Preliminary Injunction Sought To Prohibit Illegal Collection of Measure Y Taxes

For Immediate Release

Date: April 28,, 2010

Oakland resident and local attorney Marleen L. Sacks filed a motion for preliminary injunction on April 28, 2010, to prevent the City of Oakland from collecting $20 Million in annual Measure Y taxes.

In 2004 Oakland voters passed Measure Y, a public safety parcel tax. Under Measure Y, the City of Oakland collects approximately $20 million a year in revenues to provide additional community police officers and violence prevention programs. Funding for Measure Y is primarily from a residential parcel tax that the Oakland City Council recently increased to more than $90 per parcel. A parking tax provides additional Measure Y funds.

Last year, in ruling on another suit brought by Ms. Sacks, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found that the City illegally spent approximately $15 million of Measure Y funds, and failed to conduct mandatory audits. Last month, Ms. Sacks sued again, with the assistance of local attorney David A. Stein of Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP, citing numerous additional violations of Measure Y, including the City's failure to appropriate sufficient funding to maintain a baseline number of officers.

Measure Y prohibits tax collection unless the City "appropriates" sufficient funding (from the general fund) to maintain baseline staffing. Before the passage of Measure Y, City representatives promised taxpayers that the City would not collect the tax unless the it actually maintained minimum staffing. However, in two previous lawsuits, the City asserted that it did not have to actually employ the officers, so long as the funds were “appropriated” in the budget. The motion before the Court contends that the City isn’t even meeting its own standard, because it has failed to "appropriate" any funding for a full police academy, and the size of the force is dropping dramatically as a result.

The City has conducted no full police academies since 2008, and the police force is currently approximately 33 officers below what was promised under Measure Y. Due to claimed budget problems, the City cancelled the last full academy in November, 2008, and saved $4.5 million. However, Ms. Sacks claims that this decision was illegal, since it violates the requirement that the City, at a bare minimum, "appropriate" sufficient funding to maintain baseline staffing. No full academies have been budgeted or scheduled. Because the City loses 4 to 5 police officers per month through attrition, by June 30, 2010, staffing could drop below 750, and would likely drop to around 715 before any new academy graduates are ready to be deployed.

"This is precisely the sort of situation that the City promised the voters would not and could not happen under Measure Y. The City cannot justify continued collection of the tax under these circumstances. The City didn’t appropriate for academies. It didn’t appropriate to maintain the required number of police officers. The City is collecting the tax and not providing the service. This is a betrayal of the promises made to the taxpayers, and it is having a tremendously detrimental impact on public safety," stated Sacks.

The motion being filed on Wednesday is asking the Alameda Superior Court to prohibit any further collection of Measure Y taxes until the case goes to trial, which could take several months. The amounts at issue therefore include whatever property taxes have not yet been collected for the 09/10 fiscal year, as well as an additional $20 million for the 10/11 fiscal year. Sacks added: "I sincerely hope that our elected representatives will realize that they need to immediately budget for and schedule a new, full police academy. We need to support our Police Chief by giving him the support he needs. As the horrific recent murder in dwntown Oakland and other tragedies remind us on a daily basis, our crime problem is at a critical point and tearing at the hearts of all of us. We voted to pay additional taxes to make the City we love safer. The City needs to do its part and live up to its promises.”

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for May 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 31 of the Alameda County Superior Court.