Measure T would amend the Business Tax Code to make it a progressive rather than a flat tax. That means businesses would pay a progressively higher rate on gross receipts as their revenue increases. Changes would impact all businesses other than residential rentals and cannabis enterprises. The City Council, and the labor and business communities, compromised competing proposals to bring this measure to the ballot. Differences centered on the levels of rate increases more than on the shift to a progressive model, which other cities including San Francisco, Richmond and San Jose have adopted. COVID’s impacts made it particularly difficult to determine what rates would increase general fund revenue but not overly burden businesses already here or discourage others from locating in Oakland. If passed, Measure T would generate approximately $21 million for Oakland’s General Fund. While there may be merit to suggestions that rate increases should be introduced more incrementally, we support the extensive efforts of all parties to balance competing revenue and rate concerns and to bring an overdue update to Oakland’s Business Tax Code.

With Measure U, Oakland is asking voters for the resources to continue to develop affordable housing projects, undertake ongoing street repair, and maintain aging buildings and infrastructure such as libraries. In 2016 voters approved a similar request in Measure KK. The City has largely issued or committed those 2016 bonds. To continue the work approved under Measure KK, the City would issue $850 million in new general obligation bonds to pay for affordable housing ($350 million), transportation upgrades including street repair ($290 million) and facilities improvement and repair ($210 million). Property owners repay Oakland’s bond indebtedness through a yearly tax based on the assessed value of their property. This year the City adopted a policy to limit the yearly tax to no more than approximately $220 per $100,000 of assessed value, which is the rate anticipated for 2022-23. To adhere to the limit, the City would issue new bonds under Measure U as older bonds are retired or the tax base grows. The policy on limiting the bond indebtedness mitigates concerns about the amount of debt to support infrastructure improvements. Other issues are whether planning and spending will be efficient and whether oversight and transparency will be robust. The measure mandates an annual independent audit performed by an external entity. Oversight is assigned to the existing Affordable Housing & Infrastructure Bonds Public Oversight Committee. What is clear is that Oakland’s aging roads and buildings require more investment and that low cost housing needs must be addressed. Meeting these critical needs requires additional funding since Measure KK bond money, particularly the housing bonds, has been spent or committed to projects and much remains to be done.

Measure X requires voters to vote on a bundle of unrelated changes to City governance. The changes include term limits that are not absolute and allow candidates to run again for office after sitting out one term. Other proposals would set salaries for public officials and expand the authority and staff of the City Auditor’s office. Measure X would also make the Mayor’s veto power in cases of ties more effective and change requirements for placing a measure on the ballot. While some of these proposals may have merit individually, Measure X requires blanket approval of all. Changes to the Charter and rules for governance are foundational. Proposals should allow a clear expression of the voters’ will and should reflect more extensive community discussion.

The League has not studied the issues in this measure, and so makes no recommendation.

The language in the City Charter needs updating to honor Oakland’s commitment to inclusivity and representation. Adopting gender-neutral language would acknowledge the current diverse makeup of the City’s staff and the full spectrum of their gender identities. The proposed changes would also align Oakland with the professional guidelines from the League of California Cities and with state policies and legislation.

The League has not studied the issues in this measure, and so makes no recommendation.

Measure Y proposes a new 20-year parcel tax on Oakland property owners to support the Oakland Zoo. The City of Oakland owns the Zoo at Knowland Park and contracts out its management. The additional revenue from the proposed tax could be spent on the full range of the zoo’s operations and programs and will therefore benefit all visitors. However, Oakland residents are only 15% of annual visitors to the zoo but would generate 100% of the increased revenue. The tax would impose a $68 assessment on all single family homes and units in multi-unit residences, while taxes on nonresidential properties would vary according to square footage and frontage measures. The Zoo’s current annual budget is approximately $22 million. The tax would raise approximately $12 million in additional annual funding. Oakland and Alameda County tax revenue already provides some support for the Zoo and other valued cultural institutions that serve the broader community, such as Chabot Space and Science Center, Fairyland and Oakland Museum of California. While it may be appropriate to increase that support in the case of the Zoo or other institutions, the cost should be distributed in a way that does not disproportionately impact only Oakland property owners.

Oakland has a problem with money in politics. Less than half of campaign funds come from Oakland residents. Only a small fraction of Oaklanders, usually those more affluent, make contributions to candidates. Measure W, the Oakland Fair Elections Act, offers a new public financing program that would enable candidates to run for office even without ties to larger donors. Eligible residents would each receive four $25 vouchers (“Democracy Dollars”) they could donate to their preferred candidate(s). Over three election cycles, a similar program in Seattle has attracted a more diverse pool of local candidates and increased participation in elections across groups that differ by age, race, and socioeconomic status. Measure W would also impose new lower contribution limits, require more disclosure from political committees about their funding, and extend existing bans on lobbying by former city officials from one to two years. Some object that we have more pressing problems, but there is no more pressing issue than maintaining a representative and vibrant democracy. Proposed funding amounts to approximately a half of one percent of Oakland’s budget. Give Oakland residents a stronger voice in our elections.

Addressing Oakland’s lack of affordable and low rent housing is a priority. Doing so requires that the City obtain voters’ authorization to develop, construct, acquire or finance low rent or affordable projects. With voters’ approval of these authorizations, the City could move forward with pilot programs or larger projects without unnecessary delay. The City would use the authorizations only once it had developed specific proposals, obtained funding, and approved projects.

In 2014 Oakland voters approved Measure N, a 10-year parcel tax to fund the College and Career Readiness Act. The goal was to improve high school graduation rates with an innovative program highlighting career paths as well as rigorous academics. OUSD reports that in the years after this program began (2015-2019), overall graduation rates increased by 12% and graduation rates among black students increased by 15.4%. In addition, dropout rates for all students have decreased 11%, for Black male students by 17.9%. Students who participate choose one of multiple career tracks including health care, education and business. They benefit from professional mentors, internships, jobs and technical training as well as academic, social, and emotional support services. Measure H asks that Measure N parcel tax of $120 be extended for 14 years. Otherwise the tax ends in 2025. One could argue that this successful program should now be integrated into OUSD’s budgeting. But reliance on current school finances would jeopardize the program’s future. Absent changes to Prop 13, a parcel tax is one of limited ways to ensure consistent funding and secure this program for our youth.