This site presents resident-led analysis of Contra Costa Plan B, a transparent, phased alternative to Measure B focused on protecting jobs and essential services without raising the county sales tax.
Contra Costa County is facing near-term budget pressure that could lead to layoffs and service cuts. A major driver in this analysis is the County Health hospital-and-clinic system: Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and its connected clinics. is the Board-sponsored response on the June 2 ballot, and residents can compare it with a concrete, publicly trackable alternative framework.
This donut shows FY26-27 Health Services components tied to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and the county clinic system, using sourced state/federal impacts and expenditure growth.
Total
69M
Source: See source table below.
Each bar shows annual Health Services pressure components by year: state impact, federal impact, and increased expenditures. The trend highlights why one-time fixes alone will not keep pace over time.
X-axis: Fiscal year | Y-axis: Millions of dollars
How to read this chart
Read each fiscal year from bottom to top. The first segment is the state impact, the second segment adds the federal impact, and the top segment adds increased expenditures to show total annual pressure. As the bars get taller from left to right, pressure is rising year over year. Use the table below if you want the exact numbers for each segment and year.
Source: See source table below.
| Fiscal Year | +Clinic State Impact | +Clinic Federal Impact | CCRMC+Clinic Increased Expenditures | Total Projected Pressure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY26-27 | $36M | $6M | $42M | $27M | $69M |
| FY27-28 | $38M | $31M | $111M | $28M | $97M |
| FY28-29 | $38M | $70M | $219M | $29M | $137M |
| $38M | $96M | $353M | $29M | $163M |
Sources and Methodologies
Source: CCH Budget Forecast Slides (RES-2026-40, table page 2).
Estimation methodology:For FY26-27 through FY29-30, the revenue side shows three connected steps: revenue baseline, the stacked state and federal impact drop, and a third column that stacks available fund balance plus any remaining revenue shortfall. The expenditure bar remains the total expenditure target for each year, and the overlaid trend line tracks estimated ending fund balance in green above $0 and red below $0.
X-axis: Fiscal year | Y-axis: Millions of dollars
Revenue path
Expenditure side
How to read this chart
Read each year from left to right. The first bar is the starting revenue baseline. The second bar shows the stacked state and federal drops that bring revenue down. The third bar shows how much fund balance is used, plus any remaining shortfall, to match that year's spending need. The fourth bar is total expenditures, and the trend line shows where ending fund balance sits each year: green above $0 and red below $0.
Source: See source table below.
| Fiscal Year | Revenue Baseline | State Impact | Federal Impact | Total Revenues | Total Expenditures | Net Surplus / (Deficit) | Estimated Ending Fund Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY26-27 | $878M | $-36M | $-6M | $837M | $929M | $-92M | $327M |
| FY27-28 | $878M | $-38M | $-31M | $810M | $957M | $-147M | $180M |
| FY28-29 | $878M | $-38M | $-70M | $771M | $986M | $-215M | $-35M |
| FY29-30 | $878M | $-38M | $-96M | $744M | $1015M | $-271M | $-306M |
Sources and Methodologies
Source: CCH Budget Forecast Slides (RES-2026-40, table page 2).
Methodology: Values are copied directly from the RES-2026-40 table page 2 extraction and shown in millions.
Chart note: The revenue path uses the source table's revenue baseline and signed impacts, then adds only the amount of starting fund balance needed to reach expenditures or until available fund balance is exhausted.
Key pressure
$239M
Cumulative Health Services shortfall anchor by FY28-29 from Resolution 2026-40, Recital H (signed). Component-year breakdowns in this page still use sourced CCRMC+Clinic impacts from CCH Budget Forecast Slides (RES-2026-40).
This matters because a shortfall at this scale can drive service reductions unless offsetting actions are in place.
Footnote: FY26-27 through FY28-29 cumulative CCRMC+Clinic impacts sum to $219M, which is $20M below the Recital H cumulative health shortfall anchor of $239M.
Primary driver: Federal and state funding changes.
Source: FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF), p. 13; CCH Budget Forecast Slides (RES-2026-40)
These two options spread costs in different ways. A reaches people across the county, while higher service costs land more directly on the people and places using county health services.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
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 |
Sources and Methodologies: 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).
Measure B’s estimated $150M per year covers about 100% of the $65M FY26-27 pressure model used on this page ($23M baseline gap + $42M health shortfall). Because health pressures grow each year while tax revenue stays flat, that gap widens over time without additional action.
Note: The “Projected annual pressure vs proposed offsets” table in the Solution section is a narrower Health Services pressure view, while the first-year gap figure above ($0M) uses the FY26-27 model definition shown here.
Sources: Resolution 2026-40 (signed PDF); FY26-27 Budget Development Key Considerations (PDF), p. 13
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 . Here, that means using part of existing reserves for a limited time to prevent sudden cuts while longer-term fixes take effect.
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. The categories shown—service adjustments, premium updates, operational efficiency, and reserve bridge—are illustrative examples. Actual budget actions and spending categories will be determined by county health department leadership based on operational priorities and community impact.
Total
42M
Source: Illustrative example: This FY26-27 package mix is a model scenario, not a sourced county-adopted cut plan. Actual budget actions are determined by County Health Department leadership.
Service adjustments and consolidations
This example 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. Actual decisions on which services to adjust or consolidate will be made by health department leadership.
Premium and patient-cost updates
This example means bringing in more money through health-plan premiums, fees, and patient-related charges, instead of relying only on broad service cuts. Actual premium structures and patient cost policies will be determined by health department leadership.
Operational efficiency
This example means lowering day-to-day waste through scheduling, procurement, administration, and workflow improvements so the same work costs less to deliver. Which operational areas to prioritize and how much efficiency can realistically be achieved will be determined by health department leadership.
Temporary reserve bridge
This example shows 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. The actual reserve strategy and drawdown schedule will be determined by health department leadership.
For each year, the left bar shows projected legislative pressure and the right bar shows proposed fixes. The reserve bridge stays concentrated in the early years, then drops away as longer-term fixes carry more of the load.
X-axis: Fiscal year | Y-axis: Millions of dollars
Pressure stack
Proposed offsets stack
How to read this chart
Read each year as a pair of bars. The left bar is total pressure from state and federal legislative impacts. The right bar is the proposed offset package made of spending cuts, increased revenue, and a reserve bridge. If the two bar tops are close, the plan is covering most of that year's pressure. The reserve bridge is front-loaded into FY26-27 through FY28-29, then recurring fixes do the remaining work.
Source: See source table below.
| Fiscal Year | +Clinic State Impact | +Clinic Federal Impact | Total Pressure | Proposed Spending Cuts | Proposed Increased Revenue | Proposed Reserve Bridge | Total Proposed Offsets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY26-27 | $36M | $6M | $42M | $1M | $6M | $35M | $42M |
| FY27-28 | $38M | $31M | $69M | $7M | $12M | $50M | $69M |
| FY28-29 | $38M | $70M | $108M | $29M | $24M | $55M | $108M |
| FY29-30 | $38M | $96M | $134M | $99M | $35M | $0M | $134M |
Sources and Methodologies
Sources: CCH Budget Forecast Slides (RES-2026-40, table page 2) for state/federal impacts; County Budget Development Considerations (2026-01-30) and Resolution 2026-40 (signed) for high-level policy framing. No official source prescribes the proposed offset split shown here.
Methodology: Total Pressure = state impact + federal impact. Total Proposed Offsets = proposed spending cuts + proposed increased revenue + proposed reserve bridge. Proposed offset values are illustrative scenario assumptions used to show one possible balancing path.
FY24-25 unassigned General Fund reserve vs. proposed reserve bridge
Current unassigned reserve
$584.6M
Proposed reserve bridge
$140M
Remaining if fully used
$444.6M
The model uses $140M 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 $444.6M 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.
Method note: The $123M figure is an operational proxy derived from the 5% reserve policy threshold using the same revenue context as this model; the policy itself is percentage-based.
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: $35M, $50M, $55M, 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
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
Source: ACFR 2025 (PDF) (amounts in thousands): Nonspendable $19,785; Restricted $4,346; Committed $1,078; Assigned $604,025; Unassigned $584,550
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.