Making Democracy Work
This publication is part of the League of Women Voters of Oakland's work to encourage informed and active participation in government and increase understanding of public policy issues. LWVO Voter Education programs and publications do not support or oppose candidates, political parties, or ballot measures.
The Oakland City Council has called a special election for voters to consider three ballot measures, two of which address the city's fiscal crisis. All voting in this election will be conducted by mail. Ballots will be mailed to all registered voters beginning October 6. They must be mailed back or returned in person to the office of the Registrar of Voters, 1225 Fallon Street, Room G-1, Oakland, CA 94612, and be received there no later than November 15.
THE QUESTION: Should the Oakland City Charter be amended so that the position of City Attorney, presently an elected one, will be changed to a position appointed by the City Council, and should the current salary guidelines for the elected City Attorney be removed?
THE SITUATION
City Attorney of Oakland was an appointed position until the voters approved Measure X, the "strong mayor" initiative, in 1998. Measure X changed the form of Oakland city government from one in which the City Council was the central power and the office of Mayor was rotated among the councilmembers, to one with a separately elected Mayor with executive powers. Measure X also established the City Attorney as an elected position independent of the Council and of the Mayor. Salary guidelines were set for the elected City Attorney based on the average salaries of city attorneys in cities of comparable size.
The first and only elected City Attorney, who was re-elected in 2008 to a third term, resigned in June 2011. The position is currently filled by an acting City Attorney appointed by the City Council to serve until the end of the current term in January 2013.
Elected or appointed, the City Attorney's responsibilities are to represent the City in lawsuits and to give legal advice to elected and appointed officials and to commissions and committees of the city.
Only 2.5 % of California cities have elected city attorneys. These include Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, and San Francisco. Oakland is often compared to Long Beach and San Francisco. However, San Jose and Sacramento, other cities to which Oakland is compared, have appointed city attorneys.
The former elected Oakland City Attorney said his job was to represent the best interests of the city even if his views of those "best interests" did not coincide with the views of the City Council. The City Council generally thought that as the elected policymakers, it should be able to control the relationship with the City Attorney in order to have an effective attorney client relationship. This created some conflicts.
THE PROPOSAL
Measure H would change the City Attorney from an elected to an appointed position. The City Attorney would be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the City Council, and the Council would set the salary without the guidelines in current law.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Eliminating the salary guidelines is not expected to lead to significant additional costs. Costs associated with recruiting a well-qualified City Attorney are estimated to be about $30,000. Since the City Attorney would no longer be elected, costs associated with the election to this office would be eliminated.
SUPPORTERS SAY
OPPONENTS SAY
THE QUESTION: Should a temporary, five-year parcel tax of $80 per single-family home and specified amounts for other properties be established to help restore some city services?
THE SITUATION
Declining tax revenues and cuts to the city budget have led to reductions in almost all city services, and to furloughs and layoffs as well as reductions in salaries for city workers. In the last five years, Oakland has eliminated 528 positions and cut its budget by 25 percent.
THE PROPOSAL
Measure I would add an $80 "special" parcel tax for single family homes in Oakland. The tax for apartment owners would be $54.66 per unit; half of the amount could be passed along to tenants. The tax for commercial property is based on the size of the building and the lot. Very low income households will be exempt from the tax. Tenants in foreclosed homes can have their tax rebated, and there is a 50 percent reduction in the tax for non-profit affordable housing. The tax will be imposed for five years, beginning with fiscal year 2011-12 and ending with fiscal year 2015-16.
Money raised from the tax will be placed in a special account, and can be used only for costs associated with restoring police services and police technology, fire services, parks maintenance and recreational services, library services, youth violence prevention, street and infrastructure repair, and senior services. An independent firm will perform an annual review to ensure that the money is used well and for the purposes intended.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The tax would raise about $11 million per year for the city's general fund. The City Council will determine how and how much money is allocated each year to each authorized category
SUPPORTERS SAY
OPPONENTS SAY
Needs simple majority vote to pass
THE QUESTION: Should the City Charter be amended to extend the full-funding deadline for the closed Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS)?
THE SITUATION
Police and fire personnel hired prior to 1976 became members of the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS). In 1976, newly hired personnel became members of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and PFRS was closed so that no additional employees could contribute to or receive benefits from PFRS.
PFRS is a defined benefit retirement system, which pays retirees specified allowances for life. The governing board for PFRS and the City of Oakland are required to ensure that the trust fund from which allowances are paid is sufficient to pay allowances as they become due. In addition, the City charter currently requires that PFRS be "fully funded" by July 1, 2026. This means that on that date the trust fund must have in it enough money to pay all members the benefits due until their deaths. Reviews by actuaries every three years determine how much money it will take to achieve full funding; the current estimate is $494 million.
PFRS has been funded by contributions from the city and from active employees, and from returns on investments. Since all but one of the current 1153 PFRS members are retired, PFRS now depends on the city and the PFRS investment portfolio. Declines in the financial markets in recent years have put a greater burden on the city. The city owes the PFRS trust fund $45.6 million for fiscal year 2011-12.
In 1997 and 2001, voters authorized pension obligation bonds to bring in funds for the system, and a property tax levy to pay off the bonds. This tax also ends in 2026, and cannot be extended except by a ballot measure requiring a two-thirds vote.
The terms of the bond measures gave the city a PFRS funding "holiday" until 2011-12, so the city must resume payments into the fund this year
THE PROPOSAL
Measure J would allow the full-funding deadline of 2026 to be changed if both the PFRS Board and the City approve, and if the new deadline is based on and supported by an actuarial study commissioned by the board. This would not change the city's obligation, but could allow the city to lessen its yearly payments by spreading them out past 2026.
Beginning ten years from the full-funding deadline, Measure J also requires the PFRS Board to amortize each year's gains and losses to protect the city from market volatility. Such smoothing, as it is called, would not change the overall payment obligation, but would help the city avoid large changes in annual payments from year to year.
Measure J would allow the full-funding deadline of 2026 to be changed if both the PFRS Board and the City approve, and if the new deadline is based on and supported by an actuarial study commissioned by the board. This would not change the city's obligation, but could allow the city to lessen its yearly payments by spreading them out past 2026.
Beginning ten years from the full-funding deadline, Measure J also requires the PFRS Board to amortize each year's gains and losses to protect the city from market volatility. Such smoothing, as it is called, would not change the overall payment obligation, but would help the city avoid large changes in annual payments from year to year.
Measure J would allow the full-funding deadline of 2026 to be changed if both the PFRS Board and the City approve, and if the new deadline is based on and supported by an actuarial study commissioned by the board. This would not change the city's obligation, but could allow the city to lessen its yearly payments by spreading them out past 2026.
Beginning ten years from the full-funding deadline, Measure J also requires the PFRS Board to amortize each year's gains and losses to protect the city from market volatility. Such smoothing, as it is called, would not change the overall payment obligation, but would help the city avoid large changes in annual payments from year to year.
FISCAL EFFECTS
If the full-funding deadline is extended for a number of years beyond 2026, the city's annual payments will be reduced by an estimated $3 million to $9 million, depending on the length of the extension. The city's obligation, currently estimated at $494 million, would remain the same, but be paid over a longer period of time.
The smoothing mechanism could reduce large swings in annual payments, but unpredictable market conditions make it impossible to estimate the actual impact on the city's cash flow.
SUPPORTERS SAY
OPPONENTS SAY
For assistance in Chinese, call 510-208-9665.
For assistance in Spanish, call 510-272-6975.