Measure W – Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance

Yes – 58.18 % No – 41.82 %

Title and Type of Proposition: Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance of the City of Berkeley. This measure was placed on the ballot by the Berkeley City Council and needs a majority vote to pass.

The Question: Should Berkeley set a 2.5% transfer tax on real estate sales between $1.6 million and $1.9 million, raise the tax to 3% for properties selling between $1.9 million and $3 million, and further raise the tax to 3.5% for properties selling over $3 million? Should the current expiration date (January 1, 2029) for the 2.5% tax be removed?

The Situation: This is an amendment to the previously passed tax, Measure P, meant to support services for the unhoused. Right now, when property is sold in Berkeley, there’s a tax of 1.5% on properties under $1.5 million and 2.5% on properties over $1.5 million. The extra 1% (for the 2.5% tax) on more expensive properties will expire on January 1, 202When the higher property transfer tax passed in 2018, it created a homeless services panel to recommend how monies from this tax could best be spent to address homelessness. The funding goes into the general fund, and the City Council considers the panel’s recommendations but doesn’t have to follow them.

The Proposal: This measure would:

• Set a 1.5% tax for properties selling below $1.6 million.
• Set a 2.5% tax for properties between $1.6 million and $1.9 million.
• Set a 3% tax for properties between $1.9 million and $3 million.
• Set a 3.5% tax for properties selling over $3 million.

These tiered thresholds represent the 67th, 80th, and 95th percentiles of property sales in Berkeley. The thresholds will be adjusted each year to keep representing the same percentiles but won’t be lowered below $1.6 million, $1.9 million, and $3 million. If the measure passes, the current expiration date for the increased taxes will be removed, and the new taxes will start on January 1, 2027. The method of collecting the taxes and the role of the homeless services panel won’t change.

Fiscal Effects if Measure is Approved: The higher transfer taxes are expected to generate an additional $2-$4 million per year for a total of $5M to $9M per year from all real estate transfer taxes.

Supporters Say:

• The increased taxes will support rehousing homeless Berkeley residents.
• Homelessness in Berkeley has fallen since the first increase in the property transfer tax was enacted 6 years ago because of funding for shelter beds, outreach programs, and new housing options.
• The increased taxes apply only to the more expensive properties sold in Berkeley and most Berkeley residents will not have to pay these taxes.
• The City Council unanimously placed this measure on the ballot.

Opponents Say:

• Funds from the transfer tax have been mismanaged in the past, with money going to programs that weren’t well-vetted.
• There’s no guarantee that the money will go to homeless programs; it could be used for anything in the city.
• The higher tax will discourage investment in expensive properties, which could hurt the development of new multi-family dwellings.
• This is one of eight tax measures on the ballot this year, and it could make Berkeley less affordable for people and for businesses.

 

Measure X – The Library Relief Act of 2024

Yes – 75.72 % No – 24.28 %

Title and Type of Proposition:  The Library Relief Act of 2024 proposes to create a special parcel tax to maintain Berkeley Public Library facilities and services.  The Board of Library Trustees recommended to the City Council that a measure be placed on the ballot. As a special tax it needs approval of two-thirds of the voters to pass.

The Question:  Should Berkeley create a special tax to maintain and improve Berkeley Public Library facilities and services, the focus being on neighborhood libraries, weekend and evening hours, diverse collections, youth, plus educational and other programs?

The Situation:  The Berkeley Public Library is anticipating a structural deficit in the near future.  As an example, there are three libraries that are over 75 years old with computer networks and technologies that are seriously in need of updates. There is a need for improved air quality, cooling and circulation. The Library will need to employ cost-saving measures in order to remain financially solvent if additional revenue is not found.
The Library has worked to develop a 2024-2028 strategic plan in partnership with community members which should be supported.
Berkeley is one of the highest circulating systems in California. The Berkeley Public Library ensures that all residents have free and equal access to a wide variety of information.

The Proposal: The tax would be imposed on the square footage of all improvements for dwelling units in the City of Berkeley at a rate of $.06 per square foot; for all other  property it would be $.09 per square foot of improvements. Improvements as defined in the Ordinance means: “all buildings or structures erected or affixed to the land.”  The City Council would be allowed to adjust the tax rates annually for inflation.  Property owned by individuals with “very low income” as defined by City Council can apply for an exemption.  This tax would be in place beginning July 1, 2025 and remain until ended by voters.

Fiscal Effect:  The tax would raise an estimated $5.6 million per year.
This tax would be in addition to an existing special parcel tax for library services, the Library Relief Tax that was approved by the voters in 1988, which currently is at $0.28 per square foot on improvements for dwelling units and $0.4233 per square foot for all other properties.

Supporters Say:
With this increase of funds, libraries can continue to stay open 7 days a week with evening hours, and continue with all programming.
The library can increase popular youth educational and cultural programs.
It can address long-deferred maintenance and technology needs that support library users.
The last time libraries won direct operational funding from voters was in the 1980’s.

Supporters:
+State Senator Nancy Skinner
www.BerkeleyLibrariesYesOnX.com
Ana Vasudeo, President & School Board Director
Berkeley Public Library Foundation Council
Friends of the Berkeley Public Libraries

Opponents Say: No statements of opposition came forward.

 

Measure Y – Parks, Trees, and Landscaping Maintenance Tax Amendments

Yes – 72.77 % No – 27.23 %

Title and Type of Proposition: Parks, Trees, and Landscaping Maintenance Tax Amendments. This measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council and requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

The Question: Should Berkeley increase its tax for maintenance of parks, trees, and landscaping from $0.2210 per square foot of building structures to $0.2652 per square foot?

The Situation: Currently Berkeley taxes property owners pay 22.1 cents annually per building square foot for the maintenance and improvements of city parks, trees, and landscaping. This tax level was set in 1997.

The Proposal: This measure would increase the Park tax for building owners from 22.1 cents to 26.5 cents per square foot. For example, if a building is 1,000 square feet, the current annual tax or fee is (1,000 square feet × 22.1 cents) = $221 per year. With the proposed increase in the Park tax, the annual park tax for a 1,000 square foot building fee would be $265 per year.
Households with very low incomes would be exempt from the tax. City Council would be able to increase or decrease the Park tax based on inflation.
No other changes to tax collection or park maintenance rules are included in the measure. This is a simple tax increase.

Fiscal Effects if Measure is Approved: The tax increase would generate an additional $3.8 million per year, bringing the total park tax revenue to $22 million annually.

Supporters Say: 

• There is a pressing need for improvements in Berkeley City Parks. Many trees are stressed and biodiversity needs to be increased.
• The parks in the marina are deteriorating and need investment. ● This tax could help the city secure additional non-city funds and grants for park renewal.

Opponents Say: No official argument against Measure Y was submitted.

Supporters:
The measure is endorsed by organizations such as the Alameda County Democratic Party, League of Women Voters (Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville), Sierra Club, and various local leaders, including former and current city officials. A partial list is below. For a full list, please see https://berkeleyparksyesony.com/endorsements

Loni Hancock, Former State Senator, Former Mayor of Berkeley,Tom Bates, Former Assemblyman and Mayor of Berkeley;Elizabeth Echols, President, East Bay Regional Park District Board; Jesse Arreguin, Mayor of Berkeley;Terry Taplin, Berkeley City Councilmember, District 2; Mark Humbert, Berkeley City Councilmember, District 8; Susan Wengraf, Vice Mayor of Berkeley and District 6 Councilmember; Ben Bartlett, Berkeley City Councilmember, District 3; Igor Tregub, Berkeley City Councilmember, District 4; Cecilia Lunaparra, Berkeley City Councilmember, District 7; Sophie Hahn, Berkeley City Councilmember, District 5.

Opponents:None Identified.

 

Measure Z – Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Amendments

Yes – 78.43 % No – 21.57 %

Title and Type of Proposition: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Amendments. This measure was placed on the ballot by City Council and requires a majority vote to pass.

The Question: Should Berkeley indefinitely renew its one-cent per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened drinks set to expire on 1 January 2027?

The Situation: Currently, Berkeley taxes sugar-sweetened beverages one cent per ounce in an attempt to reduce diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay, particularly in low-income and communities of color. This tax excludes beverages from small retailers, milk products, baby formula, alcohol, juice, medicated drinks, typical sweeteners added by consumers, and diet drinks. The measure also created the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts which makes recommendations to the City Council on how Berkeley should reduce sugar-sweetened beverages. The tax was passed in 2014 and is set to expire in 2027.

The Proposal: This measure would simply extend the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages indefinitely until repealed by voters. By extension, it would also continue the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Panel. No other changes regarding the amount of tax, method of collection, method of implementation, exemption, and other provisions would be made.

Fiscal Effects if Measure is Approved:  No change for the consumer. The tax has generated around $1.15 million a year for the City’s general fund that goes towards educational and health programs.  This is expected to stay the same if Measure Z is passed.

Supporters Say: 

• The tax has decreased rates of obesity and consumption of sugar drinks while increasing the consumption of water
• The tax helps fund gardening programs in all BUSD schools, programs to teach kids about healthy eating, and food pantries
• This tax also helps fund healthcare services for low-income families and community classes and events

Opponents Say:

• This tax makes groceries and general living even more expensive
• The money from this tax is not required to be spent on public health, but also general government needs
• The tax is not working in reducing consumption of sugary drinks and obesit

 

Measure AA – Article XIIIB GANN Appropriations Limit Authorization

Yes – 86.63 % No – 13.37 %

The Question: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. (requires a majority vote to pass)

The Situation: Article XIIIB limits CA tax spending to the amount spent in 1986-1987, adjusted for population changes and inflation (also known as the Gann Limit). Voters can authorize the City to spend over this limit, but authorization only lasts four years. In 2020, voters approved a measure which allowed the City to spend all its tax revenue.

What it would change: If voters approve Measure AA, the City would continue to be allowed to spend the tax revenue of previously approved taxes for the next four years. Measure AA would not increase taxes or add any additional taxes. Voters have approved similar measures consistently over the last three decades.

Arguments for: Measure AA allows the City to spend the revenue from taxes already approved by Berkeley voters. Raising the appropriations limit is simply the next step in allowing tax revenue to be spent on necessary services such as health services, parks and recreation, and public safety.

Arguments against: No argument was filed against.

 

Measure BB – City Council Rent Stabilization Ordinance Amendments and Housing Retention

Yes – 52.69 % No – 47.31 %

The Question: 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?(requires a majority vote to pass)

The Situation: Rent control allows for annual rent increases of 7%. Golden duplexes right now are exempt from rent control.

What it would change:If passed, Measure BB would require the City Manager to recommend how the City should use existing funds towards a housing retention program and homelessness prevention, with a goal of spending at least $1.18 million a year.
The measure would also make multiple amendments to the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance.

• Modifying and limiting certain grounds for evictions
• Golden duplexes will no longer be exempt from rent control
• Allowing certain tenants to form tenant associations, and requiring the property owner to meet with these associations
• Lowering the maximum yearly rent increase from 7% to 5%
• Requiring property owners to file copies of eviction notices & lawsuits with the Rent Board within 3 days.

Measure CC is a conflicting measure on the 2024 ballot. Both require a simple majority to pass. If both Measure BB and CC pass, the measure with more votes will become law.

Fiscal effect: It would establish a housing retention program and homelessness prevention, with a goal of spending at least $1.18 million a year.

Arguments for:
Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance has regulated rent increases and provided tenant protections since 1980. Supporters say Measure BB is a needed update to address Berkeley’s current situation. If passed, the measure will expand tenant protections, especially for vulnerable community members such as seniors in affordable housing. Measure BB would also address homelessness in Berkeley, both by preventing high yearly rent increases and unjust evictions, and by funding existing rent relief programs.

Arguments against:
Opponents are dissatisfied with the limitations placed upon property owners by Measure BB, limiting property owner flexibility in terminating leases due to lack of payment or lease violations.
Opponents also say that Measure BB disincentivizes property owners from renting out ADUs and single-family homes. Property owners will be disinclined to rent properties because they will have difficulty terminating leases when they need to do so.
They argue that by adding restrictions to a property owner’s ability to end a lease, the measure will cause fewer properties to be put up for rent, which will contribute to the high cost of rent in Berkeley.

Measure CC is a conflicting measure on the 2024 ballot. Both require a simple majority to pass. If both Measure BB and CC pass, the measure with more votes will become law.

 

Measure CC – Establish Direct Rental Payments and Amendments to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Initiative)

Yes – 37.58 % No – 62.42 %

The question: 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? (requires a majority vote to pass)

The situation: Current law imposes a tax on gross receipts from the rental of five or more residential units. Many renters are just one disruption away from not paying their rent. During COVID, almost 1,000 renters were able to stay in their homes using rent relief. But then money ran out.

What it would change: Currently, there is a tax on the rental income of residential units with five or more properties. If passed, Measure CC would place that income into an account and require 20% to go towards rental relief payments, direct to property owners.
The measure would also make multiple amendments to the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance, including:

• Adding exemptions from rent control for all owner-occupied two-unit properties and properties with multiple ADUs
• Limiting the Rent Board’s authority and prohibiting the Board from intervening in litigation as an interested party
• Removing compensation for Rent Board Commissioners (about $1400 monthly) and requiring an audit of the Rent Board every three years
• Giving the City’s Code Enforcement department the sole ability to decide whether a unit is no longer in habitable condition
• Allowing certain tenants to form tenant associations

Measure BB is a conflicting measure on the 2024 ballot. Both require a simple majority to pass.

Arguments for:
Supporters of Measure CC say that it will provide a permanent rental relief fund, which will prevent evictions due to a tenant’s inability to pay rent. Supporters also say that property owners need protections to allow them to terminate a lease if the landlord-tenant relationship goes wrong, and that a property owner should not have to pay a high relocation fee to a tenant if the owner decides to move back into their rented home. They claim that by making renting easier for property owners, this measure will encourage small landlords to rent out their homes and build and rent ADUs, which will in turn increase housing supply and lower rental prices throughout Berkeley.

Arguments against:
Opponents of Measure CC say that although the measure claims to create more affordable housing and rent relief, it will in fact do the opposite by increasing rents through raising the maximum yearly rent increase, removing rent control from certain kinds of properties, defunding the City’s current rental relief program, and making it more difficult for the Rent Board to protect renters from health and safety issues. They argue that property owners are already incentivized to rent empty properties because of the vacancy tax and do not need additional exemptions to incentivize them more.
Opponents argue that the rental relief fund created by Measure CC would actually take money away from the existing Measure U1 fund that already provides rent relief and affordable housing programs, and instead give millions of dollars directly to landlords.
Measure CC would also limit the Rent Board’s ability to protect tenants and hold landlords accountable, including removing the Board’s ability to decide that a unit is uninhabitable or unsafe and to reduce rent until the problem has been addressed.

 

Measure DD – Prohibition on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Yes – 59.27 % No 40.73 %

The question: Shall the measure prohibiting the establishment ithin 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? (requires a majority vote to pass)

The situation now: Now that Golden Gate Fields has closed we have no Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation within the City of Berkeley.

What it would change: If voters approve Measure DD, it would prohibit any person or entity from establishing a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or expanding an existing CAFO within the City of Berkeley. The measure would also require that existing CAFOs cease operations in the City within a year of the measure’s passage. The measure would grant the City Council enforcement powers including the power to inspect premises suspected of violating the measure’s provisions. Those who violate the measure would be civilly liable for a penalty of $10,000 per violation per day.

Arguments for:

• It would keep the City of Berkeley free of factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. CAFOs confine large numbers of animals in industrial conditions, causing suffering, pollution, and disease.
• CAFOs are a leading cause of pollution and global warming. Leading environmental groups have called for CAFO bans.
• Fresh water sources can become impaired from nitrogen and phosphorus in animal feces. This threatens the San Francisco Bay.
• Measure DD will protect the environment and support Berkeley’s goal of zero net emissions by 2045.
• CAFOs pose a safety risk to the public, especially to workers and neighboring communities, who are often members of underserved populations. Pathogens are rampant at many Bay Area CAFOs. Scientists warn that some diseases spreading on CAFOs have pandemic potential. Measure DD will protect public health.
• Measure DD will ensure another CAFO doesn’t replace Golden Gate Fields.

Arguments against: No argument was filed against.

 

Measure EE – Ordinance Creating a Parcel Tax for the Purpose of Funding Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths (Fix the Streets & Sidewalks Initiative)

Yes – 47.14 % No – 52.86 %

The question: 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? (requires a majority vote to pass

The situation now: Berkeley currently has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 55, which is categorized as “at risk” by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the City Auditor.  In FY2020 the City allocated only $32,529 to sidewalk repair. Existing City policy requires homeowners to pay half the cost of sidewalk repairs.

What it would change: Approval of Measure EE would impose a new tax for the improvement and repair of Berkeley streets and sidewalks with the goal of bringing the City’s PCI to above 70, or “good.” The tax would be imposed at $0.13 per square foot of all types of property in the City, adjusted for inflation. This tax would last for 12 years, on the condition that the City continues to fund street maintenance through the general fund. The tax is estimated to raise around $10.8 million in the first year, and $153 million over 12 years.
36% of the revenue would go towards the repair, repaving, and reconstruction of Berkeley streets, up to 13.5% for pedestrian safety projects, up to 7% for traffic-calming implementations on bicycle boulevards, and up to 7% for environmental infrastructure. Overall, Measure EE is predominantly geared towards improving current infrastructure, not building new infrastructure.

Measure EE requires the creation of an oversight committee, annual performance reports by the Public Works Department, workshops for public input, and audits by the City Auditor every three years.

Measure FF is a conflicting measure on the 2024 ballot. Both require a simple majority to pass. If both Measure EE and FF pass, the measure with more votes will become law.

Arguments for:
Supporters for Measure EE say that Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks are in extreme need of repair after years of deferred street maintenance. With the City’s current funding allocation for street repair, Berkeley’s 2022 Pavement Management Program Update estimates that the PCI will continue to decline by two points over the next five years, so additional funding is needed to improve Berkeley streets in a significant way.

Compared to its conflicting measure, FF, proponents of Measure EE say this measure has a more focused goal of bringing all Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks up to “good” condition, while not allowing for unnecessary additional funding for more undefined projects. Measure EE requires the City to prioritize the roads in the worst condition: it prohibits the City from using the revenue generated by the measure to work on any streets with a PCI above 70. Measure FF, on the other hand, could leave some streets in poor condition once Berkeley’s average PCI reaches 70.

Arguments against:
Opponents of Measure EE say that it does not create enough funding to adequately repair Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks. They argue that it will make fewer needed repairs to streets and will focus only on fixing the worst streets, while ignoring maintenance for streets in better condition. Measure EE has less funding allocated for  traffic-calming measures, focusing on a select number of streets instead of a city-wide approach. Opponents also claim that EE’s independent oversight committee’s random selection of members will result in a committee without expert experience and knowledge.

 

Measure FF – Ordinance to Establish a Parcel Tax to Fund Repairs and Improvements to Streets, Sidewalks, and Pedestrian Paths (SAFE STREETS Initiative)

Yes – 59.29 % No – 40.71 %

The question: Shall the measure creating a special parcel tax for the purposes 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 is maintained, be adopted? (requires a majority vote to pass)

The situation now: Berkeley currently has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 55, which is categorized as “at risk” by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the City Auditor.  In FY2020 the City allocated only $32,529 to sidewalk repair. Existing City policy requires homeowners to pay half the cost of sidewalk repairs.

What it would change: Approval of Measure FF would impose a new tax to fund the improvements and repair of streets, sidewalks, and paths throughout Berkeley, with the goal of raising the City’s PCI to a 70, or “good” condition and significantly reduce the number of severe and deadly traffic crashes. The tax would be imposed at $0.17 per square foot of improvements on residential property and $0.25 per square foot of improvements on all other types of property, adjusted for inflation. If approved, this tax would last for 14 years, unless the City is not able to also adopt a budget of $15.3 million for street improvements from other sources. If this happens, the City would not be able to impose this tax for the next two years. The City estimates that approval of Measure FF would raise $15 million per year and $267 million over 14 years.
60% of the revenue would go towards streets and sidewalks, 30% towards safety improvements, and 10% for environmental improvements, County fees, and other uses. If the City reaches an average PCI of 70, these percentage allocations will no longer apply.

Measure FF would require the City Council to create a citizen oversight committee to review costs and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor in regards to these improvements. The City would also hold at least three workshops every three years to allow for public input.

Measure EE is a conflicting measure on the 2024 ballot. Both require a simple majority to pass. If both Measure EE and FF pass, the measure with more votes will become law.

Arguments for:
Supporters of Measure FF say that the current state of Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks is dangerous and will continue to rack up repair costs if left unaddressed. Its conflicting measure, Measure EE, if implemented, will raise fewer funds. Supporters of FF say this will not be enough to significantly improve Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks. In addition to street and sidewalk repair, Measure FF also includes funds for safety improvements such as street restructure and implementation of traffic-calming devices.
Measure FF includes accountability measures, including an oversight committee consisting of members from the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission and Environment and Climate Commission as well as Berkeley residents with backgrounds in civil and transportation engineering, infrastructure and program management, and bond and tax measure implementation. Accountability measures also include annual progress reports and an audit by the City Auditor every three years.

Arguments against:
If and when the City’s average PCI reaches 70, the parameters for funding allocations go away. Opponents of FF say that this could leave many streets in Berkeley in sub-par condition. Opponents also argue that FF’s funding allocation specifically for sidewalk repair is too low to be effective, while allowing for a substantial portion of the revenue to go towards categories that are more broadly defined than those laid out in conflicting Measure EE. The citizen oversight committee put forward by Measure FF would be made up of members selected by the City Council, which opponents of the measure argue would mean the committee is not truly independent from the interests of the City.

 

Measure GG – Ordinance to Adopt a Special Tax on Natural Gas Consumption in Buildings 15,000 square feet or larger

Yes – 31.75 % No – 68.25 %

Title and Type of Proposition: This measure proposes a special tax on natural gas use in buildings 15,000 square feet or larger (Initiative). It was put on the ballot by voters and needs a majority vote to pass.

The Question: Should Berkeley tax large non-residential and residential buildings (15,000 square feet or more) based on how much natural gas they use?

The Situation: Many people in Berkeley are worried about climate change and want to speed up the shift from fossil fuels to electricity for heating and cooling. This measure, called the “Large Buildings Fossil Fuel Emissions Tax Ordinance,” would tax large buildings based on how much natural gas they use.

The Proposal: The tax will be charged based on the amount of natural gas (measured in “therms”) a building uses. One therm is equal to the energy produced by 100 cubic feet of natural gas. The tax will start at about $2.96 per therm, which would more than double the energy costs for large building owners. The tax will go up each year by inflation plus 6%.
The City Council could exempt 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations with annual revenues under $1,000,000, provided certain conditions are met. The measure prohibits the City Council from adopting other exemptions. According to the measures text, building owners can’t pass the tax to tenants by raising rent in residential or mixed-use buildings. City Council is not allowed to lower the tax rates unless there are unusual circumstances.
The tax will begin on January 1, 2025, and end on December 31, 2050.
A special fund, the Fossil Fuel Free Buildings Just Transition Fund, will be created from the tax money and kept separate from other city funds. Three percent of the funds will go to administration, 90% will help pay for retrofitting (upgrading) buildings like homes and restaurants to use less fossil fuel, and 10% will go to creating new city jobs to manage the program.

Fiscal Effects if Measure is Approved:

• The tax is expected to generate about $26.7 million per year.
• In the first year, the money raised would be more than Berkeley’s annual sales tax revenue and about one-third of annual property taxes.
• The administrative costs and new city jobs will be paid from the tax.
• There hasn’t been a detailed study on how the tax would affect businesses andnon-profits, but a city report suggests it could raise their costs, causing some businesses to cut services, jobs, or possibly move out of Berkeley. This could reduce the city’s tax revenues if businesses leave.

Supporters Say:

• This tax encourages large building owners to reduce or stop using natural gas.
• The tax will help pay for homeowners, renters, and restaurants to switch to eco-friendly technology like heat pumps and electric appliances.
• Reducing natural gas use will make buildings healthier by lowering indoor pollution and improving air quality.
• This measure will create new green jobs.
• It focuses on fairness by using funds to help low-income residents make energy upgrades.

Opponents Say:

• The tax could hurt businesses and many nonprofits.
• The measure doesn’t allow for many changes, which might cause financial strain for nonprofits and essential services.
• Implementing the tax will require up-front resources from the city, and property owners might face difficulties with electrical upgrades due to grid constraints and supply shortages.
• The measure was placed on the ballot without working with the city.
• City staff has already been working on a better solution with nonprofits, small businesses, PG&E, and property owners that wouldn’t hurt non-profits and small businesses.

Supporters: Fossil Free Berkeley, 350 Bay Area, Sunrise Movement Bay Area, Public Employees Union Local One, NAACP Berkeley Branch, SEIU Local 1021, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club of the East Bay, San Francisco Physicians for Social Responsibility, Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley People’s Alliance, and more.

Opponents: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Vice Mayor Susan Wengraf, Berkeley Bowl, Berkeley Repertory Theater, Acme Bread, and others.

Report by Interim City Manager: Link to Report

 

Measure HH – Ordinance Requiring the Adoption of Minimum Indoor Air Quality Standards in City-Owned and City-Leased Buildings

Yes – 42.91 % No – 57.09 %

Title and Type of Proposition: Ordinance Requiring the Adoption of Minimum Indoor Air Quality Standards in City-Owned and City-Leased Buildings (Initiative).  This measure was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by the requisite number of registered voters in the City of Berkeley. It requires a majority vote for passage.

The Question: 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?

The Situation: Although the City of Berkeley follows strict COVID protocols, promoting ventilation in buildings by installing and maintaining air filtration systems, measure supporters say more must be done to ensure air quality and ventilation systems protect employees and the public.

The Proposal:
The measure would require the City to adopt minimum air quality standards in regularly occupied City-owned and City-leased buildings to reduce the spread of communicable diseases.  The measure would impose new air filtering requirements developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) which aims to reduce the risk of disease transmission.
Under the measure, the City would also be required to maintain the necessary equipment used to achieve the required standards. If such equipment malfunctions, the City would be required to close and evacuate affected buildings and to repair the equipment in an expeditious manner. If the City cannot repair the problems within 24 hours of a notice of malfunction, the City would be required to provide alternative services for individuals unable to obtain services because of the closure of affected buildings, and to pay City employees who work in the affected buildings at their full rate for all scheduled hours during the closure.

Proponents say:

• The measure would protect everyone in City buildings from wildfire smoke, toxic pollutants and infections with the latest air quality standards.
• City-owned and leased buildings, e.g., libraries, senior/recreation/permit centers, health facilities are not adequately ventilated.
• City data shows COVID-19 outbreaks remain frequent, negatively impacting the public.

Opponents say:

• If Measure HH passes, the City may need to make cuts to essential programs and services.
•  Proponents claim this will pay for itself, but they have not been able to determine the full costs.  An analysis alone could cost up to $4 million.
• The City has already  upgraded HVAC systems in many public buildings.

 

 

All League News