Service adjustments and consolidations
This means reducing or combining services, contracts, and programs that cost a lot but are not the first priority to protect. In the model, these cuts fall mainly on services and supplies rather than pay.
MeasurePlanB
This site explains Contra Costa Plan B, a transparent, phased county alternative to Measure B that protects jobs and essential services without raising the county sales tax.
The Problem
Contra Costa County is facing near-term budget pressure that could lead to layoffs and service cuts. Measure B is one proposed response on the June 2 ballot, and it should be compared with a concrete, publicly trackable alternative.
This chart breaks down the three main drivers of the FY26-27 budget gap, showing where pressure is concentrated before comparing solutions.
- Existing gap already in the budget23M (7%)
- Employee pay and benefits increase208M (63%)
- Health Services funding shortfall100M (30%)
Source: FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF), p. 13
Plain English: the biggest driver is higher employee pay and benefits. The other two pieces are a smaller existing gap and a Health Services shortfall.
Each bar shows total budget pressure by year, split into the existing gap, pay and benefits growth, and the Health Services shortfall. The trend highlights why one-time fixes alone will not keep pace over time.
X-axis: Fiscal year | Y-axis: Millions of dollars
- Existing gap (FY26-27)
- Estimated employee pay and benefits increase
- Estimated Health Services shortfall
Source: Estimations based on FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF). See chart below for methodology.
| Fiscal Year | Existing Gap | Est. Employee Pay and Benefits Increase | Est. Health Services Shortfall | Total Projected Pressure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY26-27 | $23M | $208M | $100M | $331M |
| FY27-28 | $0M | $218M | $175M | $393M |
| FY28-29 | $0M | $229M | $307M | $536M |
| FY29-30 | $0M | $241M | $538M | $779M |
Source: FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF).
Estimation methodology:- Existing gap uses the FY26-27 source value ($23M). It is shown as $0 after FY26-27 in this table.
- Employee pay and benefits increase uses the FY26-27 source point ($208M) with a modeled 5% annual growth rate.
- Health Services shortfall uses the County's projected $307M by FY28-29 as the endpoint, then applies exponential interpolation from FY26-27 to FY28-29. FY29-30 extends the same compounded growth rate one additional year beyond the sourced endpoint — no independent source data exists for that year, so it is a model projection only.
Why the shortfall is happening (Health Services, with source)
Key pressure
$307M
Modeled FY28-29 Health Services shortfall endpoint, anchored to the County's projected $307M by FY28-29.
This matters because a shortfall at this scale can drive service reductions unless offsetting actions are in place.
Primary driver: Federal and state funding changes.
Source: FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF), p. 13
Sales tax vs. higher service costs
These two options spread costs in different ways. A sales tax reaches people across the county, while higher service costs land more directly on the people and places using county health services.
Sales tax option
- The tax is spread broadly across county shoppers and households.
- People pay whether or not they directly use Health Services.
- The burden is more countywide, but sales taxes still weigh heavily on lower-income residents.
Higher service cost option
- Costs are concentrated more in the places where county services are actually delivered.
- Patients, families, and communities relying most on county care feel the increase more directly.
- The burden is less broad, but it can hit vulnerable and lower-income communities harder where need is highest.
Bottom line: Neither option is neutral. They spread costs in different ways, and either option can still put pressure on lower-income communities unless protections are built in.
Measure B: The County's Proposal
On June 2, 2026, Contra Costa County voters will decide on Measure B - a temporary countywide sales tax placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors as its proposed response to the budget crisis.
Official Ballot Question - June 2, 2026
"To help Contra Costa County address deep cuts in federal funding; support critical local services such as health care, supplemental food assistance, and other general county services; and reduce the risk of closures at Contra Costa's regional hospital and health clinics, shall Contra Costa County adopt a five-eighths of one cent temporary general sales tax for 5 years, providing an estimated $150,000,000 annually, not available to the federal government and subject to annual audits and independent citizens oversight?"
Source: Contra Costa Registrar of Voters - Official Measure Wording List (PDF, March 9, 2026)
Tax rate increase
+0.625%
added to taxable sales
Duration
5 years
temporary
Estimated revenue
$150M/yr
countywide
Vote threshold
50% + 1
simple majority
Together, these facts define the size, duration, and approval rule of Measure B, helping clarify both cost and policy tradeoffs.
How the revenue would be used
Measure B is a general tax, meaning revenue goes into the County's General Fund and is not legally earmarked for one specific program. The ballot language names health care, supplemental food assistance, and other county services as intended purposes, and the Board of Supervisors decides how funds are allocated.
The measure includes annual independent audits and independent citizens oversight.
Sales tax rates before and after Measure B - by jurisdiction
Measure B adds 0.625 percentage points to the current rate in every jurisdiction in the county. Rates are from CDTFA, effective January 1, 2026. This matters because the same increase applies countywide, but total rates differ by city.
| Jurisdiction | Current rate | If Measure B passes | Tax on $100 now | Tax on $100 with B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unincorporated County | 8.75% | 9.375% | $8.75 | $9.375 |
| City of Antioch | 9.75% | 10.375% | $9.75 | $10.375 |
| City of Concord | 9.75% | 10.375% | $9.75 | $10.375 |
| City of El Cerrito | 10.25% | 10.875% | $10.25 | $10.875 |
| City of Hercules | 9.25% | 9.875% | $9.25 | $9.875 |
| City of Lafayette | 9.25% | 9.875% | $9.25 | $9.875 |
| City of Martinez | 9.75% | 10.375% | $9.75 | $10.375 |
| Town of Moraga | 9.75% | 10.375% | $9.75 | $10.375 |
| City of Orinda | 9.75% | 10.375% | $9.75 | $10.375 |
| City of Pinole | 10.25% | 10.875% | $10.25 | $10.875 |
| City of Pittsburg | 9.25% | 9.875% | $9.25 | $9.875 |
| City of Pleasant Hill | 9.25% | 9.875% | $9.25 | $9.875 |
| City of Richmond | 9.75% | 10.375% | $9.75 | $10.375 |
| City of San Pablo | 9.50% | 10.125% | $9.50 | $10.125 |
| City of San Ramon | 9.75% | 10.375% | $9.75 | $10.375 |
| City of Walnut Creek | 9.25% | 9.875% | $9.25 | $9.875 |
Source: CDTFA-95, California Sales and Use Tax Rates by County and City (January 1, 2026). Cities not individually listed use the county base rate (8.75% today; 9.375% if Measure B passes).
In plain terms: For every $100 spent on taxable goods, Measure B adds 62.5 cents. On a $50,000 vehicle purchase, that is $312.50 more. A household spending $30,000 per year on taxable goods would pay roughly $187.50 more annually.
Limitations of Measure B
Measure B’s estimated $150M per year covers less than half of the $331M projected budget pressure in FY26-27 — a remaining gap of roughly $181M in the first year alone. Because health costs and labor pressures grow each year while tax revenue stays flat, that gap widens over time without additional action.
Even if Measure B passes, it does not:
- Close the funding gap — $150M covers fewer than half of the $331M projected pressure in FY26-27.
- Stop the gap from growing — health costs and benefit obligations increase each year while tax revenue stays flat.
- Prevent service reductions — cuts remain on the table for every year the gap persists.
- Prevent premium or patient-cost increases — the county's own ballot language promises only to "reduce the risk," not eliminate it.
Sources: Official Measure Wording List (PDF); FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF), p. 13
Contra Costa Plan B: Our Proposal
Contra Costa Plan B is a step-by-step alternative to Measure B. It combines near-term spending controls, targeted revenue updates, and a temporary reserve bridge. Here, reserve bridge means using part of existing reserves for a limited time to prevent sudden cuts while longer-term fixes take effect.
Assumptions for this solution
Staff
- No layoffs.
- No new salary increases will be negotiated in the near term.
- Benefits maintained at current levels.
Services
- Consolidate low-volume clinic sessions and administrative overlaps.
- Phase down noncritical contracted programs with limited utilization.
- Increase premiums and patient costs within reasonable limits using sliding-scale protections.
Timeline
- Short term: under 5 years.
- Assumes federal revenue eventually returns.
- State revenue may not return for up to 10 years.
This example shows one possible FY26-27 mix of actions to close the projected gap for that year, with responsibility shared across cuts, revenue changes, efficiency, and temporary reserve use.
Total
331M
- Service adjustments and consolidations57M (17%)
- Premium and patient cost changes50M (15%)
- Operational efficiency25M (8%)
- Temporary reserve bridge199M (60%)
Source: Estimations based on FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF) and the Problem-section endpoint methodology above.
Premium and patient-cost updates
This means bringing in more money through health-plan premiums, fees, and patient-related charges, instead of relying only on broad service cuts.
Operational efficiency
This means lowering day-to-day waste through scheduling, procurement, administration, and workflow improvements so the same work costs less to deliver.
Temporary reserve bridge
This is short-term reserve use to avoid a cliff while the recurring fixes ramp up. It is intentionally largest at the beginning and then steps down over time instead of becoming a permanent funding source.
For each year, the left bar shows projected pressure and the right bar shows proposed fixes. The reserve bridge starts higher, then shrinks as longer-term fixes grow, so you can see whether recurring actions replace temporary reserve support.
X-axis: Fiscal year | Y-axis: Millions of dollars
Pressure stack
- Existing gap
- Employee pay and benefits increase
- Health Services funding shortfall
Proposed offsets stack
- Proposed spending cuts
- Proposed increased revenue
- Proposed reserve bridge
Source: Estimations based on FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF) and the Problem-section endpoint methodology.
| Fiscal Year | Existing Gap | Employee Pay & Benefits Increase | Health Services Shortfall | Total Pressure | Proposed Spending Cuts | Proposed Increased Revenue | Proposed Reserve Bridge | Total Proposed Offsets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY26-27 | $23M | $208M | $100M | $331M | $82M | $50M | $199M | $331M |
| FY27-28 | $0M | $218M | $175M | $393M | $192M | $71M | $130M | $393M |
| FY28-29 | $0M | $229M | $307M | $536M | $322M | $118M | $96M | $536M |
| FY29-30 | $0M | $241M | $538M | $779M | $576M | $203M | $0M | $779M |
Reading guide: Total Pressure adds the three items in the left bar. Total Proposed Offsets adds spending cuts, added revenue, and temporary reserve use in the right bar. When the right bar matches the left bar, the plan is covering that year's projected pressure.
Each year compares total revenue to total expenses. Revenue includes baseline revenue, added revenue, and temporary reserve use. Expenses are shown as salaries and benefits, services and supplies, and other, so it is clear whether the operating plan stays balanced as reserve use declines.
X-axis: Fiscal year | Y-axis: Millions of dollars
Revenue stack
- Operating revenue after projected gap and shortfall
- Proposed increased revenue
- Temporary reserve bridge
Expense stack
- Salaries and Benefits
- Services and Supplies
- Other
Source: FY25-26 Adopted Budget (PDF), p. 253; FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF)
| Fiscal Year | Operating Revenue (After Gap and Shortfall) | Proposed Increased Revenue | Temporary Reserve Bridge | Total Revenue | Salaries & Benefits | Services & Supplies | Other | Total Expenses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY25-26 | $4020M | $0M | $0M | $4020M | $1026M | $2201M | $793M | $4020M |
| FY26-27 | $3897M | $50M | $199M | $4146M | $1234M | $2119M | $793M | $4146M |
| FY27-28 | $3845M | $71M | $130M | $4046M | $1244M | $2009M | $793M | $4046M |
| FY28-29 | $3713M | $118M | $96M | $3927M | $1255M | $1879M | $793M | $3927M |
| FY29-30 | $3482M | $203M | $0M | $3685M | $1267M | $1625M | $793M | $3685M |
Reading guide: Total Revenue combines baseline revenue after the gap, added revenue, and temporary reserve use. Total Expenses combine salaries and benefits, services and supplies, and other. If Total Revenue is near Total Expenses each year, the model is maintaining service operations without an immediate new tax.
Current reserves and proposed reserve use
FY24-25 unassigned General Fund reserve vs. proposed reserve bridge
Current unassigned reserve
$584.6M
Proposed reserve bridge
$425M
Remaining if fully used
$159.6M
The model uses $425M of reserve revenue across FY26-27 through FY29-30, compared with a current FY24-25 unassigned General Fund reserve of $584.6M.
The County's current unassigned reserve is about 4.8 times the required minimum. Even after that modeled use, about $159.6M remains, which is still well above the County's 5% policy floor of about $123M.
Why this reserve is relevant: Unassigned reserve is the County's most flexible General Fund balance for general needs, and the County's reserve policy sets a 5% minimum floor of about $123M.
Why use it here: This proposal treats reserves as a temporary bridge during a period when costs are rising faster than revenues, so the County can avoid service cliffs while recurring fixes ramp up.
Modeled annual reserve amounts: $199M, $130M, $96M, and $0M.
This compares the FY24-25 unassigned General Fund reserve with the County's 5% minimum reserve policy and shows that the County is several times above the required floor.
Total
585M
- 5% policy minimum123M (21%)
- Above policy minimum462M (79%)
Source: FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF), p. 8
This chart shows how the FY24-25 General Fund balance is split across accounting categories, including unassigned reserves, and makes clear that only part of total reserves is flexible for broad budget stabilization.
Total
1,214M
- Nonspendable20M (2%)
- Restricted4M (0%)
- Committed1M (0%)
- Assigned604M (50%)
- Unassigned585M (48%)
Source: ACFR 2025 (PDF) (amounts in thousands): Nonspendable $19,785; Restricted $4,346; Committed $1,078; Assigned $604,025; Unassigned $584,550
What these terms mean
- Assigned: Set aside for a purpose by County leadership, and can usually be reassigned by Board action.
- Committed: Set aside by formal Board action; changing it usually needs another formal Board action.
- Restricted: Money limited by law, grants, or outside rules.
- Nonspendable: Not available to spend as cash (for example, inventory or prepaid items).
- Unassigned: Most flexible General Fund reserve dollars for general needs.
Conclusion
The core case for this alternative is straightforward: Contra Costa County already has a large unassigned General Fund reserve, and this proposal uses part of that reserve as a temporary bridge while recurring fixes take effect.
By using county reserves in a limited, phased way, the County can balance the Health Services budget without adopting a new sales tax and without laying off employees. The reserve bridge is not the whole plan; it buys time for service, revenue, and operational changes to ramp up while protecting workers and avoiding abrupt service cuts.
Bottom line: This proposal shows one way the County could stabilize Health Services, avoid layoffs, and phase in structural fixes before shifting costs to countywide shoppers through a sales tax.