The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors moved forward with placing a sales tax measure on the June Ballot.
In an effort to mitigate Federal and State cuts, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 (Andersen dissenting), to place a five-year 0.065% general retail sales and use tax on the June 2 ballot.
If successful, the additional 0.625% Transactions and Use Tax would generate approximately $150 million to support general operations of the County for a period of five (5) years.
The cost to place the measure on the ballot is approximately $1.2 million for election costs, including printing of ballots and related translation of proposed ordinance, analysis and other text into multiple languages.
Supervisor Candace Andersen expressed concern after being out in the community advocating for the tax, however, it was based on incorrect information the county had placed on its website over a month ago.
She explaining the county said it would be facing a $300 million per year in projected losses of health services by 2028-29—however, the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association pointed out it was cumulative, not ongoing.
She asked for clarification and it turned out the Taxpayers Association was correct and the county was wrong in what they provided on the website.
“I am deeply concerned as I spoken to other elected officials, even members of our elected delegation, I said we absolutely need this because we are looking at this $307 million ongoing deficit,” explained Andersen who asked for actual numbers. “I am truly concerned that we have been unintentionally misrepresenting the full extent of the hit we are taking because of HR 1 and I am very uncomfortable with moving forward and I am advocating we slow this process down.”
She acknowledged that by slowing it down would mean it would not show up on the June ballot but that they needed to take a step back to provide accurate information.
In response, Dr. Grant Colfax, Health Director, explained in December they explained this was a cumulative loss of approximately $300 million a year through 2029.
“Today, we will provide some updated numbers to reinforce the fact that the effects of HR 1 and the state cuts are profound,” stated Colfax who reiterated over 90,000 residents are at risk of losing healthcare, delays in vital care due to loss of coverage and create a strained healthcare system in the county. “This is going to impact our health.”
Brian Buchanan, interim Chief Financial Officer, shared updated data which showed a delay to October will save the county $69 million. They also extended the projects through FY31 which would result in a $1.084 billion deficit—but they also need $240 million in capital needs along with medical disenrollment and inclusion of a basic healthcare program.
“This would take our fund balance into the negative starting in Fiscal Year 2029, about a billion of annual operating deficits overt the period,” stated Buchanan.
Andersen shot back, noting some of these deficits are HR 1 while others were expenses from retrofitting to salary increases to lack of funding—noting HR 1 has added to it.
“I am feeling frustrated,” said Andersen. “The way it was interpretated by the Board of Supervisors and how we put it in the Resolution today, that we have misrepresented, while a similar amount of how we get to, we haven’t been accurate in how we have disclosed it.”
Andersen also stated she acknowledged that even without the tax, they will be in a “significant world of hurt” but its not all attributable to HR 1.
According to Yule, they recommended changing the statement to say by 2029, they would have a $229 million loss (reduction in funding).
Supervisor John Gioia said there was no doubt there would be an impact beyond the projections today and it was important that the impact from Federal Policy changes are being implemented over the course of a couple years – with greater impacts upon fully implemented. He also said there will be other impacts not even figured into the numbers from other items.
Gioia also noted he read the letter from the Taxpayers Association, and it came down to different values.
“To the public, this is not just about the impacts for the people who are on MediCal, it is on everyone who uses an emergency room, everyone who uses healthcare in this county from any provided,” said Gioia.
Colfax again explained the shortfall is a conservative estimate and costs will continue to go up, by 2031, the county will have a $1 billion deficit for healthcare. He said collecting $150 million a year would go a long way towards correcting the deficit—he acknowledged the error in the Resolution, but lives were at risk and the system was at risk.
Sharon Quesada Jenkins, Director of Government Affairs and External Relations at John Muir Health, shared the impacts of HR 1 while admitting everyone will be impacted and the message was not an easy one to give.
“HR 1 will force difficult choices about services, facilities, community benefits, support and access to care and we have all talked about the loss of insurance. We have all seen what happened with COVID and the delay seeking care, sicker patients, advanced illnesses, it is just more expensive,” explained Quesada Jenkins. “This is a hard message and I will just say, we have never been in this position before.”
Supervisor Shannelle Scales-Preston asked if they foresaw any additional cuts beyond 2031.
Colfax called it fluid situation but the projections now are a billion dollars over the next 5-years (note: additional impacts could be another $35 million in cuts in 2032).
“What we know now, is not the worst case scenario,” said Buchanan
Supervisor Diane Burgis asked a hypothetical question, not advocating they do it, but for those who may not have been following this issue and if the county could legally opt out of providing healthcare.
Colfax said no as the county is legally the provider of last resort regardless of demands on the system – they are required to provide care.
Burgis asked if they could tell the Federal Government they don’t want to do what they are asking.
Colfax responded, there was no option to opt out (federal or state).
“I am asking these questions because I think some people think these things we are doing is optional or cushioning to help people because we have soft hearts,” explained Burgis. “We are also legally responsible to do some of this work.”
Burgis continued noting when one portion of the system is “shaky” it makes the entire system shaky – even when people have healthcare insurance, this system helps make their system more affordable, efficient, and more accessible.”
She admitted they know they don’t know what is coming and projects are just one part of the overall situation—other things could unfold. But, the county was trying to be ready for what they could do and acknowledge that this solution would not solve all the problems of this situation.
Colfax said the solution would mitigate many of the issues.
Burgis explained if they move forward, they still have work to do to help the overall system.
“I just want to make this really to people, while we use the impacts of HR 1 that is a very limited, rather large, but a very limited impact we are dealing with. There are numerous ones that we know of, but others we don’t know of that we are trying to be strong to be able to handle,” explained Burgis.
After public comments, the Board of Supervisors went into discussion.
Gioia addressed fixed income seniors and that what they were attempting to do was help them. He said he spoke with a number of seniors, a senior who pays $5 more a month for sales tax would pay possibly hundreds more in costs for food or medical are.
“We are actually working to protect seniors, second, this is no different than what we did with Measure X,” said Gioia. “The law that we needed to raise the sales tax, had not been in effect yet.”
Gioia made the motion to move forward with changes made by county counsel to move forward with a sales tax measure.
Andersen said she was all in while trying to find a solution and putting this matter before voters, its been a rushed process to find all the hoops. However, she was still advocating for slowing this down and a future measure that involved both collaboration and more accurate information.
“Unfortunately, my past support of this measure was really based on an imperfect interpretation of the facts,” said Andersen noting she advocated for the tax using misinformation. “To me, it’s irresponsible to move forward today. Perhaps we can come back with a lower tax that was more aligned to what we think our HR 1 losses are truly going to be. We do have time to consider a future tax.’
Andersen continued, noting she understood other measures will be on future ballots, but the greater hit has yet to come before the county. She also appreciated Gioia’s effort to get this on the ballot, but found great frustrated in the last week that most of the Contra Costa County delegation didn’t even know they were doing this.
“We need more time to work with our delegation to get our tax cap resolved and to also work with our fellow elected officials,” said Andersen. “Mayors of our cities are upset, they don’t understand why we have Measure X why we are rushing to put another 0.65% sales tax on the ballot. I feel like we need to be doing a little more collaboration, rely on accurate information.”
Andersen apologized but said she will not be supporting this sales tax measure going forward.
Supervisor Ken Carlson also admitted to being confused in the numbers and while at a conference stated there was no optimism in the next few cycles to change what is in HR 1. He said he was in full support of this to put it to the voters to help fill gaps and keep services.
Scales-Preston appreciated the updated presentation and numbers. She reiterated comments made by Congressman Mark DeSualnier approaching the Board in November during SNAP cuts where he made it clear there were no changes that were going to happen to HR 1 and he shared, “you are all going to have to help yourselves for the next couple of years and come together as a county to help each other.”
She was not in favor of waiting to place it on the ballot, she believed they needed to mitigate issues now as it will only get harder later—to help the social safety net. She was in support for the measure.
Burgis thanked Andersen for bringing accurate data, but also noted the County of Los Angeles and many others are going for a similar sales tax in November. She said she would be supporting this – but did understand the concerns that Andersen brought.
The board voted 4-1 in favor of the measure with Andersen dissenting.
Note
- Agenda + Documents: Click Here
Previous
- Feb 10, 2026 – Board of Supervisors Agree to Ask Voters to Backfill Federal Cuts With Sales Tax Measure
- Feb 10 – Letter: Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Questions Legality of County-Wide Sales Tax
- Feb 9 – HR 1 Response: Contra Costa County Could See Sales Tax Ask on June Ballot
- Jan 20 – Contra Costa County Supervisors Agree to Move Forward With Sales Tax Effort
- Jan 5 – Contra Costa Health: Most Recent Federal and State Updates
- Nov 2025 – Contra Costa County Set to Be Impacted by HR1 and State budget
