Contra Costa Taxpayers Association recently voted to oppose Proposition 50. Executive Committee member Mark Fernwood captures our concerns.

Concerns with Upcoming Prop. 50.  The Return to CA Gerrymandering

The November 4 California special election will have one issue, Proposition 50.  This measure calls for a highly partisan redistricting map be accepted over the voters’ approved Independent Redistricting Commission.  The excuse by Gov. Newsom is that he believes he is “just” in disenfranchising his CA opposition party voters, because Texas is doing the same to their political party. Do two wrongs actually make a “right?” It is also very unusual as it is being done mid election cycle.  Newsom also blames his decision on President Trump when this is solely, an internal state issue. 

Gerrymandering, is a strategy employed in some states, after each Decennial (10-year) US Census.  Population changes in states require reallocating of Congressional Seats.  This requires districts to be redrawn to reflect population changes.  This assures congressional districts have balanced populations in the state.  The fairness, or lack thereof, will affect each following 2 yr. election until the next Census. 

“Gerrymandering” dates to 1812, when Governor Elbridge Gerry, of Mass. employed this corrupt political method.

The problem comes when highly partisans are in control of drawing the maps, areas of strong political preference can be split up and included (diluted into other areas.)   It is the view of CoCoTax that “gerrymandering,”  by either party, is grossly unfair.  It is done to disenfranchise the will of the general public. 

To further concerns over the special election for Prop. 50 is that the costs for this special election, is about $280 million. This, in our state, that is in the midst of a $12 billion deficit.  The timing was set for political benefit ahead of the next three regular elections.  Special elections tend to have lower turnouts benefiting activists.

Prop 50 Impact Locally

Prop 50 will transfer many East County voters from District 10 represented by Mark Desaulnier to the Central Valley-based CD 9 represented by Josh Harder. This appears to have been a response to Harder’s narrow win in 2024, but breaks up Contra Costa’s representation in Congress.

Transportation Update

Thanks to readers who weighed in on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority survey. You can learn more about how CCTA is spending sales tax money and their future plans during this web meeting: Where Do Your Measure J Sales Tax Dollars Go? CCTA Lunch & Learn Webinar Tickets, Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 12:00 PM | Eventbrite

Questionable Walnut Creek Sales Tax Spending at Heather Farm

Thanks to CoCoTax Executive Committee Member Denise Kalm for contributing this analysis.

Mistakes are being made in the distribution of the Walnut Creek Measure O (half cent sales tax) funds. There is an extravagant scope creep in the projects, expanding programs, services and employment. It was clear this measure was designed to maintain, not expand, youth, senior and arts programs, programs and services. The capital expenditures were to repair, renovate, and replace aging City facilities. Instead, an extravagant re-distribution of those funds is being proposed or implemented, threatening additional revenue measures.  

In fact, when the city planned Measure O, they polled the residents for their priorities.  Check where the community and aquatics center ranked.  This should have compelled the City Council to more prudently plan the spending in line with what the voters told them they wanted.

Of the Measure O projects actually in plan, several projects raise concerns.  The smaller ones are:  Funding to support marketing and staffing at the Lesher Center to grow audiences and improve performances.  Really?  Most are sold out, so marketing isn’t needed.  Growing audiences?  And another “goal” was “sustainability.” So far, the Climate Action Plan is vague, but a position has been created to manage it, also with Measure O funds.  While voters did rank reducing greenhouse gases much higher than the Heather Farms plan, we need more detail to understand the thinking of the City Council.  And perhaps, as there is so much published on ways to reduce our footprint, you don’t actually need an employee for this.

The BIG Project

The biggest item on the “wish list” is redoing Heather Farm and the swim center.  So far, a lot of the park has been blocked off from visitors, and for some reason, the nature lake has been slightly expanded.  This took a number of weeks, and no explanation for this has been presented. 

The costliest parts are: expanding the community center to allow for more bookings, which is an expansion of the current use, not maintaining the use. We may need this, but did the voters approve the need for expansion? 

However, the swim center is another story.  What is needed is probably relining and renovating the pool and doing some updates on the swim center itself.  Largely used for lane swimming and classes, it doesn’t need fancy.  Yet, the City Council has decided instead to demolish the facility and rebuild elsewhere in the park, a choice that no doubt costs a lot more money.  Is this actually needed, or is it just a desire?

Why Do We Care?

Those who passed Measure O probably thought that a. they might have input into approved projects and b. that the projects would be completely covered by Measure O funds.  Neither appear to be true.

The Heather Farm project is expected to cost $77MM.  That is 7 of the 10 years of the sales tax measure!  The plan was to fund it with Measure O revenues. Due to scope creep and redistribution proposals, now, additional donations appear needed. What if they invade the General Facilities Reserve Fund?   That invasion is NOT for an emergency use!   Is there another financial scheme in process?  Why is Measure O only going to provide $36MM, less than $77MM over ten years?

Now, wouldn’t you think we’d have to have a vote on a bond, as these tend to be very costly, due to the long period and resultant interest.  But no. Is the City Council exploring a way around an election, which would require a 2/3rds vote?  They don’t want to risk an election.  If people didn’t agree with their Big Beautiful Park Project, it would fail.

Instead, the City Council is entertaining a financial scheme, a workaround—lease financing structure—which could allow the city and the state to finance capital improvements through the general fund moneys without voter approval?   Could this possibly avoid the Constitutional requirement that doesn’t allow cities, counties and school districts to incur indebtedness in a year that exceeds income and revenue for that year?

Complicated lease financings arrangements would be used structured through a joint power authority (JPA) (which is a separate agency formed by two or more other public agencies) where a city is making lease payments to the JPA for the right to build a public building, then lease it back.  The rent money goes to a bond trustee and the trustee pays principal and debt service to retire the obligation, with the bonds sold to investors.  It’s really just like a bond, but there isn’t a vote on it, even though it likely puts our city in debt for longer than the Measure O funds last.

The bonds projected or required for this project are likely to be between $40MM and $60MM, but the total won’t be known until they have the final construction bid costs which are due in November.  Depending how long repayment takes, Measure O may be able to fund it, BUT, only if they use a repayment schedule of 8 years.  There are only 8 years left on Measure O, so if the bond repayment period is extended, it’s unclear how the money will be acquired.  Could we expect a proposal to extend the sales tax, or, increase it?  Should the taxpayers be forced to carry that burden when they weren’t able to vote on it?

The two people listed below that you can reach out to if you wish to (insert) be better informed and register your concern, as well as the Walnut Creek City council.  You can also write to your local paper.

Kirsten LaCasse, Administrative Services Director

(925) 943-5810

lacasse@walnutcreekca.gov

Katye Roa, Finance Manager

(925) 943-5840 roa@walnutcreekca.gov Next Event Join us in Concord at 11:45am on Friday, October 24th to hear journalist and policy analyst Steven Greenhut to discuss his new book, Is There a War on Suburbia? Sign up here: https://cocotax.org/sys/website/system-pages/?pageId=1860388