By Robert Haugh

Voting has started for Measure A, the County of Santa Clara’s request to voters to increase the sales tax for County services.

Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, who represents Santa Clara, has been a big proponent of the measure.

Santa Clara News Online (SCNO) requested how she and the Board identified cost savings before asking voters to increase the sales tax to be one of the highest in the state.  

Depending on where you’re shopping in the County, the sales tax could increase to 9.75% to 10.5%.

“Since joining the board (in 2019), I have consistently initiated budget transparency improvements, the majority of which have been adopted, stated Ellenberg in an email. “When the budget is more understandable to policy makers as well as the public, we can ensure that we are spending money most effectively and for greatest impact.

“As vice chair of the Finance and Government Operations Committee, I am deeply involved in understanding the County’s finances and regularly asked questions about how our dollars are improving the lives of our residents,” Ellenberg said. 

After receiving Ellenberg’s email, SCNO asked Ellenberg’s staff for specific financial information on cost savings. But they could provide none.  

So, SCNO reviewed Ellenberg’s work on the Finance and Government Operations Committee (FGOC).

For a committee charged with overseeing Santa Clara County’s $13 billion government, the FGOC spent most of 2025 doing very little about the “finance” part of its title.

During the five meetings this year, the two-member panel – Supervisors Ellenberg and Betty Duong – didn’t identify a single cost-saving measure, budget reduction, or plan to rein in spending. 

Instead, an SCNO review of the minutes shows that the meetings were filled with staff presentations, legislative briefings, and updates on projects already years in motion.

Nowhere in the minutes is there any evidence that Duong or Ellenberg asked County departments to find efficiencies, trim costs, or even explain rising expenses. 

The committee did approve one item technically related to money.  It was $157,000 write-off of uncollected conservatorship fees. But that was a formality, not a reform or a cost saving.

Meanwhile, the committee received more than a dozen reports on behavioral health construction, Fairgrounds redevelopment, and new commissions. Not once did the committee question the long-term financial impact of these expansions.

Instead of fiscal strategy, the FGOC prioritized ceremonial updates such as Sister-County programs, legislative wish lists, and county website redesigns. 

At one meeting, the committee spent time hearing about Super Bowl human trafficking coordination plans, a worthwhile issue. But it’s not a fiscal responsibility item.

While health care, labor costs, and capital projects strained the County budgets, Ellenberg’s FGOC and the Board of Supervisors didn’t do any cost cutting before asking voters to raise the sales tax.

Editor’s Note:  The Mercury News and the Palo Alto Daily Post also concluded that the County is fiscally irresponsible and urged rejection of Measure A.