The Proposed 2026 County ULL renewal map shows areas of contractions and expansions. Source: Contra Costa County
Would allow for expansion near Byron Airport, contractions elsewhereincluding 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.
The Ginochio West property (inside yellow circle) adjacent to Antioch’s city limits (inside the blue line) would be moved outside the County’s ULL if Measure A passes. Graphic source: Contra Costa County
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.
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.
Dear Antioch Unified School District Board Members,
Given the severity of the district’s deficit, the community deserves to understand why the Board continues to authorize expensive contractors to perform work that qualified district staff are fully capable of handling. In education, sustainable improvement comes from setting clear expectations, providing support, and building internal capacity. Antioch is a resilient community filled with talented professionals. Our people deserve the opportunity and the trust to meet the standard.
It is also important to acknowledge that many of these same consultants were used in Pacifica and Sequoia, districts where the Superintendent departed in under two years amid controversy. Why would the Board select a leader without a demonstrated record of long-term, successful superintendent leadership.
Board President Dr. Jag Lathan, you are currently running for County Superintendent. If effective oversight and leadership cannot be demonstrated in a mid‑sized district like Antioch, how will you lead an entire county. Voters are watching and waiting for you to do what is right.
The district’s increasing reliance on high‑cost consultants is fiscally irresponsible and deeply concerning especially during a financial crisis. This year alone, consultant contracts are projected to exceed half a million dollars, including external providers for executive coaching, financial consulting, data analysis, and organizational climate assessments. Only a small portion of these contracts appear justified given staffing shortages. The rest raise serious questions about duplication of services, transparency, and fiscal priorities. The district already employs dedicated, effective leaders who have invested their careers and their hearts into serving Antioch’s students. Overlooking this internal capacity wastes resources and damages morale. Replacing qualified internal leaders with consultants occupying long‑term roles is unjust, irresponsible, and demoralizing. At what point will the Board accept accountability for these decisions?
There has also been a mass exodus of leadership and long‑term teachers. This exodus is directly tied to the current district leadership. Why is the Board not interviewing these long-standing, highly respected employees to understand why they are leaving AUSD?
Attorney fees have been repeatedly discussed at board meetings and often dismissed by comparing them to previous years. But this year, the number of law firms brought in under Dr. Williams has significantly increased legal costs. If the highly publicized employee bullying lawsuit from last year were removed from the comparison, would last year’s attorney fees still exceed the current year’s. That is a question the community deserves answered.
According to individuals familiar with the superintendent hiring process, community panelists were puzzled by the Board’s decision. Several candidates reportedly ranked higher among parents, staff, and students including two Latino leaders who panelists felt could more closely relate to and serve the district’s student population. Insiders state that Dr. Williams ranked last among five finalists in some community feedback summaries. Despite these concerns, Dr. Williams assumed leadership of AUSD in July 2025.
It is public knowledge that entering the 2025–26 school year, AUSD faced an approximate $12 million deficit. The CBO in place at the time who had full knowledge of the deficit and a fiscally sound plan to address it without harming student services or requiring staff layoffs was placed on leave almost immediately by Dr. Williams. It has been stated repeatedly at board meetings that the approved raises and continued 100% district‑paid health benefits did not contribute to the now $31 million deficit. That is not accurate. The increased deficit is directly tied to the raises and benefits negotiated by Dr. Williams and her attorney.
Another contributing factor is the Superintendent’s newly created salary schedule. Historically, AUSD superintendents were placed on salary schedule 734 with a 260-day work year. Dr. Williams negotiated a new 737 range with a 225-day work year 35 fewer days than her senior management team. The previous superintendent, at year six, earned $358,340 annually ($1,378 per day). Dr. Williams began at $361,165 annually ($1,605 per day) and will top out at $1,728 per day.
Despite this significantly higher, per‑day rate, district staff report that Dr. Williams is rarely present in the district office, and when she does arrive, it is often afternoon. She is not beginning her day at school sites, and her whereabouts during the workday are frequently unaccounted for. Given these concerns, why was an entirely new salary schedule created without any data demonstrating long‑term success, improved student outcomes, or consistent leadership presence. Her history shows the opposite, with districts left in turmoil.
At what point will the Board seek honest insight from current and former employees rather than relying on soundbites and publicity efforts. The community is asking for transparency, accountability, and the responsible use of AUSD funds. Every dollar spent should reflect a commitment to students, staff, and the long‑term stability of this district—not to unnecessary contracts, unchecked legal fees, or inflated administrative compensation.
Respectfully,
Amy Bettencourt, former Director of Educational Services, Antioch Unified School District and Concerned Staff, Parents and Citizens
In a note included with the emailed letter to the editor Bettencourt wrote, “I know I left Antioch USD at the end of February due to the toxicity and storm the new superintendent brought to the district, but I continue to hear from a large group of employees who are desperately trying to elevate their concerns publicly.”
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.
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!”
Oversight Committee not holding Council accountable to 80-10-10 split
By Allen D. Payton
The City of Antioch is supposed to be spending the funds from Measure W’s one-cent sales tax measure, passed by the voters in November 2018, on an 80-10-10 split, with 80% for maintaining public safety, 10% for youth services and the remaining 10% to support quality of life, and fiscal stability and accountability. However, the 2023-24 budget spent only 60% of Measure W funds on police, last year’s budget increased the amount to 65.4% and the current fiscal year’s City budget allocated 70%. Plus, last year’s budget only allocated 4.6% to Youth Network Services.
Funds in Fiscal Year 2024-25 instead were spent on Code Enforcement and homeless services, as well as street lighting and landscaping.
According to the adopted 2025-26 City Budget, “The adopted fiscal year 2023-25 budget allocated 60% of funds to the Police Department, 20% to Quality of Life and 20% to Youth. For fiscal year 2025-26, City Council is allocating 70% to the Police Department, 15% to Quality of Life and 15% to Youth” ignoring the original intent of the council that voted to place the measure on the ballot.
City of Antioch Measure W Funding allocations FY25 versus FY26 Budgets. Source: City of Antioch
Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Report
According to the Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Report on Measure W provided to the City Council on March 24, 2026 (relegated to the Consent Calendar under agenda item 5.N.), “In FY24, the City received $20,160,685 in Measure W revenue and allocated funds at 60% Police, 20% Quality of Life, and 20% Youth.”
For the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2025, “The largest share of Measure W funds—65.4%, or $13,077,475—was directed to the Antioch Police Department. These funds supported a portion of police personnel costs ($40,376,709 in total department personnel expenditures) and services and supplies ($11,436,353). Measure W revenue represents approximately 24.5% of the Police Department’s total FY25 expenditures of $53,413,941, sustaining patrol operations, 911 response capacity, and related public safety services.”
Also, according to the report, the other Measure W revenues were spent in FY 2024-25 in order of greatest amount to least, as follows:
Recreation 15.4%;
Code Enforcement 8.6%;
Youth Network Services 4.6%;
Quality of Life 4.4%; and
Landscape Enhancements 1.6%
Source: City of Antioch Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee FY2024-25 Report.
2024-25 Measure W Expenditure Report Details
Under section 3 entitled, “Alignment with City Council Stated Priorities” the report offers details for each of those expenditure categories, but does not identify which council stated the priorities nor cite when that occurred. The report reads as follows:
Youth Violence Prevention and Community Safety
The Public Safety and Community Resources (PSCR) Department received $878,748 (100% Measure W funded) for Quality of Life programs. Within the department’s broader operation, the Violence Intervention and Prevention unit had a budget of $281,094 with $137,814 expended, during the fiscal year while the Housing and Homelessness unit budgeted $351,575 and expended $207,645. Community Engagement budgeted $27,697 with $27,629 expended. These programs directly address community safety, violence intervention, and quality of life for Antioch residents.
Youth Afterschool and Summer Programs
A combined total of $3,998,811 in Measure W funds supported youth-focused programs. Youth Network Services received $919,813 (100% Measure W funded) for personnel ($477,538) and services and supplies ($442,275). Recreation received $3,078,998, representing 46.7% of the department’s total expenditures. Recreation’s programs include youth afterschool activities, summer programming, and community recreation services.
Code Enforcement and Community Cleanup
Code Enforcement received $1,714,021 in Measure W funds, constituting 81.6% of the division’s total expenditures. The division’s work addresses illegal dumping, nuisance abatement, and property maintenance standards—directly supporting the Council’s priorities of cleaning up parks and combating blight. Personnel costs totaled $1,785,197, with services and supplies at $314,916.
Landscape Enhancements
A total of $325,000 (100% Measure W funded) was transferred to the Lighting and Landscape Districts for maintenance and enhancements across the city’s public landscaped areas, contributing to park and neighborhood beautification.
History of Measure W
As previously reported, during their meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to place a ballot measure that would extend and double the transaction and use tax, or sales tax, permanently from the half-cent sales tax of Measure C, passed in 2013, to one cent. (See related article)
The council members discussed the draft version of the proposed one-cent sales tax measure. It allocated 60% of revenue for the maintenance of public safety, 20% for youth services, and the remaining 20% for supporting quality of life and fiscal stability and accountability.
But during the meeting the council discussed changing these amounts from percentages of 60-20-20 to an 80-10-10 allocation had the support of three council members. That split was advocated for by both Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock, who included it in her motion which was seconded by Councilman Tony Tiscareno, and Mayor Sean Wright during his comments.
20-Year Sunset Clause, Public Oversight Added
Then during a special meeting on August 7, 20218, the Council on a 3-2 split vote, approved adding a 20-year sunset clause and including language to continue the Citizens Sales Tax Oversight Committee to the measure with then-Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe and Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting against. Placing the measure on the ballot required a two-thirds vote of the council, or favorable votes by four of the five councilmembers.
The council held another meeting two days later on August 9th at which the two who opposed it switched course. They joined the other three councilmembers for a unanimous, 5-0 vote to included both the 20-year sunset clause and citizens oversight language in the ballot measure.
Council Meeting Minutes on Measure W Votes
According to the minutes of the council meeting on July 24, 2018, the original motion is reported as follows:
“Councilmember Ogorchock moved to 1) Adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Antioch Calling for a Municipal Election on November 6, 2018 to Request City Voters Extend and increase the City’s Transaction and Use Tax from One-Half Cent to One Cent to Provide for Public Safety and 911 Service, Support Youth, and Maintain Other Quality of Life Services; and, 2) Enact an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Antioch Submitting a Proposition to The Voters of the City of Antioch to Amend Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Title 3 of the Antioch Municipal Code to Increase the City’s Transactions and Use Tax from a Half Cent to One Cent and to Impose This Tax Until Repealed by the Voters. 3) Maintain Public Safety target for Antioch Police Department at 80 percent, support youth services 10 percent, support quality of life/fiscal stability and accountability at 10 percent.
Councilmember Tiscareno seconded the motion”
In addition, the minutes read, “Mayor Wright…noted that he would support 80 percent of the tax being allocated to public safety.”
However, following input from the city attorney and city clerk, the motion adopted by the council did not include specific allocation figures. According to the meeting’s minutes for the item: “Following discussion, Councilmember Ogorchock amended her motion. Councilmember Tiscareno agreed to second the amended motion, which was approved as follows:
“On motion by Councilmember Ogorchock, seconded by Councilmember Tiscareno, the City Council unanimously 1) Adopted a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Antioch Calling for a Municipal Election on November 6, 2018 to Request City Voters Extend and Increase the City’s Transaction and Use Tax from One-Half Cent to One Cent to Provide for Public Safety and 911 Service, Support Youth, and Maintain “Other Quality of Life Services; and 2) Enacted an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Antioch Submitting a Measure to The Voters of the City of Antioch to Amend Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Title 3 of the Antioch Municipal Code to Increase the City’s Transactions and Use Tax from a Half Cent to One Cent and to Impose This Tax Until Repealed by the Voters. With the following changes:
Amending the Ordinance under the ‘Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved’ to read: ‘that the People of Antioch do ordain as follows:’
Striking the word ‘Proposition’ from the Ordinance and replacing it with ‘Measure’.”
Again, the additional clauses adding a 20-year sunset and citizen oversight to the measure were adopted at later meetings in 2018 before the measure’s final language was placed on the ballot.
Measure W Ballot Language
The final ballot language included in the measure which passed with 66.11% of the vote but only needed a simple, 50% plus, one vote was as follows: Antioch’s Quality of Life Measure. To maintain Antioch’s fiscal stability, police patrols, 911 emergency response, youth violence prevention programs; ensuring water quality/safety; repairing streets; cleaning up parks/illegal dumping; restoring youth afterschool/summer programs; other essential services; shall the measure be adopted approving an ordinance to renew the sales tax at the one-cent rate, raising approximately $14,000,000 annually, expiring in twenty years, with mandatory annual independent financial audits, and independent citizens oversight?
Although the first motion to place Measure W on the ballot, which had majority council support, included the 80-10-10 split, it is not part of the actual ballot language, meaning the city council is not bound by those amounts and can spend the funds in any way they deem necessary.
Page 2 of the Antioch Herald October 2018 edition.
Yes on W Campaign Message
Yet, that’s how the measure was sold to the voters and how Antioch residents expect the funds to be spent.
Since the measure passed, the new Department of Public Safety and Community Resources was formed, with attempts by some council members to redefine and expand the meaning of “public safety” in Antioch to include more than just police services. Yet, the campaign in support of Measure W was very specific.
In a letter to the editor on Oct. 30, 2018, then-Mayor Wright wrote, “Measure W gives us a choice to increase our financial ability to make our community safer, create more activities for our youth after school and to improve our quality of life.”
Plus, in a Yes on W campaign ad run on page two of the Antioch Herald October 2018 edition, under “The Whys on W” headline it read, “Maintaining 911 police response and number of officers patrolling the streets.” At the time, there were 97 sworn officers on the Antioch Police force.
That was in spite of the commitment by the city council of hiring 22 more police “immediately” from the funds generated by Measure C, the half-cent sales tax precursor to Measure W, which passed in 2013 when there were 90 sworn officers on the force.
The ad also offered the other Whys, including, “Maintaining quality of life and financial stability; Ensuring water quality and safety; Cleaning up illegal dumping; and Restoring after school and summer programs for youth.”
Committee’s Incorrect Claims
While the Oversight Committee’s report claims, “Expenditures across all funded departments were within budgeted amounts for FY25, demonstrating sound fiscal management of Measure W resources,” it’s clear the revenues have been not been appropriately allocated. In fact, past and current councils have been robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the old saying goes, which is what those who opposed the measure were afraid of.
Furthermore, the committee concluded its report claiming, “Measure W revenues for FY25 were expended in a manner consistent with the City Council’s stated priorities,” they’re ignoring the fact the council majority at the time they voted to place the measure on the ballot supported the 80-10-10 allocation split. So, even if the city council has since then, or in 2024 before adopting the FY 2024-25 budget, voted to change the allocation split of Measure W revenues, the funds were not “expended in a manner consistent with the City Council’s stated priorities” and are definitely out of alignment with the original intent.
Committee Needs to Represent and Advocate for Original Intent of the Council, Will of the Voters
Every year, the Oversight Committee’s report should include the city council’s original intent of allocating the revenue from Measure W on an 80-10-10 split and remind the current council members and public of that fact. Simply reporting how the council and City spent the funds based on information provided by City staff isn’t good enough. They need to hold the current council members accountable and advocate on behalf of the voters and residents of Antioch that they fulfill that intent. Otherwise, what’s the point of having an oversight committee? The members need to remember that although they were appointed to the committee by the city council, they’re not there to please the council but to represent the will of the people. Hopefully, the five new members who are expected to soon be appointed will.
Measure W funds listed as “1% Sales Tax” under Revenue Source. Source: City of Antioch
Council Needs to Return to Original Intent of Measure W Revenue Allocation
As the city council works to finalize the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget they need to be reminded of the original intent of the allocation of Measure W revenues and increase the amount being spent on police to 80%. While it’s good the council has expressed support for increasing the total number of sworn officers on the Antioch Police force, the allocation of the correct percentage of Measure W funds should be a key part of that. The good news is the projected revenue from Measure W for the next fiscal year is expected to increase by almost $120,000 to a little over $20.1 million. So, that will help some and it makes the math simple: $16.08 million to police, $2.01 million to youth services and $2.01 million to quality of life budget items. It all comes down to priorities.
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.
Each of the four types of standard agreements—Exclusive Right to Sell, Open Listing, and Exclusive Agency—is a legally binding contract that authorizes a broker and her sales associates to produce a buyer for a home, according to the conditions specified in the contract.
Depending on the type of listing agreement, you can expect to see most of these terms detailed in the document.
Terms of the Agreement
The length of time the contract will be in effect typically runs anywhere from 30 to 90 days, depending on the local market. Under Terms of the Agreement, you’ll also find the price of the home. You should arrive at the home’s market value after considering the Comparative Market Analysis and other market factors with your agent.
Commission
It may come as a surprise that commissions are not set by the industry and are negotiable. Real estate professionals expect to earn between 6% and 7% of the sale price, depending on the market and the services offered. The home is generally offer on the MLS and the commission is split with the buyer’s agent.
Multiple Listing Service (MLS)
This section authorizes a real estate professional to list your home with the MLS. While you have the right to opt out of listing with the MLS I do not recommend it. The MLS can dramatically increase exposure and with it help maximize your home’s value The MLS is the main portal to the Internet and will increase the chances of selling your home.
Lockbox
Basically, a hollowed-out padlock or miniature safe holds a key to your home. The lockbox allows convenient access for Agents showing the home. Only an Agent with an electronic key can gain entry. The visit is recorded and accessible to find out who showed the home and when.
Description of the Property and Its Condition
Here you’ll find a description of the property and its general condition as well as the condition of its major systems—mechanical, plumbing and electrical. Along with the description should be a list of the items that will stay with the home, for instance, the washer and dryer, and those items you intend to remove such as a special light fixture.
Marketing Plan
While the marketing plan is not specifically in the agreement it can be added as an addendum. The marketing strategy should be discussed and structured to cast a wide net and might include advertising, open houses, the multiple listing service, signage, fact sheets, color flyers, and so on.
Your Realtor will complete the listing agreement based on your input, so you may want to take time before you meet to consider your response to each section of the contract. The more prepared you are, the less likely you’ll have a misunderstanding down the road.
Patrick McCarran is a local Realtor and Broker DRE# 01325072. He can be contacted by phone or text at (925) 899-5536, pmccarran@yahoo.com or www.CallPatrick.com. An independently owned and operated office. In association with Realty One Group Elite DRE# 0193160. Equal Housing Opportunity.
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.
