Public Comment
Yes or No on Berkeley's $650 Million Measure L on November 8?
When our ballots arrive, we will be deciding whether to vote no or yes on Measure L the Berkeley $650,000,000 General Obligation Bonds. The total cost according to the City’s “best estimate” is $1,125,000,000. The City estimates property owners will pay $475,000,000 in interest and service fees making the final cost for the Measure L Bonds to be paid out over 48 years to be over $1.1 billion.
The ballot statement is:
Shall the measure to create affordable housing; repair streets and sidewalks; underground utilities; and enhance buildings, infrastructure, and safety, authorizing the issuance of $650,000,000 in general obligation bonds, subject to independent oversight and audits, be adopted?
In making your decision of whether to vote for or against the bonds, skip over the promises made in the Yes on L card dropped on your doorstep and the promises made in https://www.renewberkeley.org/ and go to the bond measure text and note these points:
- “dollar amounts are estimates and are not a commitment or guarantee that any specific amounts will be spent on particular projects or categories of projects.“
- “The dates of sale and the amount of bonds sold at any given time will be determined by the City based on need for funds and other factors”
If each bond is paid off over 30 years, then selling the bonds can be spread over up to 18 years, but even that is unknown, because it was a citizen who found calculation errors in the proposed ballot measure financial statements and challenged council that the estimate of cost to the property owners may have been off by as much as 50% (Reported in the August 7, 2022 Activist’s Diary). This resulted in last minute changes to the financial projections and spreading repayment over 48 years.
It is the statement of “no commitment or guarantee” that is the focus of the opposition to Measure L https://berkeleyansforbetterplanning.org/why-no/ , in addition to barriers to providing oversight for existing ballot measures and the absence of clear accounting for current ballot measures.
More important, how is the City of Berkeley performing with regards to accepting oversight for current Ballot Measures?
Look no further than the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, tasked with oversight of Measures FF (2020) and GG (2008).
At the June 28 2022 City Council meeting, the evening Council approved the biennial budget for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 (7/1/2022 – 6/30/2024), the request for financial reports which had been made by the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission at their February 23 2022 meeting finally reached the agenda as item 48 a.
It took four months for the formal request from the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission for quarterly and timely expenditure reports to reach council.
This request was supposed to enable the Commission to perform the Commission’s oversight function and to perform that function in advance of the Council vote on the 2023 and 2024 budget.
According to Council agenda rules, the City Manager has 90 days to respond to any submission from a commission. The response appears as a “Companion Report” usually listed as item b.
The request from the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission for timely information to fulfill their oversight responsibilities did not even merit a discussion from the City Council. Agenda item 48 a. & b. were moved by the mayor from “action” to “consent” and that was the end of it for the council, but not the end of it for the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission.
The Companion Report response to the request from the Commission for financial information to provide oversight contained these statements in 48.b. “The Fire Department staff has committed to providing the DFSC [Disaster and Fire Safety Commission] line item budgets on Measures GG and FF funding plans prior to the budget process cycle as much as feasible.” [emphasis added] And continued, “Budget authority rests with the City Manager” and, “If there are areas that the Commission disagrees with Staff plan’s [for expenditures], they [commission] can make recommendations to Council via Memo or Report to Council.”
The Commission is dependent on the Fire Department to provide the financial information for oversight.
The June 28 2022 companion report cites that the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission received a staff budget presentation on Measure FF on January 27, 2021. According to the Companion report, the Fire Department will provide biennial reports, which leaves the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission tasked with oversight of Measure FF waiting until January 2023 for the next budget/financial report on Measure FF. The same companion report states, “reporting request for Measure GG takes more time.”
Two years is a long time to wait for information for the opportunity to provide ”insights or thoughts” on how the Fire Department spent the Measure FF funds. And when the commission makes a request or sends a Memo or Report, four months is a long time for the Memo Report to reach City Council.
At the June 22, 2022 the Homeless Panel of Experts with oversight responsibility for Measure P voted to submit this letter to council:
“We object to the use of Measure P funds in order to balance the city budget. Measure P was originally passed not as a budget balancing provision but, importantly, as a new funding source specifically to fund new programs addressing the needs of people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness. Frankly, we are appalled that the City of Berkeley has decided to use $2.7 million of Measure P funds to pay for programs already in existence – in most cases for many years. This flies in the face of the original intent of Measure P. It is deeply disappointing, given how desperately extra funds are needed, and will be needed, to address the city’s housing crisis and need for more homeless support services. While we support these existing homeless programs individually, and many of these programs provide great services, we feel their funding must continue to come from their original funding source.”
Whatever scrambling occurs between now and the November 8 election day in an attempt to shore up Measure L , the $650,000,000 General Obligation Bonds with no guarantee or commitment, this Council, this mayor, this city manager have revealed their definition of oversight through their response to commissions.
Oversight in this setting is just an empty word and does not fit this definition:
“Oversight of a system or process is the responsibility for making sure that it works efficiently and correctly.”
There is another definition of oversight and Berkeley’s actions do not fit that either:“Oversight is an unintentional, careless mistake or omission, something that is missed.”
It is intentional.
Commissions provide advice and nothing more: advice that is accepted or dismissed. And the financial reports on which that advice is based so that sound assessment can be made will be provided when “feasible.”
This analysis did not review how often or for how many weeks and months current reporting requirements were missed. That is an insurmountable task with the replacement of the City’s website.
The mayor and council members have discussed that Berkeley residents are under bonded, that Berkeley tax payers have room for a big bond ballot initiative.
Here are ballot measures that Berkeley voters have already passed with the year they were passed:
Measure U1 (2016) permanently increases gross receipts tax on owners of five or more rental units from 1.081% to 2.880% to fund programs to increase affordable housing and protect residents from homelessness. (exemptions: new buildings for 12 years, rent-controlled, section 8 and affordable housing non-profits)
Measure FF (2020) permanent property tax until repealed which may be increased every year with cost of living or per capita income growth whichever is greater, for firefighting, emergency medical response, hazard mitigation, wildfire prevention and preparedness.
Measure GG (2008) permanent special split rate tax for fire protection and emergency response and preparedness imposed on all improvements (all buildings). Dwellings are taxed at a lower square foot rate than other buildings and both tax rates may be increased every year with cost of living or per capita income growth whichever is greater.
Measure GG (2020) tax on riders using transportation network companies (rideshare) originating in Berkeley starting rate of 50 cents for private trip or 25 cents per person for pooled riders. Rate may be increased each year with cost of living or per capita income growth whichever is greater. Tax ends 1/1/2041. General tax for unrestricted general revenue purposes.
Measure M (2012) $30,000,000 general obligation bonds for street and watershed improvements and integrated Green Infrastructure.
Measure O (2018) $135,000,000 bonds to fund housing for low, very low, median and middle-income household to be repaid over 36 years estimated cost. Oversight Housing Advisory Commission and City Council https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/measure-o
Measure P (2018) increases the transfer tax on property sales of properties over $1,500,000 from 1.5% to 2.5% for 10 years expiring 12/31/2028 to raise funds for general municipal purposes such as mental health support, rehousing and other services for the homeless. Includes staffing costs associated with implementing programs. Oversight Homeless Panel of Experts
Measure T1 (2016) $100,000,000 general obligation bonds over a 40 year period to repair, renovate, replace or reconstruct the City’s aging infrastructure and facilities including sidewalks, storm drains, parks, streets, senior and recreation centers and other City facilities and buildings.
The November 8 2022 Vacancy Tax ballot measure is also named Measure M. When ballot measures use the same letters from a previous measure in another year it can be confusing. The Vacancy Tax Measure M (2022) taxes property owners with rentals vacant for greater than 182 days. The tax is in effect from 1/1/2024 through 12/31/2034. Owners of apartments with four or fewer units who live on their property and do not own any other homes will be exempt. The Empty Homes Tax will be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund or may be used to fund any general municipal services designated by the Council.
After reviewing this record, I plan to vote no on Measure L.
