Public Comment

It has been over four years since Berkeley voters approved Measure P for homeless and general city services, and to my knowledge, there has not been an accounting of its basic finances and uses.

Measure P raised the property transfer tax from 1.5% to 2.5% for the top third of properties and was initially applied to sales of $1.5 million or more. Thereafter, it is adjusted every year to capture the top third of sales.

The measure also established a Homeless Services Panel of Experts (HSPE). Like other city commissions, the HSPE plays an advisory role in making recommendations to council.

According to the city’s website, Measure P is to be used to fund immediate street conditions and hygiene, emergency shelter, permanent housing, and homelessness prevention.

However, because Measure P is a general tax and therefore part of the General Fund, it can also be used for other municipal purposes. Councilmember Hahn recently voiced her concern of that possibility at a city council meeting on December 13th:

"We have made a representation to the public that we are going to be using Measure P money for homeless matters. Last time I saw, we still had a big homeless problem and I want to make sure that we are not going to be digging into money that the public gave us for those purposes to fill other needs."  

While the original estimate of revenue from Measure P was $6 to $8 million annually, since its passage, the city has collected far more than expected. According to the Finance Department’s audited financials, at least $45.6 million from Measure P has been collected over the last four years. This includes an extraordinary $20.6 million in FY2022 due to $2.06 billion in property sales: 

In FY2019: $3.4 million (note: collected for only part of the year) 

In FY2020: $9.9 million 

In FY2021: $11.7 million 

In FY2022: $20.6 million 

An overview of how the Measure P revenue has been spent — including the sizable ending fund balance (unspent money) each year — is provided in this spreadsheet on the city’s website.  

According to the spreadsheet, the ending fund balance in FY2021 was $17.0 million; and in FY2022 was $21.7 million. But this accounting does not appear in the city budget or audited statements, so it is unclear whether this money is still available for Measure P programs or has already been spent on other municipal needs as Councilmember Hahn suggested it might. 

For the current fiscal year, FY2023, the estimated total revenue and balance of Measure P funds is $35.8 million with an estimated ending fund balance of $18.3 million. Are there no plans this year for spending the $18.3 million on the homeless?  

It is notable that money is being taken from Measure P to fund programs previously funded by the General Fund (e.g., Equitable Clean Streets and 5150 Response and Transport) or which would have been funded through the General Fund. Although legal, it does not honor the intent of Measure P in creating new programs for the homeless. Therefore, the HSPE would prefer that recommendations come to the panel first before funding recommendations are passed by council.  

In 2022, the HSPE made three recommendations above what staff or council recommended: expanding the days and purposes of the warming center/emergency shelter (with which staff concurred and council passed with an additional allocation); a Berkeley-based crisis stabilization center; and a domestic violence transition house for single women and women with children fleeing domestic violence. While the latter two were discussed by council, they were not passed.  

In the first meeting of 2023, the HSPE voted on a recommendation for a centralized system to address inclement weather needs for the unsheltered. Council should not delay funding this recommendation. 

According to Carole Marasovic, Chair of the HSPE, “The blessing of unanticipated additional Measure P revenue should be utilized to create and expand needed homeless service programs consistent with community needs which are always evolving.”  

I’m sure most Berkeleyans would agree with Ms. Marasovic’s sentiment. And I imagine many would also wish to see more transparency in the accounting of Measure P. The City Auditor’s report on homelessness this year should shed light on these matters.