What can you expect on your tax bill IF the proposed ballot measures are favored by voters in March?
Approximately a 14% increase in your property tax assessments on the right side of your bill and a 4% increase in your ad valorem tax rate (1.2184% to 1.2629%). This is of course, in addition to the 2% increase in market value allowed by Prop 13 each year.
Ballot Measure E requests the following of voters:
To recruit and retain qualified teachers and prevent shortages of essential school staff, shall the Berkeley Unified School District adopt a measure to levy a special tax of 12.4 cents/square foot on improvements, and $25/parcel on unimproved parcels, for 12 years, with annual cost-of-living adjustments, low income exemptions, and independent citizen and auditor oversight, generating approximately $9,500,000 annually in local funds for Berkeley Public Schools that cannot be taken away by the state.
Measure E Rebuttal in the Voter Pamphlet
It is not easy to convince Berkeley voters to vote against a school tax, but there are three important reasons why Berkeley voters should not be ready to approve this tax.
While teacher salaries may be low by some comparisons, many teachers earn more than the median Berkeley household income of $75,000. In addition, by design, CA public school teachers typically accept lower initial salaries but great retirement pensions. For teachers hired before 2014, the pensions are really generous (see https://transparentcalifornia.com/). A 2014 legislative “fix” required greater pension contributions to address this, siphoning away District revenue previously available for teacher raises.
Now, rather than asking veteran teachers hired before 2014 to give something back to fix this problem, every household is being asked to fork over ~$150/year (for a 1,200 sq. foot home) so EVERY teacher can have a blanket 12% raise, the bulk of that money going to the highest earners.
The second problem with the tax is the City’s reliance on a non-public set of books to calculate building area, which differs from the County Assessor’s public record. Over half of Berkeley taxpayers are taxed hundreds of dollars more a year than the size of their dwelling unit should cost, if the tax were calculated correctly.
Finally, Only 5% of the Measure’s funds are set aside for recruitment and retention despite this being the primary selling point. This is a very expensive way to address the vacancy/retention problem, and if the union is unwilling to ask veteran teachers with generous pensions to forgo a raise so new hires can have more, then the taxpayer should ignore any pleas for a parcel tax. Please ask us again when you rectify the previous wrongs.
Ballot Measure G request the following of voters:
To improve school facilities, construct/modernize classrooms and campuses, complete seismic upgrades, construct science labs/ career technical education facilities, upgrade furnishings, equipment, technology, renovate playgrounds, improve energy efficiency, and qualify for State grants, shall the Berkeley Unified School District adopt a measure authorizing $380,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, generating approximately $21,347,300 annually at an average rate of 4.45 cents per $100 while bonds are outstanding, with independent citizen and auditor oversight and all funds remain local?
Measure G Rebuttal in Voter Pamphlet
“Our schools are among the safest buildings in town and many are designated emergency shelters.”
Ahh – so you have enough money then?
“No – there is plenty more to do – we need a new BHS parking structure w/ tennis court on top.”
Sounds like a crucial piece of infrastructure. What else?
“We need more solar panels and shade structures.”
Isn’t buying green power from PG&E a cheaper method to achieve this same goal?
“Yes but now we can brag to other districts about how green Berkeley is. And besides, the bond is so big that there is room to fund projects like these.”
Maybe you don’t need such a large bond then? And why can’t you fund repair and maintenance out of district revenues? Why do you even need a bond?
“Pension contributions eat up all the extra money. Rather than fix that difficult structural issue, it’s easier to ask Berkeley voters for $350. They never say no.”
Or will property owners and tenants finally say, “Enough is enough!”?
“We won’t vote to tax ourselves in this fiscally irresponsible manner. Households, owners and tenants alike,can no longer agree to these increases in our household budget. These extravagant tax increases cause lack of affordability for tenants too!”
Ballot Measure H requests the following of voters:
To provide essential maintenance of buildings, classrooms, grounds, roofs, electrical, mechanical/plumbing systems and address fire/safety hazards, shall Berkeley Unified School District adopt a measure to continue its existing special tax at 9.1 cents /square foot on improvements, and $20/parcel on unimproved parcels, for 10 years, with cost-of-living adjustments, low income exemptions, independent citizen oversight, generating approximately $7,330,841 annually in local funds for Berkeley public schools that cannot be take away by the state.
Measure H rebuttal, which did not make it into Voter Pamphlet on account of typographical errors from the ballot submission team at Berkeley Unified School District
All voters want Berkeley schoolchildren to be educated in safe and adequate facilities, but there is one important reason why Berkeley voters should not be ready to approve this tax.
The problem with the proposed tax is the City’s reliance on a non-public set of books to calculate building area, which differs from the County Assessor’s public record. Over half of Berkeley taxpayers are taxed hundreds of dollars more a year than the size of their dwelling unit should cost, if the tax were calculated correctly. Until the City of Berkeley fixes this clandestine and ambiguous method of assessing Berkeley property owners, no new property taxes should be approved.
Please ask us again when you rectify the accounting errors that cause inequity and non-transparency in property taxation.