Measure B, which would hike the rate over 10% in a majority of cities, is regressive, excessive and avoidable
Contra Costa County officials pitching the last sales tax increase to voters in 2020 grossly misrepresented the revenue it would raise.
The levy on taxable goods does not apply to prescription medications and most groceries. Nevertheless, sales taxes are regressive, meaning they take up larger shares of low-income households’ budgets, disproportionately impacting those who can afford it least.
That’s why we were reluctant in 2020 to support the county’s last sales tax increase. Measure X was purportedly to raise money for services that were struggling for funding during the pandemic.
Our tepid endorsement of that half-cent increase, a 20-year measure that will last until 2041, came with a warning that county officials should make do with the extra money — that “they shouldn’t expect support for an additional tax in the future.”
But here they are again, piling on with another proposed sales tax increase. Again, the money can be used for any governmental purpose. It’s time for Contra Costa leaders to start living within their means.
Since the passage of Measure X, the overall size of Contra Costa County government has risen rapidly. From fiscal year 2019-20 to 2024-25, total county expenditures increased 62% while Bay Area inflation was 19%. The number of county employees grew by 16%, while the population of Contra Costa declined slightly, by 0.6%.
To be sure, much of the county’s increased spending is for mandated programs that come with state or federal funding. But the key point is that the county is delivering more services, especially health care, than it was in the past.
Meanwhile, it turns out that county officials pitching Measure X to voters in 2020 grossly misrepresented the revenue it would raise.
They said the tax hike would bring in about $81 million a year. In fact, an audit last year showed that it has consistently generated about $120 million a year. By the end of last fiscal year, about $262 million collected from Measure X had not been spent, with about half locked-in for key projects and about half that county leaders could reallocate to help obviate the need for another tax hike.
The current proposed Measure B would raise an additional $150 million a year. Officials say it’s needed because of federal and state funding cuts stemming from the congressional passage last year of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” In fact, it’s more than the county needs to make up for the federal cuts.
The human services department projects needing $7 million-$15 million more in county funding next year to administer new federal work requirements for recipients of Medi-Cal health coverage and CalFresh food assistance.
And the county health department forecasts $42 million in lost funding next fiscal year, escalating to $108 million in fiscal year 2028-29. But, because of health department reserves, county projections show only a $9 million shortfall by the end of fiscal year 2028-29.
To be sure, we’re not fans of drawing down reserves. But reallocation of a portion of unspent Measure X dollars, a careful reexamination of other spending and some targeted use of reserves should allow the county to cover the lost federal money, at least through 2028-29, when we will have a new presidential administration.
Seeking yet another sales tax now, rather than looking for ways to trim spending and reallocate funds, is premature.
Technically, Measure B would be temporary. But if voters approve this five-year increase, county officials will almost certainly bake the extra income into their budget and come back to voters for renewal before the tax expires. It’s rare that a Bay Area local government allows an expiring tax to lapse without a new request to voters.
In 2020 ballot arguments, backers of Measure X called it “an investment in the life-saving services our county needs.” This year, Measure B backers warn, “If we don’t act, lives will be lost.”
Our advice: Don’t get fooled again. Vote no on Measure B.