as departments respond to increasing costs and evolving policy changes.

Responding to Federal and State Changes

The upcoming fiscal year is expected to be significantly affected by state and federal policy changes, including H.R. 1, which will reduce funding and tighten eligibility for safety-net programs such as Medi-Cal and CalFresh. These changes are likely to increase demand for County services while reducing outside funding support.

Contra Costa County’s Health Services and Employment and Human Services departments are among the most affected and will rely on one-time fund balances to maintain services in the near term. Approximately 53 percent of the County’s budget is funded by state and federal sources.

The budget includes 11,261 full-time equivalent positions, with continued efforts to manage vacancies, control costs, and align staffing with service needs. 

Fiscal Outlook and Community Impact

While balanced for the coming fiscal year, the budget reflects ongoing fiscal pressures, including:

• Uncertainty in federal and state funding and implementation of H.R. 1;
• Rising labor and operational costs; and
• Slower growth in local revenues.

To help address these challenges, the Board of Supervisors has placed a five-year, 5/8-cent general-purpose sales tax measure on the June ballot. If approved by voters and authorized by the state, the measure is projected to generate approximately $150 million annually to help stabilize services during this period of transition.

Regardless of the outcome, the County anticipates future budget adjustments to ensure ongoing revenues match expenditures.

Additional information on the County’s strategic plan, General Purpose Revenue allocations, budgeted positions, and key budget issues are available in the FY26-27 Recommended Budget book.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Lisa Tucker

PACHECO – Assistant County Assessor Vince Robb is campaigning for Contra Costa County Assessor in this year’s election. “I am running for County Assessor to ensure the fair and accurate assessment of every residential, commercial and business property in Contra Costa County,” he stated.

Robb is the current Assistant County Assessor, bringing a unique skillset, special technical knowledge and the legally required state certification needed to serve on day one. He has worked in the Assessor’s Office for almost 21 years, either in or has overseen the operation of every division. In that time, the office has had near-perfect evaluations for accuracy from the State of California. He also leads the valuation teams in assessment appeal cases before the County’s Assessment Appeals Board.

“I have the insight and experience to continue to modernize daily operations, keep records secure, and steward your tax dollars responsibly and fairly,” said Robb.

Robb is a member of the California Assessors Association and the Government Finance Officers Association.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Robb is a lifelong resident of Contra Costa County and earned a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in Business and Economics from Saint Mary’s College of California in 2004.

He serves as Chair of the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council, and as a volunteer youth baseball and soccer coach for his three children.

You can learn more about Robb and his campaign at www.vincerobbforassessor.com.

The election is Tuesday, June 2nd in which he faces two opponents. If no candidate receives 50 percent plus one vote, the top two vote-getters will face off in the General Election in November.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Over 16 positions saved at request of three trustees, but no teachers

Board first heard from state’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team CEO

By Allen D. Payton

During another long meeting, the Antioch School Board, on Wednesday night, May 13, 2026, on split votes cut the District budget, and laid off 159 employees including 48 teachers and 30 other Certificated staff. Area 3 Trustee Dee Brown voted to abstain on all three votes. But the Board voted unanimously to accept the offer of one-day furloughs by Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams and administrative staff, including principals. That will save the District about $117,000.

The meeting and votes followed split votes the previous Wednesday when the Board majority opposed the budget and staff cuts. The Board again met at 7:00 p.m. in the Deer Valley High School Theater with the expectation of a greater turnout than the District’s Board Room could accommodate. But that, once again, proved to be unnecessary as very few teachers, staff and members of the public attended the meeting.

The District was facing a $31.5 million budget deficit and the proposed budget cuts totaled $18.7 million. But how much was actually cut wasn’t clear due to the over 16 Classified staff positions that were saved. Also saved, was the District from a potential takeover by the State and County Offices of Education, known as receivership.

The Board faced two deadlines requiring them to vote to make the cuts that night. First, the District had to give final layoff notices to employees by Thursday, May 14th as well as submit their financial plan to the County Office of Education by Friday, May 15th.

The trustees heard from District staff, including Bob Carson, president of the Antioch Education Association, the local teachers’ union, who supported the cuts to avoid the takeover and from residents who opposed them.

Then the Board was provided a presentation Regarding Projected Cash Flow by Mike Fine, the Chief Executive Officer of the California Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), which, “assists and provides guidance to local educational agencies in the areas of business and financial management practices.” He described his organization as “the guardian of the receivership process” but stressed to the trustees that FCMAT’s efforts were to work with financially challenged districts to avoid it.

“The majority of our work is absolutely avoiding receivership,” he added, which he estimated to be 80% of FCMAT’s work.

Fine also informed the Board and District leadership that the expected May Revised Budget from Governor Newsom on Thursday would change the financial figures being discussed and that it would be positive for the District. That turned out to possibly be true as the governor’s 2026-27 budget proposal increases spending on K-12 by $2.5 billion. (See related article)

Trustee Requests & Board Votes

Following several responses to questions by District staff and requests by individual trustees to save certain jobs, including school psychiatrists and Reading Intervention Teachers by Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha and Paraeducators by Area 3 Trustee Dee Brown, who was also unsatisfied with requests for information from District staff not being provided, the Board took three split votes.

Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos-Smith was satisfied that the District didn’t need one psychiatrist per school because best practices only required one for every 500 to 700 students. That was enough for her to change her “no” vote on the budget from last week. After Rocha was satisfied with the explanation from District staff that they had a plan to handle the loss of the Reading Intervention Teachers, she joined the other three trustees in voting in favor of cutting the Classified staff positions.

At 11:34 PM, on a vote of 3-1-1 with Rocha voting “no” and Brown voting to abstain, the Trustees approved the Budget Reduction Plan including the concessions that saved several specific jobs.

The Board the voted 3-1-1, again, on final layoffs of 78 Certificated employees which, were mainly teachers. 

After Rocha was able to get the other board members to agree to saving the jobs of the Behavior Support Specialists (3 FTE), Board Certified Behavior Analyst (1 FTE) and Instructional Assistants – Bilingual (12.4275 FTE), the Trustees voted 4-0-1 on final layoffs of a little over 81 Full-Time Equivalent Classified Services employees. Brown again, voted to abstain.

The Board also voted to accept the superficial gesture of one-day furlough by the superintendent and administrative staff including principals. It means those staff members won’t be paid but also don’t have to show up for work that day. After Rocha asked about increasing it to three days, Dr. Williams said that would have to be taken to the Personnel Commission, first. The motion on the matter then passed 5-0, saving the District approximately $117,437.

The Board’s work on the budget is not over as they still face another deadline in October, Dr. Williams shared. But by then, with additional state funds, assuming the governor’s budget proposals are approved by the legislature, the Antioch trustees job may get easier.

Watch the Board Meeting video on the District’s YouTube Channel.