How the County's Sales Tax Proposal Unfolded
Updated: Aug 17
Measure B was one of the biggest reasons I began questioning how Contra Costa County was communicating with voters.
The measure asked voters to approve a temporary 0.625% countywide sales tax. County leaders argued that additional revenue was needed in light of federal funding reductions and rising costs.
My concern is not that the County discussed a tax. My concern is how the need for that tax was presented and how quickly the proposal moved forward.
January 20: the higher rate
The Board considered a five-year general sales tax of either 0.5% or 0.625% and directed staff to proceed with the 0.625% rate.
Because this was structured as a general tax, the revenue was not legally restricted to one specific program.
February: moving before state law changed
The County continued the process while AB 1768 — legislation affecting the local sales-tax cap — had not yet been signed into law.
The document I reviewed states that Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1768 on June 1, one day before the June 2 election.
I found the timing troubling. Voters were being asked to decide a tax increase dependent on authority that did not become law until immediately before Election Day.
March 3: a major number is corrected
The March 3 Board minutes are particularly important.
The original language said the County projected annual revenue losses exceeding $300 million by 2029. The revised language instead said cumulative revenue losses were estimated at $239 million by 2029.
That is a meaningful difference.
Yet material supporting Measure B later cited health-system losses of more than $1.5 billion over five years. I believe voters deserved a much clearer explanation reconciling those numbers.
Who funded the Measure B campaign
Campaign-finance material included with my records shows substantial contributions from labor organizations, along with later contributions from healthcare-related organizations and others.
I do not believe a contribution automatically proves anything improper. But voters are entitled to know who paid to advocate for a tax increase, particularly when County labor costs were also part of the budget discussion.
June 2: voters said no
Measure B was defeated.
My concern is that an opportunity to make a straightforward case for additional funding became clouded by changing numbers, questions about timing and the fact that the proposal was a general tax.
If County leaders believed the need was urgent, the public deserved the clearest and most defensible case possible.
I don't believe that is what voters received.