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 campaign proposes a transparent, phased county plan as an alternative to Measure B on the June 2 election ballot, focused on protecting jobs and essential services first.
Before voters decide on Measure B on June 2, we want the County to publish and act on this alternative plan to stabilize services, protect workers, and show measurable results.
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, but voters should be able to compare it with a concrete, publicly trackable alternative.
This shows the three biggest pieces of the FY26-27 problem in plain terms.
- 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.
Stacked bars show existing gap, estimated employee pay and benefits increase, and estimated Health Services shortfall by fiscal year.
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 | $145M | $363M |
| FY28-29 | $0M | $229M | $211M | $440M |
| FY29-30 | $0M | $241M | $307M | $548M |
Estimations based on FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF).
Estimation methodology: Existing gap uses the FY26-27 source reference ($23M) and is set to $0 after FY26-27 in this table. Employee pay and benefits use the FY26-27 source point ($208M), then apply a modeled 5% annual growth rate. Health Services shortfall uses a source-anchored FY29-30 point (~$307M) and an exponential interpolation from FY26-27 to FY29-30. The reserve bridge taper is modeled to reach $0 in FY30-31, but the chart display stops at FY29-30.Why the shortfall is happening (Health Services, with source)
Key pressure
$307M
Projected cumulative Health Services impact by FY28-29.
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 do not distribute costs in the same way, but both can place real pressure on lower-income communities unless protections are built in.
The Solution
Our proposal is an alternative to Measure B: a phased package that starts with immediate controls, then scales recurring fixes, with temporary and limited reserve bridging only while structural changes take hold.
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 is an illustrative example of a potential FY26-27 mix, aligned to the Problem-section estimated pressure for that year.
Total
331M
- Service adjustments and consolidations116M (35%)
- Premium and patient-cost updates66M (20%)
- Operational efficiency50M (15%)
- Temporary reserve bridge99M (30%)
Source: Estimations based on FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF) and the Problem-section 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 fiscal year, the left stacked bar shows projected pressure and the right stacked bar shows proposed offsets. The reserve bridge starts much larger in FY26-27, then phases down toward $0 by FY30-31.
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 estimation 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 | $145M | $363M | $178M | $65M | $120M | $363M |
| FY28-29 | $0M | $229M | $211M | $440M | $264M | $97M | $79M | $440M |
| FY29-30 | $0M | $241M | $307M | $548M | $362M | $142M | $44M | $548M |
Reading guide: Total Pressure is the sum of the three pressure drivers shown in the left bar. Total Proposed Offsets is the sum of spending cuts, increased revenue, and the temporary reserve bridge shown in the right bar.
Two stacked bars per fiscal year compare Revenue (after the projected gap and shortfall, plus proposed added revenue and the front-loaded reserve bridge) against Expenses by category. In this model, Other stays flat and annual cuts are applied to Services and Supplies.
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 | $3875M | $65M | $120M | $4060M | $1244M | $2023M | $793M | $4060M |
| FY28-29 | $3809M | $97M | $79M | $3985M | $1255M | $1937M | $793M | $3985M |
| FY29-30 | $3713M | $142M | $44M | $3899M | $1267M | $1839M | $793M | $3899M |
Reading guide: Total Revenue is operating revenue after the projected gap and shortfall, plus proposed added revenue and the temporary reserve bridge. Total Expenses is the sum of the three spending categories shown in the expense stacked bars. In this version of the model, Other stays flat and annual spending cuts are applied to Services and Supplies.
Current reserves and proposed reserve use
FY24-25 unassigned General Fund reserve vs. proposed reserve bridge
Current unassigned reserve
$584.6M
Proposed reserve bridge
$442M
Remaining if fully used
$142.6M
The model uses $442M of reserve revenue across FY26-27 through FY29-30, compared with a current FY24-25 unassigned General Fund reserve of $584.6M.
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, $120M, $79M, and $44M.
FY24-25 unassigned General Fund reserve compared with the County's 5% policy floor.
Total
585M
- 5% policy minimum123M (21%)
- Above policy minimum462M (79%)
Source: FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF), p. 8
FY24-25 total General Fund balance split into fund-balance categories (GASB 54).
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: The County has the capacity to stabilize Health Services first, avoid layoffs, and pursue structural fixes without immediately shifting the cost onto countywide shoppers through a sales tax.