Measure BB preserves tax, enhances safety services
on November 7, 2010
After an election season filled with debate over Oakland’s public safety funding woes, voters passed Measure BB Tuesday by a two-thirds majority. The measure’s approval means the city will continue collecting parking and property taxes for police, fire and violence prevention programs.
The approval of Measure BB was a relief for organizations and services that depend on Measure Y funds. “We will now be able to continue without disruption and with a renewed motivation,” said Ron Soto, executive director of the gang intervention program California Youth Outreach.
Measure BB amended the rules for funds collection under Measure Y, a tax approved by Oakland voters in 2004. Measure Y raised money for violence prevention and police and fire services, but contained a requirement that police staffing be kept at 739 or higher in order for those taxes to be collected.
Because layoffs have dropped police department levels considerably below that number with layoffs, collection of Measure Y taxes stopped in July. But the passage of Measure BB removed that staffing threshold requirement, and clears the way for continued collection and distribution of the Measure Y funds.
“If we lost the money from Measure Y, we would have to close down,” said Cherri Allison, executive director of the Family Violence Law Center. The center, which currently responds to 6,000 police reports of domestic violence a year, provides counseling, housing referrals and relocation money for victims.
“All of the things we were doing would have ended in January,” said Allison, who found out in May that the Family Violence Law Center could lose the $400,000 annual city funding upon which the center depends. “My staff is extremely grateful they will have a job.”
The passage of Measure BB was also a victory for the Oakland Police Department. Union officials said BB prevented another layoff of 122 officers in January. “We are going to see the community police officer back on the beat,” said Dom Arotzarena, Oakland Police Officer Association union president. “They can circumvent a lot of crime.“
Arozareno said he expects 63 Public Service Officer positions, or PSOs, to be added back to the police force in January.
Unlike this fall’s failed Measure X, which would have levied a $360 annual tax in Oakland for restoration of police funding, BB doesn’t provide enough funds to rehire all of the 80 officers let go last summer.
July’s layoff of 80 officers came after negotiations halted between the Oakland Police Office Association and the city. Historically, Oakland police officers have not contributed to their pension plans, and can retire with full pay at age 50. In August, OPOA members voted to contribute more to their pension plans starting in 2011, with the rate rising to 9 percent in 2010—but only if voters approved Measure X.
In March 2010, Oakland resident and attorney Marleen Sacks filed a lawsuit alleging that the city had already fallen below the mandatory Measure Y threshold and thus must stop collecting the Measure Y tax money. The city did discontinue the tax collection in July, following the layoffs of 80 officers. But council members placed Measure BB and Measure X on the November ballot in an effort to eliminate the threshold requirement problem.
Sacks said Wednesday that the approval of Measure BB had not satisfied her distress. “The city has been misleading people into thinking that if BB passes, the police force would expand by 63,” Sacks said Wednesday. But Oakland residents have heard such promises before, Sacks said, and then been disappointed when officers were laid off or not hired at promised numbers.
Religious leaders addressed the city’s Public Safety Committee last month, asking officers to return to negotiations that might result in more office hiring. “We need the officers, but we don’t have the money,” Bishop Frank Pinkard of Mosswood’s Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church said to the committee, while standing with representatives from four other faith-based organizations including the Men of Valor Academy and the Allen Temple Baptist Church.
The statements came amid citywide discussion of funding problems for Oakland’s police force. Historically, Oakland police officers have not contributed to their pension plans and were able to retire with full pay at age 50. But this summer the city laid-off 80 officers and announced it could only guarantee police officers still on the force one-year job security.
Mayoral candidate and council member Jean Quan said that paying for the police department takes up 40 percent of the city’s budget, and that Oakland police officers are the highest paid in the nation. She expressed concern that if officers do not pay into their pension plans, then cuts would have to be made elsewhere, which may include laying off additional officers in January.
“Compared to other departments, we are paid well,” Arotzarena said. “However, when you compare ourselves to other cities locally, we’re average, given the median house price in the Bay Area—$500,000.”
The police department has been whittled down to approximately 670 officers, the fewest since 1994, and the clock is ticking as many of the laid-off officers are finding jobs outside of Oakland. “These are two-year veterans, very qualified officers, and we lost them,” said Arotzarena. “About 40 of them have jobs already, in Hayward, Mountain View and San Francisco.”
Sacks argued that the passage of BB will amount to another blank check for the city. “We didn’t spend any money educating people trying fight this campaign,” Sacks said. “I wish that angry taxpayers like me would be more organized, but we don’t have the automatic cash flow that the unions and the nonprofits do. It was not a fair fight.”
Correction: Marleen Sacks filed her second lawsuit in March, not April of 2010. Dom Arotzarena is the correct spelling. Oakland North apologizes for the error.
Oakland North welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Oakland North assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content.
Oakland North is an online news service produced by students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and covering Oakland, California. Our goals are to improve local coverage, innovate with digital media, and listen to you–about the issues that concern you and the reporting you’d like to see in your community. Please send news tips to: email@example.com.
My second lawsuit was filed in March, not April of 2010. The basis of the second suit was that the City had failed to appropriate sufficient funds to maintain a baseline staff of 739 by failing to budget for or schedule any police academies since 2008, thereby violating the requirements outlined in Measure Y. The president of OPOA is named Dom Arotzarena. You’ve spelled his name incorrectly.
Nice catch. Thanks Marleen!
I just heard Jane Brunner and the City Administrator state that the City will not be hiring any more officers even though Measure BB passed. The 63 problem solving officers will be redeployed from already existing staff. And, it may be necessary to layoff police next year, although it wouldn’t be as high as 122.
Right now we have 679 officers and even after BB passed the City can only afford 637. The City is depending upon attrition to get to 637. If not they will have to layoff officers unless other city services are cut or police work with the City to re-negotiate pensions, health benefits, etc.
Marleen is correct, there was an organized fight for BB but not an organized fight against it.
Also most people may not realize this but the money coming in from BB (what used to be called Measure Y) goes to violence prevention programs and to pay police. It all doesn’t go to paying for police services that is why police layoffs still may be necessary.
Go back and explicitly ask the OPOA, Quan, and Brunner whether the passage of BB ensures that the number of cops, after retirements, will stay the same as it is now (after the 80 layoffs) for at least a year?
Quan will say something that was not said in the BB voter booklet: that more layoffs are needed if the cops don’t contribute 9% to their pensions.
The problem with that statement is that the math doesn’t work: 9% of say 650 cops x 100k base salary (without OT and benefits) is only about 4Mill $/year. At a cost of say 175k/year per cop, that’s only about 22 cop jobs “saved”.
Say the cost drops by the pension contrib to 165k/year per cop. That’s only saving about 24 cop positions.
At the time of the first round of layoffs, the council kept talking about laying off another 120 cops in December.
I don’t see how BB or the cops paying in 9% to pensions is going to prevent a huge layoff by a city council who is unable to get large concessions from ALL the unions, and unable to get the confidence of stressed voters to raise taxes.
-len raphael, temescal