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.
Multiple Bay Area transit agencies would benefit from the five-county sales tax measure. Photo: MTC. Map source: Connect Bay Area
Connect Bay Area far surpasses 186,000 signatures required to qualify BART, regional transit funding measure
By Jeff Cretan, West Advisors
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA — The Connect Bay Area campaign today announced it has submitted more than 305,000 signatures to qualify a regional transit funding measure for the November ballot — blowing past the 186,000 valid signatures required.
The success of this effort is built on one of the largest grassroots transit organizing efforts the region has ever seen and major support from business and labor organizations.
The Connect Bay Area five-county sales tax measure would provide long-term operational funding for major Bay Area transit agencies, while supporting projects to strengthen and connect transit systems across the region. It will protect major transit agencies like BART from devastating service cuts and help VTA grow to better serve residents, workers, and businesses.
Connect Bay Area also strengthens accountability for transit agencies. SB 63 – the legislation authored by Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguin that enabled Connect Bay Area – set strong accountability requirements to take effect before the measure even gets on the ballot. The measure requires independent financial reviews and continued efficiency improvements from transit agencies.
Unprecedented Grassroots, Labor, and Business Support
The Connect Bay Area Campaign has grown in support over the last several months with more than 80 elected officials and more than 90 labor groups and advocacy organizations signing on in support. Major businesses from across the region have helped to fundraise over $5.5 million so far to get the measure on the ballot and prepare for the November election.
Since launching in January, Connect Bay Area has mobilized more than 1,000 volunteers and advocates across Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Supporters gathered signatures at transit stations, farmers markets, community events, neighborhood meetings, and major public gatherings throughout the Bay Area.
The overwhelming signature total reflects the broad support for transit and the awareness of urgency surrounding the future of Bay Area public transit.
Without sustainable transit funding, the Bay Area could face catastrophic service reductions:
BART: Up to 15 station closures, elimination of two lines, and service cuts of up to 70%
Caltrain: Hourly train service, no weekend service, and weekday shutdowns after 9 p.m.
Muni: At least 20 bus routes eliminated and service reductions of 30% or more
AC Transit: Service cuts of at least 16%
The more than 300,000 signatures – which were the result of both a paid effort and an advocate-led grassroots effort – will now be officially counted and validated by the Departments of Elections for each of the five counties over the next few weeks before the measure can officially be placed on the ballot.
“We’re blown away by the over 1,000 Bay Area volunteers, transit advocates, and labor partners who contributed to getting transit funding on the November ballot,” said Lian Chang, co-lead of the Connect Bay Area grassroots signature gathering effort. “This is the largest grassroots signature-gathering effort in the history of the Bay Area, and represents thousands of hours spent by people from all backgrounds and all corners of our five-county region to protect this thing—transit—that matters to millions of Bay Area residents. Everyday more voters are getting on board to support our economy, social justice, the environment and reducing congestion. And we’re just getting started.”
“This is a resounding statement by Bay Area voters that they believe in the value of our regional transit systems and how important they are to keeping our region moving,” said Libby Schaaf, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council. “Now we must turn our attention to November and protecting the many billions of dollars we’ve invested over many decades to build these systems while also making them more efficient, cost-effective, safe and convenient for the millions of commuters who rely on them.”
“Public transit is a cornerstone of our economy and an essential public good that keeps our region affordable for residents,” said Congressman Kevin Mullin. “Connect Bay Area will protect the public transportation service we all rely on while ensuring strong accountability so every dollar delivers reliable, safe transit.”
“The Bay Area’s public transit is a core pillar of our region’s ability to usher in a climate-smart, affordable, and just future,” said Amanda Brown-Stevens, Executive Director of the Greenbelt Alliance. “Greenbelt Alliance is excited to be a part of this grassroots coalition to help protect and enhance our public transportation and reduce pollution.
About Connect Bay Area
The Connect Bay Area campaign will bring a five-county sales tax to the ballot in November 2026 through a citizen signature gathering effort. The rate will be set at 0.5%, with the exception that San Francisco will be set at a 1% rate to provide additional support for Muni. This measure will provide long-term operations funding for major Bay Area transit agencies and support regional projects to strengthen transit throughout the Bay Area.
The Connect Bay Area measure will support the future of public transportation in the Bay Area:
Protect and improve service on BART, Muni, Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and AC Transit
Prevent catastrophic service cuts that could devastate the Bay Area
Keep traffic and emissions down, preventing gridlock and protecting climate progress;
Support the Bay Area’s economy, ensuring that downtown recovery and regional mobility remain strong.
Connect Bay Area has strong accountability and oversight provisions, including dependent financial reviews for every transit operator, regional coordination mandates to ensure systems work better together, and a citizen oversight committee to monitor spending and performance. A recent independent study required by Connect Bay Area found the agencies had saved $1 billion in operational efficiencies and set new actions for the agencies to take to further improve efficiency and service.
The Connect Bay Area Transit Committee is comprised of labor, business, and transit advocates, including Bay Area Council, SEIU 1021, ATU 1555, SPUR, and SAMCEDA, alongside an advocacy council of more than 20 organizations representing transit, housing, environmental, equity, and senior and disability groups.
For more information about the Connect Bay Area campaign or to get involved, visit https://connectbayarea.com/
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.
Multiple Bay Area transit agencies would benefit from the five-county sales tax measure. Photo: MTC. Graphics source: Connect Bay Area
Paid effort also working before June 6th deadline in 5 Bay Area counties
By Allen D. Payton
On Wednesday, April 22nd, volunteer transit advocates celebrated gathering 46,300 signatures for the regional transit sales tax funding measure to 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.
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.
Source: City of Antioch
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.
