Press Back Browser Button to return to the City Index
Measure W
City of Berkeley, Transfer Tax
Shall the measure effective January 1, 2027, setting the existing general tax on transfers of real property at 2.5% of a property’s value for properties valued $1.6M or higher, and increasing the rate from 2.5% to 3% for properties valued $1.9M or higher and from 3% to 3.5% for properties valued $3.0M or higher, adjusted annually for increases in value; removing January 1, 2029 expiration date; generating an estimated additional $2M – $4M annually, until repealed, be adopted?
Vote Required: 50%+1
SCORE: 4.2
Comments: The score was lowered from the
maximum of five because a lack of clarity on its termination. The claim that
the tax would remain until “repealed” is deceptive because it implies there is
a mechanism within the measure to terminate the tax. There is no probable way
to end this tax other than the difficult citizen initiative process.
Effectively this tax would be permanent. Otherwise, this measure is relatively
complete and informative.
Measure X
City of Berkeley, Library Tax
Shall the measure creating a special parcel tax to maintain Berkeley Public Library facilities and services, prioritizing neighborhood libraries, weekend and evening hours, diverse collections, and youth, educational and other programs, at $0.06 per square foot of improvements for dwelling units, and $0.09 per square foot for other properties, generating $5,600,000 annually until repealed, in addition to the current library tax of $0.28 per square foot for dwelling units and $0.4233 for other properties, be adopted?
Vote Required: 2/3
SCORE: 4.3
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because the claim that the tax would remain until “repealed” is deceptive. It implies there is a mechanism within the measure to terminate the tax. There is no probable way to end this tax other than the difficult citizen initiative process. Effectively this tax would be permanent. Otherwise, this measure’s language is relatively complete and informative
Measure Y
City of Berkeley Parks Tax
Shall the measure increasing the rate of the City’s special parcel tax for parks, trees and landscaping maintenance from $0.221 to $0.2652 per square foot of taxable improvements, adjusted annually for inflation, exempting very low-income property owners as defined by the City Council, estimated to generate an additional approximately $3.8 million annually for a total of approximately $22 million annually, and effective until amended or repealed by voters, be adopted?
Vote Required: 2/3
SCORE: 4.6
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because the claim that the tax would remain until “repealed by voters” is deceptive. It implies there is a mechanism within the measure to terminate the tax. There is no probable way to end this tax other than the difficult citizen initiative process. Effectively this tax would be permanent. Additionally, there should be some source or standard identified for very low income such as HUD or the US Census. Otherwise, this measure is relatively complete and informative
Measure Z
City of Berkeley, Sugary Beverage Tax
Shall the measure to remove the current January 1, 2027 expiration date and extend until ended by voters the general tax on the distribution of sugary drinks and sweeteners, paid by distributors at the rate of 1¢ per fluid ounce, previously approved by voters in 2014, with exceptions for small retailers, milk products, and baby formula, raising approximately $1,150,000 per year for general government use, be adopted?
Vote Required: 50%+1
SCORE: 4.1
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity regarding the exceptions, particularly “small retailers”. The intent of the measure is not expressed. The claim that the tax would remain until “ended by the voters” is deceptive because it implies there is a mechanism within the measure to terminate the tax. There is no probable way to end this tax other than the difficult citizen initiative process. Effectively this tax would be permanent. Otherwise, this measure is relatively complete and informative.
Measure AA
City of Berkeley, Gann Limit
Shall the City’s appropriation limit under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution be increased to allow expenditure of the proceeds of City taxes and income from the investment of those taxes for fiscal years 2025 through 2028?
Vote Required: 50%+1
SCORE: 2.0
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because it should have been clearly stated that this measure is meant to exempt the City from Constitutional spending limits. Voters might not understand that the State appropriations limit, if not increased, might cause the City of Berkeley to spend less money. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from passage of the measure, or cuts in services if the measure does not pass, and what services those cuts or impacts might affect. Possibly money would have to be returned to the taxpayers if this measure does not pass. If so, that possibility should be clearly presented. There were 30 or more words available to further clarify what is proposed.
Measure BB
City of Berkeley, Rent Relief Homeowners
Shall the measure to use existing revenue to fund housing retention and homelessness prevention; modify certain grounds for eviction; remove rent control and registration exemptions for certain units; allow tenant associations and require owners to confer with them: limit the ways tenants can be charged for utilities; limit the maximum annual rent increase to 5%; eliminate suspension of rent controls during high vacancy; and require notice to new tenants of their rights, be adopted?
SCORE: 1.0
Comments: The score was significantly lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed and how it could be accomplished and by whom. No problem was identified for which this measure would be the solution. The most serious problem was that there is a laundry list of things to accomplish without any source of money identified to accomplish the actions. ”Existing revenue” is described as the financial source. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from passage of the measure, but there would inevitably be an impact on some current expenditure if the unnamed financial source is used for implementation of this measure. Also, the duration of the measure is not presented.
Measure CC
City of Berkeley, Rent Relief Homeowners
Shall the measure to use existing revenue to create a fund for rent payments to property owners on certain tenants’ behalf; to expand exemptions from rent control and registration for certain single-family homes and two-unit properties; to allow property owners and tenants to agree to rent increases in exchange for services or amenities; to modify certain grounds for eviction; to allow tenants’ associations; and to remove certain powers from the Rent Board, be adopted?
SCORE: 1.1
Comments: The score was significantly lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed and how it could be accomplished and by whom. No problem was identified for which this measure would be the solution. No source of money was identified to accomplish the actions. ”Existing revenue” is described as the financial source. There would be some inevitable financial impact on some other area of spending from passage of the measure, but they are not identified. Also, the duration of the measure is not presented.
Measure DD
City of Berkeley, CAFO Prohibition
Shall the measure prohibiting the establishment within the City of Berkeley of facilities where livestock are kept for 45 days or more in a 12-month period and which meet size and other regulatory thresholds established by the Environmental Protection Agency; prohibiting the expansion of existing facilities; requiring existing facilities to cease operations within one year; establishing a penalty of $10,000 per violation per day; and allowing enforcement by the City Council or by private lawsuit, be adopted?
SCORE: 2.1
Comments: The score was lowered from the
maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was
needed. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial
impacts from the change, and what those impacts might affect. There is no
apparent mention of the duration of this measure, and there is no explanation
as to which City official or agency is responsible for implementation.
Measure EE
City of Berkeley, Fix Streets and Sidewalks
Shall the measure creating a special parcel tax for the purposes of street and sidewalk repair, repaving and reconstruction, pedestrian safety projects, traffic-calming measures on bicycle boulevards, and environmental infrastructure, at a rate of $0.13 per square foot of improvements, which may be increased annually for inflation, generating approximately $10.5 million annually for 12 years, provided the City continues to fund street maintenance and repair at levels established in 2022, be adopted?
Vote Required: 50%+1
SCORE: 2.8
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on whether there is an existing similar tax also computed on the square footage of improvements. The raters assume that this measure is a Special not a General tax, but the required 50%+1 vote would appear to refute that. If this is a citizen-initiated measure, which may have a 50%+1 vote to pass, that should be made clear. Inflation adjustments should reference a source as to which measurement and region is being used.
Measure FF
City of Berkeley, Safe Streets
Shall the measure creating a special parcel tax for the purpose of street, sidewalk and pedestrian path repair, repaving, and reconstruction, safety improvements, and environmental infrastructure, at a rate of $0.17 per square foot of improvements to dwelling units and $0.25 per square foot of improvements to other property, which may be increased annually for inflation; and generating approximately $15 million annually for 14 years, provided other funding for street maintenance, be maintained?
Vote Required: 50%+1
SCORE: 2.9
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there is a failure to provide information on whether there is an existing similar tax. The raters assume that this measure is a Special not a General tax, but the required 50%+1 vote would appear to refute that. If this is a citizen-initiated measure which may have a 50%+1 vote to pass, that should be made clear. Inflation adjustments should reference a source as to which inflation index and region is being used.
Measure GG
City of Berkeley, Fossil Fuels Tax
Shall the measure adopting a tax of $2.9647/therm of natural gas consumed annually in buildings of 15,000 square feet or larger except government buildings, single-family residences, and residential buildings with at least 50% affordable units, adjusted annually for inflation plus 6%; allocating revenues to building decarbonization programs, and administration; and establishing an oversight committee, generating an estimated $26.7 million the first year and more thereafter until its expiration in December 31, 2050, be adopted? Vote Required: 50%+1
SCORE: 3.1
Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on whether there were any existing or similar taxes based on the consumption of natural gas such as a PGE utility tax. There should be some reference to a standard for affordability such as definitions from the US Census or HUD. The inflation factor should have a source and is unclear. “Adjusted annually for inflation plus 6%”. It needs to be explained what figure is being increased by 6%.
Measure HH
City of Berkeley, Indoor Air Quality
Shall the measure setting new indoor air quality standards for City-owned and -leased buildings: prohibiting compliance with those standards through the use of air filtration or disinfection technologies emitting ozone, volatile organic compounds, oxidation byproducts, excessive sound, or ultraviolet light; requiring repair, closure, evacuation, and/or provision of alternative services to the public due to building closure when standards are not met; and creating a private right to sue over alleged violations, be adopted? Vote Required: 50%+1
SCORE: 0.9
Comments: The score was significantly lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed, what is being proposed and its duration. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from the change, and what those impacts might affect, and there is no explanation as to which City official or agency is responsible for implementation. This measure is particularly unclear as to what air quality improvements would be allowed once the standards are set. Also, if the measure’s effect is only on city-owned or city-controlled buildings, the language should explain why implementation could not occur without this measure’s passage.
Press Back Browser Button to return to the City Index
BALLOT WATCH DOG 