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.

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%

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.

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.

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.

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 help 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)

Application deadline for 5 vacancies: Friday, May 1st

By City of Antioch

The City of Antioch encourages residents to become involved in their local community. One way to do so is to serve on one of the various Boards, Commissions, and Committees. Any interested resident is invited to apply for the following vacancies by Extended Deadline Date: 5:00 p.m., Friday, May 1, 2026.

SALES TAX CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

• Three (3) Full-Term Vacancies, expiring March 2030
• Two (2) Part-Term Vacancies, expiring March 2028

The Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee shall review the expenditures and report publicly how the funds from the City’s Measure W one-cent sales tax are being used to address the City Council’s stated priorities of maintaining 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; and other essential services. Each year, an independent auditor shall complete a public audit report of the revenue raised and its expenditure. The Committee’s review shall be completed in conjunction with the City’s budget process. The Committee’s report on its review, whether oral or written, shall be considered by the City Council at a public meeting before April 1 of each year. Any written report shall be a matter of public record.

The Council’s intent of Measure W is to split the revenue on the following basis: 80% for the maintenance of public safety, 10% for youth services, and the remaining 10% for supporting quality of life and fiscal stability and accountability. The sales tax passed by Antioch voters in November 2018 lasts for 20 years. (See related Herald articles here, here and here)

The official ballot measure language reads: “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?”

Committee Seats: Seven (7) Members, 4-year terms.

Meetings: The Committee shall meet at least twice a year.

Staff Liaison: Dawn Merchant, City of Antioch Finance Director

Requirements:

• Must be a resident of the City of Antioch.
• At least one member of the Committee shall have a financial, accounting or auditing background.
• Commissioners are required to submit the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) upon assuming office, and every year thereafter.
• Commissioners are required to complete a 2-hour online AB1234 Ethics course within one year of their appointment.
• Newly appointed and reappointed Members are required to take an Oath of Office administered by the City Clerk.

To be considered for the vacancy position(s), please complete an application and submit it to the City Clerk’s Office by the deadline date listed above. Applications are located on the City’s Website: www.antiochca.gov and may be picked up in person at Antioch City Hall, 200 H Street, Antioch, CA.

Please email your completed application to: cityclerk@antiochca.gov. You can also drop off your application (Attn: City Clerk) in the water billing drop-off box located in the parking lot just outside of Antioch City Hall.

To learn more visit Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee | Antioch, CA.

Your interest and desire to serve our community can make a difference.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

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.

Will also deal with legal matters including the ongoing civil rights class action lawsuit, potential lawsuit with “significant exposure” and two cases; Measure W spending & Economic Development reports

By Allen D. Payton

During a Special Meeting before their regular meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss development of the 2026-27 Fiscal Year budget with a potential $13.5 to $14.1 million deficit. During their regular meeting the council members will also discuss approving an AI assistant for police dispatch, and receive reports on both Measure W spending, which has decreased the amount for police down to 65.4%, and economic development.

Closed Session, Lawsuits & Property Negotiations

But first, at 4:00 p.m., the Council will hold a Closed Session during which they will discuss the ongoing Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., civil rights class action lawsuit that’s not yet completely settled. (See related articles here and here) They will also discuss a potential lawsuit described as, Significant Exposure to Litigation. The description for that agenda item reads, “The City is in receipt of information concerning facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City which are known to a potential plaintiff and that pertain to potential claims by the potential plaintiff against the City. Two cases.”

Finally, the Closed Session agenda item 3, the Council will enter into Real Property Negotiations with Lone Tree Golf & Event Center Manager Ron Parish for two properties, 4800 Golf Course Road and West 1st Street. The City owns both the Lynn House and the old Mayor Hard House on that street. UPDATE: Mayor Pro Tem Don Freitas and City PIO Jaden Baird later explained that including West 1st Street was a mistake and the negotiations are only about the golf and event center.

Budget Study Session

At 5:00 p.m., the Council will hold Special Meeting/Study Session on the 2026-27 Fiscal Year Budget Development. The City is facing a double-digit deficit of $13.5 million to $14.1 million depending if the council approves increasing the number of sworn police officers to 117.

AI Assistant for Police Dispatch

During their regular meeting, under the Consent Calendar Item J., the council will consider approving a Sole Source Agreement with Prepared to provide an AI assistive call taking system for the Police Department Dispatch Center for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $248,400 for Years 1 through 2, with an option to extend for three additional years.

According to the city staff report, “The Dispatch Center is currently operating with four Dispatcher vacancies out of 17 allocated positions (13 Dispatchers and 4 Leads), representing an approximately 24% vacancy rate.  Call demand remains consistently high. The Police Dispatch Center handled approximately 72,000 9-1-1 calls in both 2024 and 2025. Non-emergency call activity remained steady as well, at approximately 208,000 calls annually. In addition to phone call volume, the Police Department handled 86,185 calls for service incidents in 2025, including AQCRT (Community Response Team) calls, which require ongoing dispatch coordination beyond the initial intake.”

Assistive call taking technology is intended to support Dispatchers, not replace them with the following:

• Improve Service for Non-Emergency Callers and Reduce Hold Times
• Support Emergency Calls Through “Co-Pilot” Functionality
• Improve Documentation and Reduce Staff Time Spent on Records Requests
• Expand Language Access and Support DOJ (Department of Justice) MOA (Memorandum of Understanding) Obligations

Measure W Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Annual Report

Under Consent Calendar agenda Item N. the Council will receive the Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Report on Measure W (1% Sales Tax). It will show the amount being spent on police has decreased from 80%, as originally intended, to now, just 65.4%.

Economic Development Update

In addition, according to the City staff report for agenda item 7, the Council receive an update on the City’s Economic Development activities and progress, provide policy direction as appropriate, and offer feedback to staff on priorities and the timing of subsequent updates to the City Council. The matter is part of the Council’s 6-Month Priority list.

Meeting Details

The regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. The latter two meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See the complete meeting agenda packet.

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 Antioch and Pittsburg/Bay Point 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”.

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

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.

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.

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.