Grand Jury group evaluates ballot language for Alameda County measures

Members of the Alameda County Chapter of the California Civil Grand Jury Association, a nonprofit organization of former members of the grand jury, review and rate the pending ballot measures for fairness and accuracy. The group says a 2021 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury report — “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions” — drove their effort to develop a “Yelp”-like ratings system, on a scale of 1 – 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest, to assess all 34 Alameda County local ballot measures scheduled for the November 5, 2024 election. (Piedmonter Michael Henn is one of the organization’s board members.)

From the ACCGJA website:

Please read the report below for all 34 measures Alameda County voters will see on November 5th.

Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Association Local Ballot Measure Ratings

The 34 Alameda County local ballot measures scheduled for the November 5, 2024 general election, were evaluated in August 2024 by the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Association, (ACCGJA). The measure’s Titles were evaluated for accuracy and fairness pursuant to the California Elections Code and the criteria established by the association for each type of ballot measure, e.g. Bond Measure, Tax Measure and Other (non-tax measure). The collective scores represent the average score arrived at by the evaluators who are Civil Grand Jury Association members (up to 15 allowed). The scoring system is comparable to the popular “Yelp” type scoring system (a score of one is worst; five is best). Like a Yelp evaluation, the ratings reflect the average of the evaluators’ educated opinions, based on the established criteria as to what should be, and should not be, included in each type of ballot measure.

We emphasize that the ACCGJA IS NOT evaluating the merits of the measures. The evaluation is not partisan, neither liberal or nor conservative. We are only concerned with the accuracy and impartiality of the 75-word ballot title being put to the voters. The 75 words are the only thing that we know every voter sees. State law requires ballot language to be “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure, and shall be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure”. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions violate the law by exaggerating the benefits and glossing over the costs, as well as adding extraneous verbiage designed to favor passage of the measure. No one other than the agency promoting the measure is required to approve the agency’s language. To counteract this, there is a need for active and consistent monitoring and evaluation of local government’s ballot language, aka “Ballot Titles”. This current ACCGJA effort implements the findings of the 2021 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury report, The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions.

Additional information can be found on the ACCGJA website: acgrandjuryassn.org

Results: The ACCGJA review produced individual ballot measure scores ranged from 0.9 to 4.6. The average was 2.91. The most common matter that caused a reduction in the score was a lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed and what it would cost. Almost as common was the inclusion of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a favorable vote on the measure. Numerous proposed tax increases failed to mention what the existing tax rate is or whether the new tax or bond was being added to an existing similar tax or bond. Thus voters could not learn the amount of increase or even the percentage of increase if the proposed measure were to pass. Also common among general tax increases was a listing of popular or feel-good spending categories that would be improved if the measure was to pass. But as a general tax, the proceeds could be spent on any public purpose, and nothing might be spent on the listed areas like pothole repair, homeless services or public safety. But as stated above, all the measures exhibited some degree of proponent bias, emphasizing the benefits and glossing over the costs, meaning the authors want the measure to pass. 

Measure C 

City of Albany Sidewalks and Pathways

Shall a measure to impose a special parcel tax on non-exempt property at $0.017 per lot square foot to repair and upgrade public sidewalks and pathways to improve safety and accessibility, replacing the existing special parcel tax imposed for sidewalk repair, subject to an annual consumer price index adjustment up to 3%, capped for larger parcels at a maximum $6,000 tax per parcel, providing an estimated $392,282 annually, until June 30, 2035, be adopted?

Vote Required: 2/3

SCORE: 4.5

Comments: The score was only slightly lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on the rate of the existing special parcel tax. Otherwise this ballot title was straight forward and informative and provides the expected information for voters to make an informed decision.

Measure K

DELTA COLLEGE JOB TRAINING, REPAIR, AFFORDABLE EDUCATION MEASURE. To improve local community college classrooms/ labs/ access for nursing/ vocational career training, student safety; remove asbestos, lead paint, mold; ensure safe drinking water; repair deteriorating sewers, roofs; acquire, construct, repair classrooms, sites, facilities, equipment; shall San Joaquin Delta Community College District School Facilities Improvement District No. 1’s measure authorizing $598,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying $16 per $100,000 assessed valuation, generating $34,800,000 annually while bonds are outstanding, be adopted, requiring local control, oversight, audits, spending disclosure?”

Vote Required: 55%

SCORE: 2.2

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on the duration of the bonds and the estimated cost of repayment, whether there were any existing bonds in place, whether the proposed bonds were Capital Appreciation bonds or follow a regular amortization schedule, and because of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote such as “local control”. The language regarding threats of harm to students from lead, asbestos and mold if the measure does not pass, is not substantiated and appears to be included to influence a Yes vote.

Measure L

Albany USD Bond Measure

“To improve and construct safe, modern classrooms, restrooms, and community and arts facilities; renovate cafeterias/dining areas, and outdoor spaces; replace outdated portables with new classrooms; update aging electrical, heating/cooling systems, and roofs; shall Albany Unified School District’s measure be adopted authorizing $63,800,000 in bonds at legal rates, levy approximately $60 per $100,000 of assessed value, raising approximately $4,210,000 annually while bonds are outstanding, with independent oversight, audits and all funds staying local?”

Vote Required: 55%

SCORE: 2.3

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on the duration of the bonds and the estimated cost of repayment, whether there were any existing bonds in place, whether the proposed bonds were Capital Appreciation bonds or follow a regular amortization schedule, and because of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote such as “all funds staying local” Would anyone expect Albany to improve schools in another town?

Measure M

Fremont USD Bond Measure

“To repair/upgrade local schools by updating classrooms/ science labs/ classroom technology/ equipment; replacing leaking roofs; replacing outdated, aging/ deteriorating portables with permanent classrooms; acquiring, constructing, repairing classrooms, facilities, sites/ equipment; and replacing inefficient HVAC, electrical/ plumbing systems with updated sustainable systems; shall Fremont Unified School District’s measure authorizing $919,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying 4.9¢/ $100 assessed value ($63,000,000 annually) while bonds are outstanding, be adopted, requiring citizen oversight/ audits, and no money for administrators’ salaries?”

Vote Required: 55%

SCORE: 1.6

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide the tax rate in the standard of dollars per $100,000 of assessed value. The district also failed to provide information on the duration of the bonds and the estimated cost of repayment, whether there were any existing bonds in place, whether the proposed bonds were Capital Appreciation bonds or follow a regular amortization schedule, and because of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote such as “no money for administrators’ salaries”. Proposition 39 bonds are prohibited from being spent on administrators’ salaries and operating expenses.

Measure N

New Haven USD Bond Measure

New Haven Unified School District Classroom, Science Lab, Student Safety Measure. To repair/ upgrade local schools, including classrooms/ labs for science, technology, engineering, math, reading/ writing; improving campus safety/ security; replacing aging roofs, heating/ cooling systems, restrooms/ plumbing, shall New Haven Unified School District’s measure authorizing $272,000,000 in bonds at legal rates be adopted, at average levies of $60 per $100,000 assessed value (approximately $17,200,000 annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent oversight, audits, no funds for administrator salaries, and funds used locally?

Vote Required: 55%

SCORE: 2.4

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on the duration of the bonds and the estimated cost of repayment, whether there were any existing bonds in place, whether the proposed bonds were Capital Appreciation bonds or follow a regular amortization schedule, and because of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote such as “funds used locally” and “no money for administrators’ salaries”. Proposition 39 bonds are prohibited from being spent on administrators’ salaries and operating expenses.

Measure O

Newark USD Bond Measure

To update schools for 21st century learning, classrooms/ labs for science, technology, engineering, arts and math-instruction; technology infrastructure, HVAC, electrical/plumbing systems; and school security/ emergency preparedness; shall Newark Unified School District’s measure authorizing $205,000,000 in bonds at legal interest rates be adopted, with average levies of $50 per $100,000 assessed valuation while bonds are outstanding, generating approximately $14,000,000 annually, extending not increasing estimated tax rates, with citizen oversight, annual audits and no funds for administrators?

Vote Required: 55%

SCORE: 2.0

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on the duration of the bonds and the estimated cost of repayment, whether there were any existing bonds in place, whether the proposed bonds were Capital Appreciation bonds or follow a regular amortization schedule, and because of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote such as “no funds for administrators”. Proposition 39 bonds are prohibited from being spent on administrators’ salaries. Additionally, the statement that the measure does not increase tax rates is deceptive. While the basic tax rate may not increase, the repayment of bonds is an add-on to the tax obligation, which will inevitably have to be paid by higher taxes. There is an implication that an existing indebtedness will be extended, but the needed explanation is lacking.

Measure P

Piedmont USD Parcel Tax

To attract and retain highly qualified teachers and educational support staff and continue funding advanced academic programs, shall Piedmont Unified School District’s measure renewing the school parcel tax for 8 years be adopted at the rate of 50 cents per square foot of building improvements, providing 5 million dollars in annual school funding, with independent citizen oversight and all money locally controlled?

Vote Required: 2/3

SCORE: 3.4

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote such as “all money locally controlled”. But the more serious concern was the failure to inform voters that there was an existing parcel tax in place. Calling the proposed new tax a “renewal” is deceptive because the existing tax is 25 cents a square foot, while the new tax is 50 cents a square foot. The doubling of the rate and the resulting cost to taxpayers was not disclosed.

Measure Q

San Lorenzo USD Bond Measure

“To modernize/construct classrooms and school facilities; make health, safety and security improvements; upgrade deteriorating plumbing, sewer, and irrigation systems; upgrade outdated technology infrastructure; and replace aging heating and ventilation systems; shall the measure authorizing San Lorenzo Unified School District to issue $195,000,000 of bonds at legal rates be adopted, generating on average $12,400,000 annually while bonds are outstanding at rates of approximately $60 per $100,000 assessed value, with citizens’ oversight, annual audits, and all money staying local?”

Vote Required: 55%

SCORE: 2.4

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide information on the duration of the bonds and the estimated cost of repayment, whether there were any existing bonds in place, whether the proposed bonds were Capital Appreciation bonds or follow a regular amortization schedule, and because of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote such as “all money staying local”.

Measure R

City of Albany

To fund local tenant rental assistance programs, residential rental code enforcement, legal assistance for tenants and landlords, and to support rental providers to avoid financial hardship, shall a measure establishing a supplemental special business license tax on residential rental businesses of 0.36% of gross receipts for renting four or fewer units in the City and 1% of gross receipts for renting five or more units, providing approximately $475,000 annually until ended by voters, be adopted?

Vote Required: 2/3

SCORE: 3.8

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. There was a lack of clarity as what the money would be spent on because the laundry list at the beginning was so broad and the actual amount raised was small. 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.            

Measure S

City of Albany, Delegate Authority to Appoint

Shall the City Charter of Albany be amended to delegate the authority to appoint City officers and department heads from the City Council to the City Manager, except for the City Attorney, who would still be appointed by the City Council, and delegate authority for organizing the City to the City Manager?”

Required Vote: 50%+1

SCORE: 3.1

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed. No problem was identified for which this measure would be the solution. There also is no explanation on financial impacts from the change. Only about 50 of the 75 words allowed to explain the measure were actually used. More clarity could have easily been provided to the voters-“organizing the City” is particularly ambiguous. What is involved with “organizing the city”?

Measure T

City of Albany, Eliminate Bond Requirement

Shall the City Charter of Albany be amended to eliminate the requirement that officers as determined by the City Council execute a bond before entering upon their official duties?”

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 3.4

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed. No problem was identified for which this measure would be the solution. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from the change. Voters will not even know who pays for the bond if it’s retained. Only about 30 of the 75 words allowed to be used to explain the measure were actually used. More clarity could have easily been provided to the voters.

Measure U

City of Albany, City’s Bonding Limit

Shall the City Charter of Albany be amended to remove the exception for school purpose bonds from the City’s bonding limit and clarify that the City’s bonding limit is the lesser of (1) 15% of the assessed valuation of the property in the City subject to direct taxation or (ii) the statutory maximum amount?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 3.6

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed. Because of the vague and complex language, it is unlikely that most voters will understand what is being proposed.  No problem was identified for which this measure would be the solution. There also is no explanation on whether there would be financial impacts from the change. There were 20 or more words available to further clarify what is proposed.

Measure V

City of Albany, Youth Voting

Shall the City Charter of Albany be amended to allow Albany residents to vote for local candidates and ballot measures in municipal and school district elections if they are U.S. citizens, at least 16 years old and registered to vote, once the City Council and School Board, respectively, determine that including 16- and 17-year old voters in such elections will be cost-effective and feasible, and to repeal older Charter language about former elected officers?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 2.5

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to explain or even estimate what the costs would be to implement, as well as the failure to present a reason as to why the measure was needed. No problem was identified for which this measure would be the solution. There is particular vagueness as to how the measure would be implemented and by whom (Registrar of Voters?). The ambiguous language, “to repeal older Charter language about former elected officers” is particularly troublesome. This impacts multiple issues on the same ballot and would confuse voters as to what they are actually voting on.

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?

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?

Vote Required: 50%+1

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?

Vote Required: 50%+1

Criteria:

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?

Vote Required: 50%+1

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

Criteria:

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.

Measure II

City of Dublin, Traffic Relief, Clean Air, Open Space

“Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure. Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the Open Space Initiative of 2014, at no cost to taxpayers, allowing Dublin to accept land donation to connect Dublin Boulevard 1.5 miles east to North Canyons Parkway, including bike lanes, pedestrian access, improved 911 response/ traffic flow, and preserve 100 acres of open space while maintaining voter approved housing development restrictions, in exchange for potential limited commercial development on the adjacent 80 acres?”

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 2.1

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to what the measure would accomplish and why the measure was needed. There is an implication that a new road, bike lanes and pedestrian access may occur, but no statement as to whether the city or a developer would pay for those improvements. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from the change, and what those impacts might cost. The title is misleading. From what is proposed the title should say: “Amend the existing open space initiative to allow 80 acres of open space land to be developed” since that is what is proposed.

Measure JJ

City of Dublin, Government Accountability

“GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. Shall the Dublin Municipal Code be amended to prohibit councilmembers and commissioners from accepting gifts from lobbyists and city contractors; prohibit lobbyists from sitting on City commissions; impose a combined term limit of 12 years for the Mayor and/or City Councilmembers, while retaining existing term limits for the current Mayor and City Councilmembers; and require posting of all City contracts on the City’s website for public review?”

Vote Required: 50%+1

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, and what is being proposed. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from the change, and what those impacts might affect. This measure is particularly deceptive in hiding the fact that this measure is actually a term-limit expansion masquerading as a term-limit restriction. The current Dublin term limits restrict the City Council’s and Mayor’s terms to 8 years, which is proposed to be expanded to 12 years. That fact is not disclosed in the language or title.

Measure KK

City of Hayward, Services and Facilities

To continue providing essential City of Hayward services, including firefighting, emergency-medical response, police protection, pothole repair, street improvements, general City maintenance, and modernization of aging City facilities, including for police, public works, and South Hayward community and library services; shall a City of Hayward measure to continue (without increasing) an existing half cent sales tax for 20 years, providing $20,000,000 annually that cannot be taken by the State, requiring annual audits and public disclosure, be adopted?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 4.1

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because it is deceptive to provide a long list of popular areas of expenditures, but as a general tax the proceeds could be spent on any legal purpose, and not on the popular topics like fire and police protection and pothole repair which are featured. The claim that the tax proceeds cannot be taken by the state is gratuitous because the state funds many aspects of city government, not vice versa. Implicit but not stated is the fact that a measure that extends an existing tax IS a tax increase, since taxes would decrease without this measure. Otherwise, the language is relatively straight forward and accurate.

Measure LL

City of Newark, Transient Occupancy Tax

To maintain local services/ facilities, such as: repairing potholes/ city streets; replacing seismically unsafe fire stations; maintaining neighborhood police patrols, 9-1-1 and emergency medical response/ fire protection; and for general government use; shall the City of Newark measure be adopted increasing the existing voter approved transient occupancy (hotel) tax from 10% to 14%, paid only by hotel/ lodging guests, until ended by voters, providing $2,100,000 more annually, that cannot be taken by Sacramento, including independent citizen oversight?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 3.7

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there was a lack of clarity as what the money would be spent on. As a general tax the proceeds could be spent on any legal purpose. Not one dollar needs to be spent on the listed items. The claim that the tax would remain until “ended by 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 by the difficult citizen initiative process. Effectively this tax increase would be permanent. The statement that the tax proceeds cannot be taken by the state is also deceptive because the state funds many aspects of city government, not vice versa.

Measure MM

City of Oakland, Wildfire Protection Zone

Shall the measure levying a special tax for 20 years in the “Wildfire Prevention Zone” (defined in the measure), to prevent wildfires by implementing City of Oakland prevention plans, including vegetation management, evacuation route protection, enhanced fire patrols during high danger periods, and goat grazing, at annual rates of $99/single-family parcel, $65/condominium/multifamily unit; nonresidential parcels based on a formula, generating $2,670,000 in 2025-26, with cost of living increases, citizens’ oversight and audits, be adopted?

Vote Required: 2/3

SCORE: 4.3

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there was a lack of clarity as to whether there was an existing similar tax and what the new money would be spent on relative to the level of city fire protection service that would be provided if the measure does not pass. Inflation increases should provide a source for the inflation index used. Otherwise this is an accurate and informative ballot measure description.

Measure NN

City of Oakland, Citywide Violence Reduction Services Shall the measure to: (1) fund Citywide violence reduction services, such as 9-1-1 dispatch, community policing, mobile crisis responders, and violence interruption, and (2) increase police and fire minimum staffing, by extending and increasing both the existing parking tax surcharge to 10% and the existing parcel tax to $198 annually for single-family parcels, and other parcels as specified, with exemptions and reductions, for 9 years, raising approximately $47,400,000 annually, with oversight and auditing, be adopted?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 3.9

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there was a lack of clarity as what the money would be spent on relative to existing police services. The language for a special tax should be clear. The use of the term “such as” could create the fear that little of none of the proceeds might go to 9-1-1 emergency operators or police staffing. 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. The parcel tax is described as an increase, but there is no explanation of what the existing parcel tax rate is. A “parking tax surcharge” possibly might only apply to city-operated parking facilities, but it might apply to other private parking facilities. Voters are not given sufficient information as to what parking costs are being increased.

Measure OO

City of Oakland, Public Ethics Commission Shall a measure amending the City Charter and Oakland Municipal Code to, among other things, revise qualifications and restrictions for service and removal procedures, specify the vote threshold for action and increase minimum staffing requirements for the Public Ethics Commission; allow the Commission to set City Attorney and City Auditor salaries biannually rather than annually; and amend the Lobbyist Registration Act to restrict payments and expenses incurred by local government lobbyists, be adopted?

Vote Required: 50%+1

Criteria:

SCORE: 2.0

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed, and what is being proposed. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from the change, and what those impacts might affect. Regarding the Commission’s setting of certain salaries, “biannual” means twice a year. Biennial means every two years. The proposed change to setting salaries twice a year may be a mistake by the drafters of the measure. As a City Charter amendment this change is binding and permanent.

Measure PP

City of Pleasanton, Essential Services

To maintain city services and minimize cuts, such as police and fire protection; 911 emergency response; disaster preparedness; pedestrian safety; park maintenance; pothole repair and street maintenance; recreation programs; open space preservation; and other general government uses; shall the City of Pleasanton’s measure to establish a half-cent sales tax, providing approximately $10,000,000 annually for 10 years, keeping all funds local, with annual audits, public spending disclosure, and oversight, be adopted?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 3.7

Comments:The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there was a lack of clarity as what the money would be spent on. As a general tax the proceeds could be spent on any legal purpose. Not one dollar needs to be spent on the listed items. “Keeping all funds local” is an example of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a Yes vote. Where else would Pleasanton provide services? Providing “annual audits” means fairly little in the case of a general tax. There is little to meaningfully audit since the money can be spent on any legal purpose.

Measure QQ

City of Union City, Essential Services Protection

“Union City Essential Services Protection Measure. To protect essential city services such as 9-1-1 emergency response; street/ pothole repair; crime/ gun violence prevention; fire protection/ paramedics; neighborhood police patrols, and reducing blight/ keeping neighborhoods clean, shall the measure be adopted amending Union City’s business license ordinance, lowering many small businesses’ taxes, with rates up to 0.25% of gross receipts (as described in the ordinance) until ended by voters, raising $3,500,000 annually, with public spending disclosure/ independent audits?”

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 2.9

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there was a lack of honesty as to what the money would be spent on. As a general tax the proceeds could be spent on any legal purpose. Not one dollar needs to be spent on the listed items. Providing “annual audits” means fairly little in the case of a general tax. There is little to meaningfully audit since the money can be spent on any legal purpose. The claim that the tax would remain until “ended by 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 by the difficult citizen initiative process. Effectively this tax increase would be permanent. The statement regarding “lowering many small business taxes” seems deceptive and contrary to the amount of new tax revenues being raised.