Berkeley City Council
May 19, 2026

Tuesday, May 19, 2026 AGENDA Page 1

P R O C L AM AT I O N

C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M E E T I N G O F T H E

B E R K E L E Y C I T Y C O U N C I L

In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Tuesday, May 19, 2026
4:00 PM

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SHOSHANA O’KEEFE DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – BRENT BLACKABY
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – CECILIA LUNAPARRA DISTRICT 4 – IGOR TREGUB DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT

This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person and virtual attendance. Attend this meeting remotely using Zoom. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669- 254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 165 412 7930. To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream.

All Council meetings are recorded.

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting, however, if you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding officer shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding officer may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $5 00 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial interest are prohibited from making more than $500 in contributions to a decisionmaker for the 12 months after the final decision is rendered on the proceeding.

The above contribution disclosures and restrictions do not apply when the proceeding is competitively bid, or involves a personnel or labor contract. For more information, see Government Code Section 84308.

Tuesday, May 19, 2026 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again during the Action Calendar public comment period on the item
The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield the ir time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

The Presiding Officer may open and close an additional comment period for Action items on this agenda (excluding any public hearings, appeals, and/or quasi-judicial matters), at the start of the Action Calendar.

Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

Action Calendar – New Business

1. Presentation and Discussion of Second Community Survey Results and Direction Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Review the results of the second community survey and provide direction to the City Manager and City Attorney regarding potential ballot measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, including whether to:

1. Affirm the direction to prepare ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure for the November 3, 2026, ballot to fund priority infrastructure investments;

2. Provide input on the list of infrastructure projects for the $300 million General Obligation bond; and

3. Affirm the direction to prepare ballot language for a potential 0.5 percent increase in the City’s sales and use tax for the November 3, 2026, ballot to address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit and support essential City services.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: David White, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000 Adjournment

Tuesday, May 19, 2026 AGENDA Page 3
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 14th day of May, 2026.

/s/ Adena Ishii, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street, and through the City's online records portal:
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/.

Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas
and may be accessed at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at [email protected] or (510) 981-6418 (V) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Tuesday, May 19, 2026 AGENDA Page 4
Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

If you have obtained interpretation services for your use during a City Council meeting and would like to request assistance, please contact the City Clerk Department at (510) 981 -6900, [email protected], or in-person during the meeting.

Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Item #1: Presentation and Discussion of Second Community Survey Results and Direction Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election

1. Phil Allen

2. Larry and Mary Ann Wight

3. Susan Schwartz on behalf of Friend of Five Creeks

4. Emma Gobler

5. Lisa Cain

6. Nina

7. Katherine Schaaf

8. Susan Austin

9. Jeffrey J. Carter

10. Jan Ruchlis

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

ACTION CALENDAR
May 19, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Dave White, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office Subject: Presentation and Discussion of Second Community Survey Results and Direction Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election

RECOMMENDATION
Review the results of the second community survey and provide direction to the City Manager and City Attorney regarding potential ballot measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, including whether to:

1. Affirm the direction to prepare ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure for the November 3, 2026, ballot to fund priority infrastructure investments;

2. Provide input on the list of infrastructure projects for the $300 million General Obligation bond; and

3. Affirm the direction to prepare ballot language for a potential 0.5 percent increase in the City’s sales and use tax for the November 3, 2026, ballot to address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit and support essential City services.

SUMMARY
This item presents the results of the City’s second community survey related to potential revenue measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election and requests City Council direction on next steps for ballot measure development. This report builds on the March 17, 2026, City Council work session1, at which Council reviewed the results of the first community survey and provided direction regarding refinement of project priorities, project framing, and future survey testing. 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/2026-03- 17%20Special%20Item%2001%20Presentation%20and%20Discussion.pdf

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

The City’s ballot measure exploration reflects a multi-step process intended to ensure that any potential measure placed before Berkeley voters is data-informed, community- informed, fiscally responsible, and aligned with the City’s long-term infrastructure and service needs. The process has included:
 City Council direction regarding potential infrastructure and fiscal measures;  Development of a preliminary project list across high-level investment categories;  A statistically valid first community survey administered by Lake Research Partners;  Broad community engagement through commissions, focus groups, joint district meetings, and a public website;
 Refinement of project priorities and project list cost assumptions; and  A second community survey designed to test refined ballot language and messaging.

The first community survey administered from February 19–23, 2026, demonstrated that Berkeley voters are supportive of both a General Obligation bond measure and a sales and use tax increase. The survey also indicated that the strongest voter priorities are related to safety, climate resilience, accessibility, and visible infrastructure conditions, including 911 dispatch, fire stations, sidewalks, and resilient infrastructure (See Attachment 4).

Since the March 17, 2026 work session, staff have continued to refine the proposed infrastructure project list based on updated cost information, implementation feasibility, anticipated staffing needs and phasing, and the feedback received from the community engagement process.

Staff have also worked with Lake Research Partners to develop a second survey, which was fielded April 21–26, 2026 to test refined ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure and a potential 0.5 percent increase in the City’s sales and use tax and to understand voter support for these items in light of other revenue measures that may be on the November 2026 ballot (See Attachment 1).

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

The second survey results are summarized below.
 Potential $300 million General Obligation bond: Results from the April 2026 survey indicated support for the measure was 69%, with 39% strongly supporting, 19% not so strongly supporting, and 10% leaning yes. Fifteen percent of voters were undecided, and 16% opposed the measure. This represents slightly lower support than the February 2026 survey, when 71% supported the measure, 12% opposed it, and 16% were undecided.
 Durability of support for the GO bond: After voters heard supporting and opposing statements, support for the $300 million GO bond decreased to 64% in the April 2026 survey, with 37% strongly supporting, 20% opposing, and 15% undecided. This reflects a five-point decline in overall support after exposure to pro and con arguments. By comparison, support for the GO bond remained steady after similar statements in the February 2026 survey.
 Potential 0.5 percent sales and use tax increase: Results from the April 2026 survey indicated support for the sales tax measure was 52%, with 23% strongly supporting, 20% not so strongly supporting, and 9% leaning yes. Sixteen percent of voters were undecided, and 32% opposed the measure. This is a lower level of support in comparison to results from the February 2026 survey in which 60% of Berkeley voters supported the measure and 29% opposed it. Strong support also declined from 37% in February 2026 to 23% in the April 2026 survey.  Durability of support for the sales tax: After voters heard supporting and opposing statements, support for the sales tax measure in the April 2026 survey increased to 56%, with 26% strongly supporting, 30% opposing, and 13% undecided.

Taken together, the second survey suggests that, in a more developed ballot environment that includes other potential revenue measures, both City measures show somewhat less support than they did in February 2026. The potential $300 million General Obligation bond continues to show initial support above the two-thirds threshold required for passage, but support becomes more vulnerable after voters hear opposing arguments. The potential sales and use tax increase continues to show majority support, with some strengthening after voters hear supporting and opposing arguments.

This report also summarizes the City’s engagement process and the priority themes received from community members and stakeholders. When considered together, the survey findings and community engagement input provide the basis for City Council to place a $300 million General Obligation bond on the November 2026 ballot. A revised list of projects to be funded by the proposed infrastructure bond will be presented to City Council for review and feedback.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The community survey process, including up to two rounds of survey testing, is funded through an existing contract with Lake Research Partners with a not-to-exceed amount of $100,000. No additional appropriation is required for the survey work.

If City Council directs staff to proceed with preparation of ballot language for a potential General Obligation bond measure and/or sales tax measure, additional staff time and City Attorney support will be required to finalize ballot language, supporting resolutions, tax rate statements, accountability provisions, and election materials in advance of the statutory deadline for submission to Alameda County.

A potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure would provide one-time capital funding for eligible infrastructure projects and the staffing needed to deliver the proposed projects. The measure tested in the first and second survey estimated an average tax rate of approximately $22.14 per $100,000 of assessed value, assuming $100 million is issued every five years commencing in 2027, and regular audits and independent oversight. While the bond would not fully address the City’s long-term infrastructure needs, currently estimated to exceed $1.5 billion, it would represent a significant and strategic investment to address high-priority infrastructure needs.

A potential 0.5 percent increase in the City’s sales and use tax would provide ongoing General Fund revenue to support essential City services and help address the City’s projected structural deficit. Based on prior estimates presented to City Council, increasing Berkeley’s sales tax rate from 10.25 percent to 10.75 percent could generate approximately $9 million to $10 million annually for general governmental purposes.

Such revenue could support core services, reduce pressure on service reductions, and partially address the City’s projected General Fund deficit, which is estimated at $31 million in FY 27 and $29 million in FY 28. As outlined in the City’s proposed Budget Balancing Plan, revenues from the sales and use tax measure would preserve positions and services in the Police, Fire, and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Departments to avoid the closure of Fire Station 4, diminished capacity to respond to 9-1-1 calls for service and proactively address crime, and reductions in programs and services for youth and adults2.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This project is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goals to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities and to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

Berkeley faces significant unfunded capital infrastructure needs and a growing deferred maintenance backlog across public safety facilities, community-serving facilities, and 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2026-04- 16%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Budget.pdf (Refer to Agenda Item 2).

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

critical infrastructure such as sidewalks, ADA accessibility improvements, seismic upgrades, and climate-resilient assets. Many City facilities and right-of-way assets were constructed decades ago and no longer meet current standards for accessibility, seismic safety, climate resilience, or modern service delivery. Annual capital allocations and existing funding sources are insufficient to address these needs at the scale and pace required, resulting in increased risk of facility failure, escalating repair costs, service disruptions, and inequitable conditions across neighborhoods. Current estimates indicate that Berkeley’s long-term infrastructure needs exceed $1.5 billion. While a bond measure of approximately $300 million would not fully address these needs, it would represent a significant step toward stabilizing and modernizing critical civic infrastructure.

In addition to the City’s capital needs, Berkeley is also managing ongoing fiscal pressures in several funds including, but not limited to, the General Fund, Marina Fund, Parking Funds, CIP Fund, and Building Maintenance Fund. These pressures have informed City Council’s interest in understanding whether Berkeley voters may support a local sales and use tax increase to help sustain essential services. As discussed in prior Council materials, the proposed 0.5 percent sales tax increase would align Berkeley’s total local sales tax rate with a number of neighboring Alameda County jurisdictions and could generate meaningful ongoing revenue to help address the City’s structural fiscal gap.

At the December 2, 2025, work session3, City Council provided direction to staff to explore potential ballot measures for the November 2026 election, including:
 Community facilities and quality-of-life investments (e.g., parks, recreation centers, pools, and community centers);
 Public safety facilities (e.g., fire stations, emergency response and dispatch facilities); and
 Critical infrastructure and accessibility improvements (e.g., sidewalks, ADA compliance, seismic upgrades, and climate resilience).

That feedback informed the structure, categories, and framing of the first community survey instrument developed by Lake Research Partners in coordination with City staff.

On January 27, 20264, City Council approved a referral to the City Manager to include, as part of the upcoming community survey for the November 2026 election, a question assessing the perspectives of likely Berkeley voters on a potential increase to the City’s 3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-12- 02%20Special%20Item%2002%20Discussion%20Regarding%20Potential%20Ballot.pdf 4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2026-01- 27%20Item%2017%20Refer%20to%20the%20City%20Manager%20to%20include.pdf

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

sales and use tax rate. More specifically, the referral requested that the survey test voter interest in increasing Berkeley’s sales and use tax rate from 10.25 percent to

10.75 percent, consistent with rates adopted by several neighboring Alameda County jurisdictions. The item was framed in the context of generating resources to address the City’s projected General Fund budget shortfall and ongoing fiscal challenges. The referral further emphasized that adding such a question to the survey would provide City Council with data to better understand resident perspectives on revenue options in parallel with feedback on infrastructure priorities, and to inform future policy discussions related to fiscal sustainability and potential ballot measure development.

Ballot Measure Considerations: Funding Mechanisms, Fiscal Impact, and Tax Context
As part of City Council’s consideration of potential revenue measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, it is important to distinguish between the two funding mechanisms under discussion, the purposes they are designed to serve, and the implications each may have for Berkeley taxpayers and the City’s long-term fiscal condition.

The proposed General Obligation bond measure and a potential sales and use tax increase would serve different, but potentially complementary, purposes. A General Obligation bond is an appropriate tool for financing major capital improvements to long- lived public assets, while an increase in the sales and use tax would provide ongoing revenue to support essential services and help address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit. For that reason, these two measures should not be viewed as interchangeable revenue tools, but rather as options that address different components of the City’s overall fiscal and infrastructure needs.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Sales and Use Tax Context
Currently, the total sales tax rate in the City of Berkeley is 10.25 percent, consisting of a combination of state, county, and district or special taxes. Resources generated by the sales and use tax are distributed, as follows:

Distribution of Sales Tax Distribution Percentage
State of California 5.75%
State Public Safety Fund / Proposition 172 0.50%
City of Berkeley 1.00%
Alameda County Transportation Commission 1.00%
Alameda County Essential Health Care Services 0.50%
Alameda County Children’s Health and Child Care 0.50%
Alameda County Transactions and Use Tax / ACTU 0.50%
Alameda County BART 0.50%
Total Sales Tax 10.25%
Source: City of Berkeley FY 25-26 Budget Book, pp. 775
If Berkeley were to increase its sales tax rate from 10.25 percent to 10.75 percent, the City could generate additional annual sales tax revenue ranging from approximately $9 million to $10 million. These revenues could be used for general governmental purposes, including support for essential City services and mitigation of the City’s projected General Fund deficit. As outlined in the proposed Budget Balancing Plan that was presented to the City Council Budget and Finance Committee on April 16, 2026, resources from the sales and use tax measure would help reduce pressure on service reductions in core functions, including Police, Fire, and other community-serving operations. More specifically, revenues from the sales and use tax measures are proposed to preserve 33 positions and services in the Police, Fire, and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront.

In considering a potential sales tax measure, it is also relevant that Berkeley’s current sales tax rate is below that of several neighboring Alameda County jurisdictions. As previously noted in materials provided to City Council, eight cities in Alameda County currently have a tax rate higher than Berkeley’s 10.25 percent, including Alameda, Albany, Hayward, Newark, Oakland, San Leandro, and Union City at 10.75 percent, and Emeryville at 10.50 percent.

Property Tax and GO Bond Context
As part of its earlier work on potential ballot measures, staff also reviewed the City’s property-based taxes and assessments in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions, along with the role that existing and potential General Obligation bond debt plays in overall tax burden. When comparing property tax bills between Berkeley, Oakland, and 5 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-2025-2026-Proposed-Biennial-Budget.pdf

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Albany, the primary differences relate to taxes based on voter-approved GO bond debt, special taxes, assessments, and fee structures.

GO bond debt is voter-approved and may be issued by the City or a school district.

Special taxes and assessments, by contrast, may be structured differently depending on the jurisdiction and the measure. Berkeley’s special taxes are generally based on a tax rate multiplied by building square footage, while Oakland and Albany often rely more heavily on flat parcel-based formulas with land-use variations. These differences are important when considering overall taxpayer burden and public perception of a new measure.

Funding Mechanism: General Obligation Bond
A General Obligation bond is a form of long-term borrowing used to finance capital improvements to real property such as buildings, roads, parks, and other public facilities. Under a GO bond structure, the repayment obligation is shared proportionally based on taxable assessed property value.

Key features of a General Obligation bond include:
 May be used only for capital improvements, not for ongoing operational costs;  Requires two-thirds voter approval to pass;
 The principal and interest are paid through tax levies on taxable property;  Bond repayment is based on assessed value; and
 Bonds are generally repaid over approximately 30 years.

Berkeley voters have approved multiple bond measures over time, and prior City analysis indicates that the City has generally maintained annual tax levies at levels below initial estimates for prior General Obligation bond authorizations. The City’s current remaining bond debt service is projected to require an average tax of approximately $30.79 per $100,000 of assessed value over the next 30 years (2027- 2056).

A potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure would provide one-time capital funding for eligible infrastructure projects. The measure tested in the first and second community survey assumed an estimated average tax rate of approximately $22.14 per $100,000 of assessed value, with $100 million issued every five years commencing in 2027, and regular audits and independent oversight. While the bond would not fully address the City’s long-term infrastructure needs, currently estimated to exceed $1.5 billion it would represent a significant and strategic investment in high- priority infrastructure needs.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Earlier staff analysis further indicated that a new $300 million General Obligation bond, when combined with existing authorizations, could result in an average tax rate over time of approximately $44.13 per $100,000 of assessed value over the next 41 years, depending on issuance timing, interest rates, and assessed valuation growth assumptions.

Summary of Community Survey Results (April 2026)
To ensure the City’s ballot measure development process is grounded in statistically valid voter data, the City conducted an RFP that resulted in a contract with Lake Research Partners to design and administer up to two community surveys of likely Berkeley voters (Contract No: 32600095)4. The April 2026 survey tested voter priorities for a $300 million General Obligation Bond for infrastructure, as well as a potential sales and use tax increase to reduce the City’s projected deficit in the General Fund. The survey also tested these potential City measures in the context of other possible local and regional ballot measures that may appear before voters, including: a sales and use tax measure to support regional transit, a living wage proposal for Alameda County, a parcel tax to support the arts, an increase in the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, and a parcel tax to support a public bank. The findings below summarize key topline results from the April 21–26, 2026 survey and provide context for City Council discussion and direction on potential next steps. Comprehensive question-by-question results, including demographic and subgroup breakouts, are provided in Attachment 1.

Survey Fielding Window
The community survey was conducted April 21–26, 2026, using live telephone interviews and text-to-online methodologies to reach a representative sample of likely November 2026 voters.

Survey Methodology
 Field dates: Apil 21–26, 2026
 Sample size: 500 likely November 2026 voters
 Mode: Live telephone interviews and text-to-online
 Margin of error: ± 4.4% at the 95% confidence level
 Split samples: A/B testing to evaluate impacts of the order of the two proposed revenue measures.

The sample was stratified by age, gender, race, and region of the city to reflect the expected composition of likely voters.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Survey Results for Potential Regional, County, and City Ballot Measures REGIONAL TRANSIT. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding for regional transit through an increased sales tax in the Bay Area. Shall the Public Transit Revenue Measure District be established, with jurisdiction extending throughout the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco, generating approximately $980 million annually to sustain and improve transit and be funded by a 14-year regional transportation sales tax of 0.5% in each county except San Francisco, where the rate would be 1%? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
Response Percent
Yes 79%
Undecided/DK 12%
No 9%
(Refused) 0%
LIVING WAGE. This is a ballot measure that would raise the minimum wage in Alameda County. Shall Alameda County’s municipal code be amended to gradually raise the minimum wage for all workers, including tipped workers, over a period of several years, until it reaches a living wage of $30 an hour? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided? Response Percent
Yes 78%
Undecided/DK 8%
No 14%
(Refused) 0%
ARTS. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding for the arts in the City of Berkeley through a special parcel tax. Shall the City of Berkeley enact a special parcel tax of 7 cents per square foot of improvements, the proceeds of which shall be placed in the Arts Vitality Fund that must be used only for the purpose of providing additional funding for grant programs for Berkeley nonprofit performing arts organizations presenting live performances for the public, arts organizations, individual artists, and cultural and arts festivals in the City of Berkeley? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided? Response Percent
Yes 67%
Undecided/DK 11%
No 21%
(Refused) 0%

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES. This is a ballot measure that would increase the current tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in the City of Berkeley. Shall an ordinance increasing a special tax to 2 cents per ounce on the distribution of high- calorie, sugary drinks (e.g., sodas, energy drinks, presweetened teas) and sweeteners used to sweeten such drinks, but exempting: (1) sweeteners (e.g., sugar, honey, syrups) typically used by consumers and distributed to grocery stores; (2) drinks and sweeteners distributed to very small retailers; (3) diet drinks, milk products, 100% juice, baby formula, alcohol, or drinks taken for medical reasons, be adopted? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
Response Percent
Yes 69%
Undecided/DK 9%
No 23%
(Refused) 0%
PUBLIC BANK. This is a ballot measure that would support a public bank to fund Berkeley’s needs through a parcel tax. Shall a parcel tax of 6 cents per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and 9 cents per square foot of improvements for non- residential property be enacted for the purpose of funding long term investments for affordable housing, green energy and infrastructure, and small businesses, the revenue of which will go into a special fund to capitalize and support a public bank that includes Berkeley in its service area? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
Response Percent
Yes 58%
Undecided/DK 18%
No 24%
(Refused) 0%

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

$300 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND. This is a ballot measure that would increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure through a general obligation bond.

Shall the measure authorizing the issuance of $300 million in general obligation bonds to fund improvements to fire stations, emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and other public buildings, and to increase climate change resiliency, subject to independent oversight and audits, be adopted? Average annual costs are approximately $22.14 per $100,000 assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided? Response Percent
Yes 69%
Undecided/DK 15%
(Refused) 0%
After hearing statements for and against the proposed General Obligation bond, support for the $300 million bond decreased to 64%. This reflects a five-point decline in overall support.

SALES AND USE TAX. This is a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax in the City of Berkeley to help address the City’s projected budget deficit of approximately $30 million. Shall the measure levying a 0.5% sales tax in Berkeley, increasing the total sales tax rate in the City to 10.75%, estimated to generate $9 million to $10 million annually, with proceeds placed into the General Fund for general City uses, including but not limited to sustaining fire, police and 911 dispatch services, youth and senior services, community programs, and homelessness response, until ended by the voters, with independent audits, be adopted? Response Percent
Yes 52%
Undecided/DK 16%
No 32%
(Refused) 0%
After voters heard supporting and opposing statements, support for the sales tax measure increased to 56%.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Key Community Survey Findings:
 In the context of a more developed November 2026 ballot environment, both potential City measures showed somewhat less support than they did in February 2026.
 Results from the April 2026 survey indicated support for the potential $300 million GO bond was 69%, compared to 71% in February 2026.
 After voters heard supporting and opposing statements, support for the potential GO bond decreased to 64%, indicating greater vulnerability to opposition arguments than in the February 2026 survey.
 Results from the April 2026 survey indicated support for the potential 0.5 percent sales and use tax increase was 52%, compared to 60% in February.  Strong support for the sales tax measure declined from 37% in February 2026 to 23% in April 2026, indicating softer baseline support.
 After voters heard supporting and opposing statements, support for the sales tax measure increased to 56% in April 2026, with opposition decreasing to 30% and undecided voters decreasing to 13%.

Refined $300 Million GO Bond Framework: Evaluation Methodology, Financial Assumptions, and Project List
In response to council and community feedback, staff refined the proposed project list and updated supporting materials to more clearly reflect project costs, implementation considerations, and the methodology used to evaluate and organize projects within the proposed bond framework. That refined project list, Attachment 2, and evaluation approach are summarized below.

Since the March 17, 2026, work session, staff have refined the proposed infrastructure project list to better align the potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure with voter priorities, community input, project readiness, and updated cost assumptions.

The result is a more focused and implementation-oriented portfolio of potential investments.

Evaluation Methodology
To support this refinement, staff applied an explicit evaluation methodology designed to improve transparency and provide an understanding how projects were assessed. The methodology draws from the City’s infrastructure evaluation rubric and related bond

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

selection concepts previously discussed by the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission6. Projects were reviewed using a six-factor framework that considers:

1. Health, life, and safety impacts;

2. Infrastructure condition, accessibility, and resilience;

3. Community use and equity;

4. Climate resiliency and sustainability;

5. Deliverability and readiness; and

6. External funding potential.

Each project was assessed using a Low, Medium, or High rating scale, which was then translated into a weighted score to help compare projects more consistently across categories.

The scoring framework was designed to evaluate both the public benefit of a project and the City’s ability to deliver it.
 Health, life, and safety considerations capture immediate risk reduction, such as seismic deficiencies, fire/life-safety issues, emergency response dependencies, unsafe access, and public health or sanitation concerns.  Infrastructure condition, accessibility, and resilience considerations capture asset age, deferred maintenance, accessibility barriers, useful life extension, system replacement, and long-term liability reduction.
 Community use and equity considerations capture usage intensity, public access, service to underserved or historically underinvested communities, and whether the project addresses gaps in access to recreation, civic facilities, public space, or essential services.
 Green resiliency and sustainability considerations capture direct climate or environmental benefits, including sea-level-rise adaptation, shoreline protection, stormwater capture, heat mitigation, decarbonization, energy resilience, and other sustainability gains beyond ordinary modernization.
 Deliverability and readiness considerations capture whether a project has a defined scope, design progress, site control, permitting or environmental review progress, stakeholder alignment, and realistic near-term implementation potential.  External funding potential captures whether bond funds could leverage grants, matching funds, partnerships, or other outside resources. 6 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/2026-04- 14%20Item%2022%20Bond%20Measure%20Subcommittee%20%E2%80%94%20Final%20Report.pdf

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

This methodology was intended to do more than identify projects with general merit. It was structured to distinguish between projects that address urgent risks, major infrastructure deficiencies, and meaningful equity or climate outcomes, versus projects whose benefits may be more limited, indirect, or longer-term. It also helped staff account for practical implementation factors, including whether a project is sufficiently defined to advance in a realistic timeframe and whether bond funding could be paired with outside grants or other leveraged resources. Importantly, the framework was used as a decision-support tool rather than a purely mechanical ranking exercise. Staff also considered City Council direction, geographic distribution, community feedback, updated costing, and the need to advance a project list that is understandable, deliverable, and aligned with the ballot measure narrative.

The methodology also includes important guardrails. Projects were not scored highly simply because they are popular, useful, or generally in poor condition. Similarly, projects were not scored highly under climate or sustainability criteria solely because they would include standard modernization, code compliance, or baseline efficiency improvements. Higher scores are intended to reflect direct, material, and well-supported outcomes, such as significant safety risk reduction, major asset replacement, meaningful ADA/accessibility improvements, clear climate adaptation benefits, strong equitable access benefits, project readiness, or realistic outside funding leverage.

Project Themes and Organization
The proposed project list is organized into the following project themes used throughout the community engagement process:
 Community Facilities and Quality of Life;
 Public Safety; and
 Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility.

These themes helped communicate the purpose and public benefit of the proposed investments in a way that is understandable to community members and voters.

Community Facilities and Quality of Life include parks, playgrounds, restrooms, aquatics, cultural centers, open space, and waterfront improvements. Public Safety includes fire station modernization and critical upgrades to emergency-response facilities. Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility include core systems and facilities that require seismic upgrades, ADA improvements, sidewalk repairs, and civic facility modernization.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Current Working Financial Framework for the GO Bond
The current working framework assumes $300 million in total bond sales and approximately $13 million in bond interest, for total projected revenue of approximately $313 million.

The total project cost estimate reflects the current working list of capital projects organized by category (i.e., Community Facilities and Quality of Life, Public Safety, etc.). This amount includes planning-level cost assumptions and any escalation or cost projection adjustments needed to support a realistic bond program budget. The framework also includes approximately $40.5 million in staffing and implementation- related costs, which are intended to support the resources necessary to administer and deliver a multi-year bond-funded capital program. These costs include salary and staffing costs, project delivery support, workstations, software, auditing, oversight, reporting, financial tracking, procurement support, construction management, and other related implementation costs needed to responsibly manage the bond program. These costs are intended to support bond program delivery and administration, not ongoing operations or routine maintenance.

Current Working Financial Framework for the GO Bond
Category Amount
Sources of Funds
Total Bond Sales $300,000,000
Assumed Bond Interest $13,000,000
Total Sources of Funds $313,000,000
Uses of Funds
Community Facilities and Quality of Life Project Costs $90,697,000 Public Safety Project Costs $106,665,849
Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility Project Costs $75,135,000 Total Project Costs $272,500,000
Staffing and Implementation Costs $40,500,000
Total Uses of Funds $313,000,000
Including resources for staffing and implementation is an important part of the proposed financial framework. A bond program of this scale requires dedicated capacity to move projects through planning, design, procurement, construction, compliance, reporting, audit, and closeout.

Project List by Category
Community Facilities and Quality of Life
Community Facilities and Quality of Life projects currently total approximately $90.7 million. This category includes investments in safe, accessible, and resilient parks and

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

recreation facilities; modernized recreation and aquatic spaces; improved play areas, restrooms, and sports infrastructure; expanded park amenities; shoreline protection; sea-level-rise resilience; long-term public access; and infrastructure preservation.

Representative examples include:

Project What It Illustrates
Frances Albrier
Community Center
A major community recreation facility replacement that addresses seismic and modernization needs at a high-use public facility.

King Pool Infrastructure
Improvements
A targeted aquatic facility investment that addresses aging infrastructure, improves safety and reliability, and extends the useful life of an important recreation asset.

Adeline Corridor Open
Space
An equity-focused open space investment that expands park access in an area identified for new or improved public space.

Marina Boulevard Sea
Level Rise and Bay Trail
Improvements
A waterfront resilience and public access project that supports sea-level-rise adaptation, Bay Trail connectivity, and potential grant leverage.

Projects in this category are intended to improve the condition, usability, accessibility, and resilience of high-use public spaces that support recreation, community gathering, youth and family programming, waterfront access, and neighborhood quality of life.

Public Safety
Public Safety projects currently total approximately $106.7 million. This category includes emergency response facilities, public safety infrastructure, long-term resilience, climate readiness, operational reliability, future-ready infrastructure, sustainable investment, emergency preparedness, essential services, community safety, and facility modernization. These projects also incorporate resilience and sustainability features, including photovoltaic solar, battery energy storage systems, and backup power to support critical emergency response functions. This is particularly important because emergency response facilities must remain operational during major incidents, power disruptions, wildfire smoke events, extreme heat, earthquakes, and other emergencies.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Representative examples include:

Project What It Illustrates
Fire Station 4
Replacement
Replacement of an aging and undersized emergency response facility to support contemporary staffing, improve emergency medical response capacity to the northeast quadrant of the City, health and safety standards for first responders, and operational resilience.

Fire Station 6
Replacement
Replacement of a facility that no longer meets current and projected service demands, including modern apparatus, expanded staffing, and safe working conditions for responders.

Fire Training Center
Replacement
A purpose-built training facility that supports modern fire, rescue, and emergency service training and education and will improve operational readiness and long-term emergency response capacity.

Projects in this category focus on replacing aging, undersized, and operationally constrained emergency response facilities that do not meet modern fire and emergency medical response, training, staffing, health and safety, or resilience needs.

Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility
Critical Infrastructure & Accessibility projects currently total approximately $75.1 million.

Investments in this category include citywide ADA improvements, sidewalk repairs, seismic upgrades, and modernization of aging civic and service facilities, including facilities that support essential public services and emergency response functions such as the Public Safety Building and 911 Dispatch Center. Collectively, these projects are intended to improve life safety, accessibility, resilience, facility reliability, and equitable access to public spaces and services.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Representative examples include:

Project What It Illustrates
50/50 Sidewalk Program A citywide accessibility and pedestrian safety investment that addresses cracked, uneven, and unsafe sidewalks while
advancing ADA access.

ADA Barrier Removal
Projects
A citywide compliance and access investment that removes barriers in public facilities and paths of travel for people with disabilities.
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.

Avenue Public Safety
Building Modernization
A critical facility modernization project that supports public safety operations, including critical improvements to the aging and undersized 911 Dispatch center, technology upgrades, HVAC, and wellness spaces.

Old City Hall / Maudelle
Shirek Building
Preservation and
Renovation
A seismic and civic infrastructure investment that supports preservation, accessibility, and the potential return of civic and community-serving functions to a historic public building.

Taken together, projects in this category address some of the City’s most visible and liability-sensitive infrastructure needs, including sidewalks, ADA access, aging civic buildings, seismic risk, and public facilities that support essential services. This category also helps connect the bond framework to community priorities around accessibility, safety, reliable public services, and long-term stewardship of City-owned assets.

Project Portfolio Summary and Next Steps
The refined project list and evaluation methodology are intended to provide City Council with an understanding of how the proposed infrastructure bond framework has been organized, evaluated, and aligned with community priorities. The current working framework reflects a citywide portfolio of investments across parks and recreation facilities, public safety infrastructure, civic buildings, accessibility improvements, seismic resilience, waterfront protection, and other critical infrastructure needs. It also accounts for the staffing and implementation costs, oversight, auditing, and implementation resources necessary to responsibly deliver a multi-year bond-funded capital program.

Staff will continue to refine project scopes, cost assumptions, implementation timelines, financing assumptions, and accountability provisions as the ballot measure development process moves forward. This ongoing refinement will incorporate feedback from City Council, commissions, community members, and implementing departments to ensure that any potential measure placed before voters is understandable, fiscally responsible, deliverable, and responsive to Berkeley’s highest-priority infrastructure needs.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Next Steps
If City Council directs staff to proceed, the following next steps and milestones would apply:
 In June 2026, staff would return to City Council with ballot language for the potential measure or measures identified through Council direction at the May 2026 meeting.  If necessary, in July 2026, staff would return to City Council with revised draft ballot language.
 August 7, 2026 is the last day to submit a local measure for placement on the November 3, 2026, ballot to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

Consistent with this timeline, staff would work with the City Attorney’s Office to prepare and refine ballot language, finalize the proposed project list and related accountability provisions for any General Obligation bond measure, and incorporate the results of the second survey and community engagement process into the final ballot framing and supporting materials.

BACKGROUND
The City’s exploration of potential revenue measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election is grounded in a series of City Council actions, long-range planning frameworks, and sustained cross-departmental analysis intended to address Berkeley’s long-standing and growing capital infrastructure needs.

On June 17, 20257, City Council referred to the City Manager an item to assess the potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support capital improvements to Fire Department facilities. On September 30, 20258, City Council subsequently referred an additional item to assess the potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support improvements to recreation and community facilities. These referrals reflected Council’s recognition that critical public safety and community-serving facilities face aging infrastructure, increasing maintenance backlogs, and operational constraints that cannot be fully addressed through existing funding sources.

This work builds on the City’s long-range infrastructure planning framework established through Vision 2050, which emerged from Measure R (2018). Measure R directed the Mayor to convene a panel of subject matter experts to guide the City toward a climate- smart, technologically advanced, integrated, and efficient infrastructure future. The City 7 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-06- 17%20Item%2028%20Fire%20Facility%20Revenue%20Measures.pdf 8 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09- 30%20Item%2011%20Recreation%20and%20Community%20Facility%20Improvement%20Measures.pdf

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Council accepted the Vision 2050 Framework in 20209, and in 2025, the Mayor convened a Task Force to review and update the recommendations contained in the original Vision 2050 report. Updates to Vision 2050 were presented to the City Council on December 2, 2025.10 Vision 2050 provides the overarching policy lens through which potential 2026 ballot measure projects are being evaluated, emphasizing equity, public health and safety, climate resilience, sustainability, and integrated systems planning.

On December 2, 2025, City Council reviewed staff’s preliminary assessment of the City’s significant unfunded infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs and provided direction to explore a potential General Obligation (GO) bond for the November 2026 ballot, with a funding capacity up to $300 million. Staff noted that while a bond of this scale would not fully address the City’s estimated infrastructure needs—currently exceeding $1.5 billion—it would represent a meaningful step toward stabilizing and modernizing critical assets that directly support public safety, community well-being, accessibility, and climate resilience.

On January 27, 2026, City Council also directed staff to include a question in the voter survey regarding a potential 0.5 percent sales and use tax increase to help address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit and sustain essential City services.

Consistent with Council direction, staff developed a preliminary framework organizing potential bond projects into three high-level categories:
 Community Facilities and Quality of Life;
 Public Safety; and
 Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility.

Projects within these categories were identified through a collaborative, cross- departmental process and evaluated using core City criteria as well as Vision 2050- aligned principles, including equity, public health and safety, climate resilience, sustainability, and opportunities to leverage external funding. Projects were also screened for readiness, feasibility, and deliverability to ensure that any potential ballot measure reflects projects that can be implemented within realistic timeframes and staffing capacity.

In parallel with the policy development and project framework, City Council directed staff to commence a robust community engagement and survey process to inform ballot measure development. To implement this direction, the City contracted with Lake Research Partners to design and administer a statistically valid community survey of 9 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Vision-2050-Framework.pdf 10 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-12- 02%20Special%20Item%2001%20Sharing%20the%20Final%20Report%20of%20the%20Mayor.pdf

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Berkeley voters (Contract No:32600095). The survey was fielded from February 19–23, 2026 using live phone and text-to-online methodologies and tested voter priorities and support for potential General Obligation Bond concepts across multiple funding levels, as well as an exploratory question regarding a potential sales tax increase to address the City’s projected budget deficit.

On March 17, 2026, City Council held a special work session to review the results of the first community survey and discuss potential ballot measure considerations for the November 2026 election. At that meeting, Council provided direction to continue developing a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure to fund priority infrastructure investments, continue exploring a potential 0.5 percent sales and use tax increase to address the City’s projected structural deficit and support essential services, and conduct a second voter survey to test refined ballot language for both measures in the context of the anticipated November 2026 ballot environment. Staff used this direction to further refine the project list, update project cost assumptions, and work with Lake Research Partners to develop the second community survey.

Community Engagement and Qualitative Feedback
To complement the survey and ensure broader community input beyond likely voters, City staff implemented an expanded engagement strategy from January through March 2026 that included briefings and feedback sessions with the following:
 Six (6) City commissions (Environment and Climate Commission; Landmarks Commission; Commission on Disability; Disaster and Fire Safety Commission; Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission; and Transportation and Infrastructure Commission);
 Four (4) focus groups (Civic Recreation Users; residents interested in Capital Improvement Program priorities; Community Emergency Response Team groups; and Aquatic Parks stakeholders), and
 Joint community meetings organized by paired Council districts (Districts 5/6; 1/2; 3/8; and 4/7).

These engagements provided qualitative insight into community priorities, equity considerations, geographic differences in infrastructure conditions, concerns regarding affordability and cumulative tax burden, and expectations for oversight and transparency should a bond measure advance.

A website11 has also been developed to provide information on the potential general obligation bond, the list of projects that could be funded by the proposed bond, 11 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/infrastructure-projects- potential-bond-measure.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

information about community meetings, and a mechanism for community members to provide their input on the proposed list of projects.

At a high level, feedback consistently highlighted strong interest in projects tied to life safety, emergency response, accessibility, climate resilience, and visible neighborhood infrastructure, such as fire facilities, dispatch modernization, sidewalks, ADA improvements, and select parks and community-serving facilities. Participants also emphasized the importance of geographic equity, particularly ensuring that historically underinvested areas and neighborhoods across Berkeley are meaningfully reflected in the proposed project list.

At the same time, community members raised recurring questions about the overall size and complexity of the proposed bond package, the need for clearer explanation of how projects were selected and prioritized, and the importance of demonstrating public benefit in a way that is understandable to voters. Feedback also reflected concern about affordability, cumulative tax burden, implementation capacity, and maintaining public trust through accountability and transparent reporting. Several participants encouraged the City to continue refining both the project list and the public-facing narrative so that the final package is focused and clearly aligned with Berkeley’s highest-priority needs.

Overall, the qualitative engagement process suggests broad support for addressing Berkeley’s infrastructure backlog, paired with a strong expectation that any proposed ballot measure be clearly prioritized, equitable in community benefit, and accompanied by an implementation and accountability framework.

Following this phase of Council direction, voter survey research, community engagement, and the March 17 work session, staff refined the proposed project list, updated cost assumptions, and worked with Lake Research Partners to conduct a second community survey testing refined ballot language and messaging. The current item returns to City Council for direction on whether to continue developing ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure and a potential

0.5 percent sales and use tax increase for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. This next step would allow staff to further refine the project list, accountability provisions, financing assumptions, and legal documents needed to return to Council with draft ballot language before the statutory filing deadline.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Many of the infrastructure investments under consideration for a potential November 2026 ballot measure directly advance the City’s environmental sustainability, climate resilience, and environmental justice goals. Modernizing aging public facilities provides opportunities to incorporate energy-efficient building systems, high-performance materials, and low-carbon construction practices consistent with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan policies.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Several of the proposed project categories and example projects also directly support climate adaptation and resilience objectives, including improvements to stormwater infrastructure, shoreline and waterfront protection, seismic upgrades to critical facilities, and retrofits that enhance emergency response capacity during climate-related emergencies such as extreme heat, wildfire smoke events, flooding, and power outages. Investments in public safety facilities and emergency communications infrastructure further strengthen the City’s ability to respond to increasingly frequent and severe climate-driven hazards.

In addition, proposed investments in sidewalks, ADA accessibility, and pedestrian infrastructure advance sustainable transportation and public health outcomes by improving walkability and accessibility, reducing reliance on vehicle travel, and supporting safer, more connected neighborhoods. Enhancements to parks, recreation facilities, and community centers also contribute to urban greening, heat mitigation, and community resilience by providing cooling spaces and accessible public gathering areas during extreme weather events.

Project prioritization and implementation will continue to be guided by the Vision 2050 framework, which elevates climate resilience, sustainability, equity, and integrated infrastructure planning as core principles. As specific projects are refined, staff will incorporate climate risk screening and lifecycle sustainability considerations to ensure that public investments are durable, resilient to future climate conditions, and aligned with the City’s long-term environmental and climate goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
City Council direction at this stage is necessary to ensure that any potential November 2026 ballot measure is aligned with Council policy priorities, informed by community input, and structured in a manner that is both feasible to implement and positioned for voter approval.

Providing direction now allows staff to finalize project categories, refine ballot language, prepare accountability provisions, and complete the legal and administrative steps necessary to return to City Council with final ballot language in time to meet statutory deadlines for the November 2026 election. Delaying direction could limit the City’s ability to complete these steps, reduce flexibility in responding to survey and community feedback, and compress the timeline for thoughtful preparation of final ballot materials.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
City Council could choose to take no action at this time. However, this would significantly constrain the City’s ability to refine project priorities, prepare ballot language, and advance one or more measures in a manner that meets the statutory deadlines for the November 2026 election. Delaying direction may also reduce the City’s flexibility to incorporate the results of the second survey and the engagement process into the final design of any potential ballot measure.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Second Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR May 19, 2026

Alternatively, City Council could direct staff to discontinue ballot measure development for the November 2026 election cycle. While this would avoid near-term ballot-related workload and costs, it would leave the City without a viable near-term strategy to address its most urgent infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs, and without an opportunity to seek voter authorization for new revenue to support essential services and address the structural deficit in the General Fund.

CONTACT PERSON
Dave White, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981-7014 Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981- 6903
Attachments:
1: Results of 2026 Second Community Survey | Lake Research Partners 2: Refined Infrastructure Project List
3: December 02, 2025 Staff Report
4: March 17, 2026 Staff Report
5: Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Commission Report
6: Environment and Climate Commission Report

1 LakeResearch.com
Lake Research Partners
Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY
LakeResearch.com
202.776.9066
Findings from a
community survey of
500 likely 2026 voters
April 21-26, 2026
David Mermin
Emma Scotty

2 Methodology
• Lake Research Partners designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by live telephone interview and text-to-online. • The survey reached a total of 500 likely November 2026 election voters in Berkeley, California, sampled from the state voter file. • The survey was conducted April 21-26, 2026.
• Data were weighted slightly by gender, region, age, race, party registration, homeownership, and education to reflect the expected demographic composition of likely November general election voters in Berkeley. • The margin of error for the full sample is +/-4.4%.

3 Demographics of Likely Voters in Berkeley

GENDER AGE EDUCATION PARTY REGISTRATION
Under 30 --- 20% High School or Less --- 2% Democrat
30-39 --- 14% Post-H.S. / Some
College --- 22% 78%
40-49 --- 15% College Graduate --- 38% 75% Republican
50-64 --- 21% Post-Graduate --- 37% College Grad
or Post Grad 3%
55% 45% 65+ --- 30% NPP/Other

RACE REGION HOMEOWNER
19%
White --- 67% Hills (Districts 5,6,8) --- 45% Own --- 54% Black --- 9% Central/South (3,4,7) --- 27% Rent --- 42% Latino --- 9% West (1,2) --- 28% Oth --- 3%
AAPI --- 11%
MENA --- 2%
Other --- 2%
DK/Ref --- 1%

4 Key Findings – Overview
• The GO bond and sales tax ballot measures have slightly lower support in this latest survey than in our February poll. In a crowded ballot measure environment, voters are less enthusiastic about additional revenue measures.
• Nearly seven in ten vote Yes on the GO bond initial
ballot (69%), just above the two-thirds needed to
pass.
• Support for the sales tax starts lower at 52%,
though still above the passage threshold of 50%.
• Additional positive and negative information dampens
support for the GO bond slightly, while increasing support for the sales tax. Both measures are in a position to pass if there is a solid campaign in support of each.
• Other local and regional revenue measures tested also have strong support, though their inclusion on the 2026 ballot likely increases tax sensitivity for Berkeley voters.

5 Key Findings – GO Bond
• Sixty-nine percent of Berkeley voters would vote Yes on the GO bond measure to increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure like fire stations, emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and other public buildings, and to increase climate change resiliency. Only16% would vote No, and 15% are undecided.
• Initial support for the GO bond is slightly lower than it was in February (71% Yes). Strong support also dropped slightly (from 42% to 39%). Consolidating soft support is important to ensuring passage.
• As we saw in the February survey, voters across demographics vote Yes at similar rates.

Women under 50 are most likely to vote Yes. Voters in West Berkeley, homeowners, and older men are relatively less likely to support the bond measure. • After hearing a statement in favor and a statement in opposition to the GO bond measure, support declines to 64%. In this ballot environment after voters have heard about several different revenue measures, the opposition message claiming Berkeley taxpayers are getting soaked for tax increases has more resonance.
• In the February poll without other measures, the opposition statement did not negatively impact support, which remained at 72%.

6 Key Findings – Sales Tax
• On the initial ballot, 52% of Berkeley voters would vote Yes on a 0.5% sales taxto help address the City’s projected budget deficit, 32% would vote No, and 16% are undecided. Support is somewhat soft, with only 23% who vote Yes strongly.
• Since our February survey, support for the sales tax has declined by 8 points (from 60% Yes). The decline is disproportionately among younger men, older women, white voters, homeowners, and voters in Central/South Berkeley.
• Women are more likely to support the sales tax than men, and voters under 50 are more supportive than voters over 50. Younger women are the most likely to vote Yes. • Unlike the GO bond measure, support for the sales tax increases by 4 points after hearing a statement in support and a statement in opposition to the measure, to 56%. The statements convince over a third (35%) of undecided voters to vote Yes, though most remain undecided. • After statements, the sales tax ballot is closer to what it was after statements in February, down only 2 points (from 58% Yes). Support is still softer than in the February poll, with 26% voting Yes strongly, down from 36% on the February informed ballot.

7 Key Findings – Ballot Order
• In a test of order effect in which half of respondents heard the GO bond measure first and the other half heard the sales tax measure first, we see little impact on the ballot. • Support for the GO bond starts off slightly higher among voters who heard the sales tax ballot first (70% Yes) compared to those who heard the GO bond first (67% Yes).

However, there is more of a dropoff on the informed ballot among those who heard the sales tax first, which leaves the levels of support after messages the same regardless of ballot order (64% Yes).
• On the sales tax ballot, those who heard the GO bond measure first are slightly more likely to vote Yes on the initial (53%) and informed (58%) ballots compared to those who heard the sales tax first (50% initial, 54% informed).

8 Key Findings – Other Measures
• The other local and regional ballot measures we tested before the GO bond and sales tax measures currently have majority support among Berkeley voters. • The Bay Area regional transit measure has strong support in Berkeley, with 79% voting Yes.
• The Alameda County living wage measure also tests strongly in Berkeley if it gets on the ballot – 78% say they would vote Yes.
• The arts funding tax, though not as popular as the transit or minimum wage measures, is well above the 50% it needs to pass (67% Yes). • The sugar-sweetened beverage tax looks likely to pass, with over two-thirds who would Yes (69%).
• The public bank measure has a majority voting Yes, but with lower support than the other measures at 58%.

9 GO BOND

10 Text of GO Bond Ballot Measure
This is a ballot measure that would increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure through a general obligation bond.

Shall the measure authorizing the issuance of $300 million in general obligation bonds to fund improvements to fire stations, emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and other public buildings, and to increase climate change resiliency, subject to independent oversight and audits, be adopted? Average annual costs are approximately $22.14 per $100,000 assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027.

11 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q8: [GO BOND – $300m] This is a ballot measure that would increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure through a general obligation bond. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?:

And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? Nearly seven in ten Berkeley voters would vote Yes on the $300m general obligation bond on the initial ballot, above the two-thirds threshold.

Support is largely consistent across demographics, but
highest among younger women. Renters are slightly more
likely to vote Yes than homeowners, and support is higher in the Hills and Central/South than the West.

Initial Ballot - GO Bond Measure
Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 39 69 16 15 +52
Men 38 66 19 14 +47
Women 40 71 14 15 +57
< 50 37 71 13 16 +58
50+ 41 66 20 14 +47
Men < 50 34 67 16 17 +51
Women < 50 40 76 9 15 +67
Men 50+ 44 65 24 11 +41
Women 50+ 40 67 17 16 +50
White 40 68 17 14 +51
POC 38 70 13 17 +56
Non-College 37 65 19 15 +46
College 40 70 15 15 +55
Hills 41 70 16 13 +54
Central/South 37 71 12 16 +59
West 37 64 20 17 +44
Own 38 65 22 13 +44
Rent 40 72 9 19 +63
39 8
69 16 15
0 (+52)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (2/3)

12 39
8 69
16 15
(+52)
Yes No Und

ALL RESPONDENTS
Q8. This is a ballot measure that would increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure through a general obligation bond.. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? Compared to our February survey, which did not
include the other measures that will be on the ballot,
support for the GO bond measure in this survey is
slightly lower. Older voters and white voters have
lower support than previously, possibly due to tax
sensitivity after hearing about other revenue
measures that will also be on the ballot.

Initial Ballot GO Bond Measure – Timeseries Net (Yes-No) Net Change
Feb 2026 April 2026
Total +59 +52 -7
Men +54 +47 -7
Women +62 +57 -5
< 50 +55 +58 +4
50+ +62 +47 -15
Men < 50 +51 +51 0
Women < 50 +57 +67 +10
Men 50+ +57 +41 -16
Women 50+ +66 +50 -16
White +65 +51 -14
POC +46 +56 +10
Non-College +58 +46 -12
College +59 +55 -4
Hills +59 +54 -4
Central /South +63 +59 -4
West +55 +44 -11
Own +53 +44 -9
Rent +65 +63 -2
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
February 2026 April 2026
42 6
71 12 16
(+59)
Yes No Und

13 Text of Support/Oppose Statements – GO Bond Ballot Measure Supporters say the City needs investments in fire services, parks, and building repairs to ensure safety and quality of life, and to save the city money by investing in cost-saving green energy. Building on past successes like repairing streets, improving parks, and increasing affordable housing, this bond will focus on replacing unsafe and undersized fire stations, revitalizing community and senior centers, improving parks and sidewalks, and preparing for sea-level rise and climate change. These investments will improve our quality of life, save the city money, and make us safer.

Opponents say that Berkeley taxpayers keep getting soaked for more and more increases with little to show for it. We funded streets, and the streets are still a mess. We funded housing, and housing costs and homelessness are worse than ever. We can’t afford to pay more in taxes at a time when people are already struggling. We need to look more closely at this high-tax, high-cost city government, cut wasteful and unnecessary spending, and use existing funds efficiently.

14 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q10. Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds…If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided? After hearing statements in favor and against the bond measure, support drops slightly below the two-thirds threshold. For the measure to pass, supporters would need to hold on to the current Yes voters and win over some undecideds. Voters who were undecided initially remain largely undecided, but move more toward voting Yes than No.

At least a quarter of older men, non-college voters, and voters in West Berkeley vote No, while younger women are the most supportive.

Informed Ballot - GO Bond Measure
Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 37 64 20 15 +44
Men 39 63 23 13 +40
Women 36 65 18 17 +47
< 50 39 67 17 15 +50
50+ 36 61 23 15 +37
Men < 50 39 63 22 14 +42
Women < 50 39 71 12 17 +59
Men 50+ 39 62 25 12 +37
Women 50+ 35 60 23 17 +38
White 38 63 20 16 +43
POC 38 66 19 14 +47
Non-College 38 56 28 15 +29
College 38 67 18 15 +49
Hills 41 66 19 14 +47
Central/South 32 66 17 17 +49
West 37 60 25 15 +34
Own 38 65 20 14 +44
Rent 37 65 19 17 +46
Initial
Undecided 7 25 12 63 +13
37 14
64 20 15
1 (+44)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (2/3)

15 43
9 72
15 13
(+57)
Yes No Und
37 14
64 20 15
(+44)
Yes No Und

ALL RESPONDENTS
Q10. Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds…If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided? The GO bond measure is more vulnerable to
opposition in the context of other measures on
the ballot compared to our February survey.

Older men, non-college voters, and voters in
Central/South and West Berkeley have
particularly reduced support on the informed
ballot compared to February.

Informed Ballot GO Bond Measure – Timeseries Net (Yes-No) Net Change
Feb 2026 April 2026
Total +57 +44 -13
Men +56 +40 -16
Women +58 +47 -11
< 50 +63 +50 -13
50+ +51 +37 -15
Men < 50 +55 +42 -13
Women < 50 +69 +59 -10
Men 50+ +56 +37 -19
Women 50+ +47 +38 -9
White +57 +43 -14
POC +56 +47 -9
Non-College +63 +29 -34
College +55 +49 -6
Hills +51 +47 -4
Central /South +70 +49 -21
West +54 +34 -20
Own +50 +44 -6
Rent +63 +46 -17
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
February 2026 April 2026

16 Voters who are undecided on the GO bond ballot measure are disproportionately renters, especially women, registered NPP/other party, in their 40s, Black, and have a 4-year degree.

Persuadable voters, who move toward voting Yes on the informed ballot or are undecided, are heavily female, especially white women, college-educated, and include a disproportionate number of homeowners in West Berkeley. Persuadables also include relatively more NPP/other voters, voters in their 40s, and older Black voters.

GO Bond Target Profiles
Profile of GO Bond Undecided Voters – 15% of Electorate Demographic % of Undecided % of Electorate
Black 14 9
NPP/Other 25 19
40-49 20 15
Black 50+ 10 5
4-year college 45 38
Rent 53 42
Rent women 32 23
Profile of GO Bond Persuadable Voters – 17% of Electorate Demographic % of Persuadable % of Electorate
Women 60 55
White women 41 36
NPP/Other 30 19
40-49 21 15
Black 50+ 10 5
College women 52 43
Homeowner West 20 15

17 SALES TAX

18 Text of Sales Tax Ballot Measure
This is a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax in the City of Berkeley to help address the City’s projected budget deficit of approximately $30 million.

Shall the measure levying a 0.5% sales tax in Berkeley, increasing the total sales tax rate in the City to 10.75%, estimated to generate $9 million to $10 million annually, with proceeds placed into the General Fund for general City uses, including but not limited to sustaining fire, police and 911 dispatch services, youth and senior services, community programs, and homelessness response, until ended by the voters, with independent audits, be adopted?

19 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q9: This is a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax in the City of Berkeley to help address the City’s projected budget deficit of approximately $30 million. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? Support for the sales tax measure is lower and softer
than support for the GO bond measure, though the
number who would vote Yes still clears the 50%
threshold.

As with the GO bond, the strongest supporters are
younger women. Men and older voters are more
likely to vote No. Homeowners are also more likely to
vote No than renters.

Initial Ballot - Sales Tax Measure
Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 23 52 32 16 +19
Men 23 48 38 14 +10
Women 23 55 28 17 +27
< 50 24 56 28 16 +28
50+ 22 48 37 15 +11
Men < 50 22 46 38 15 +7
Women < 50 26 67 17 16 +50
Men 50+ 23 50 37 12 +13
Women 50+ 21 47 36 17 +10
White 24 52 33 15 +19
POC 20 53 30 16 +23
Non-College 25 57 30 12 +27
College 22 50 33 17 +17
Hills 23 52 31 16 +20
Central/South 21 50 33 17 +18
West 25 53 34 13 +19
Own 20 51 36 13 +15
Rent 28 54 26 19 +28
23 21
52 32
16 0
(+19)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (50%+1)

20 23 21
52 32
16 (+19)
Yes No Und

ALL RESPONDENTS
Q9. This is a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax in the City of Berkeley to help address the City’s projected budget deficit of approximately $30 million. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? Support for the sales tax is lower in this poll than
in February. The biggest declines are among
younger men and older women, white voters,
those in Central/South Berkeley, and
homeowners.

Initial Ballot Sales Tax Measure – Timeseries Net (Yes-No) Net Change
Feb 2026 April 2026
Total +31 +19 -12
Men +22 +10 -12
Women +39 +27 -12
< 50 +38 +28 -10
50+ +24 +11 -13
Men < 50 +24 +7 -17
Women < 50 +49 +50 +1
Men 50+ +19 +13 -6
Women 50+ +29 +10 -19
White +35 +19 -16
POC +24 +23 -1
Non-College +42 +27 -15
College +28 +17 -11
Hills +27 +20 -7
Central /South +37 +18 -19
West +33 +19 -14
Own +32 +15 -17
Rent +31 +28 -3
37 18
60 29
11 (+31)
Yes No Und
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
February 2026 April 2026

21 Text of Support/Oppose Statements – Sales Tax Ballot Measure Supporters say the City must address its projected budget deficit to prevent layoffs of police officers and firefighters, the closure of a fire station, and the loss of vital youth services. This is a modest change to the sales tax, and it only brings Berkeley to the same tax rates as nearby cities like Oakland and Albany. It will fund essential services to make sure police and firefighters can continue to keep us safe and maintain the city’s quality of life without putting a major burden on taxpayers.

Opponents say this tax hike is yet another burden on taxpayers without any new or improved services to show for it. Berkeley taxpayers simply can’t afford all these tax increases, and we shouldn’t be asked to pay more when nothing will change. Increasing the sales tax will increase the burden on low- and middle-class residents and local small businesses. The City should use its existing budget and avoid deficits instead of asking us for more money.

22 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q11. Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds…If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided? After hearing statements in favor of and in opposition
to the sales tax, support increases slightly to 56%.

Majorities of voters across demographics vote Yes on
the sales tax after hearing more.

Over a third of initial undecideds move toward voting
Yes compared to only 10% who move towards No,
though over half remain undecided.

Informed Ballot - Sales Tax Measure
Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 26 56 30 13 +27
Men 27 54 32 12 +22
Women 25 58 27 14 +31
< 50 27 59 27 13 +32
50+ 24 54 32 13 +22
Men < 50 27 56 31 12 +25
Women < 50 28 62 21 15 +41
Men 50+ 27 52 33 13 +19
Women 50+ 22 55 32 13 +24
White 28 57 28 14 +29
POC 22 56 31 13 +24
Non-College 27 54 29 16 +25
College 25 57 29 12 +28
Hills 28 58 27 12 +31
Central/South 23 55 33 13 +22
West 24 55 30 15 +25
Own 24 57 28 14 +29
Rent 29 58 30 12 +28
Initial
Undecided 7 35 10 53 +24
26 20
56 30
13 1
(+27)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (50%+1)

23 36 19
58 29
13 (+29)
Yes No Und
26 20
56 30
13 (+27)
Yes No Und

ALL RESPONDENTS
Q11. Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds…If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided? The informed sales tax ballot after support and oppose
statements is similar to the informed ballot in the February survey, but the intensity of support remains lower than it was in the previous survey.

White, non-college, and Central/South voters are less likely to vote Yes after hearing more about the measure than
they were in February.

Informed Ballot Sales Tax Measure – Timeseries Net (Yes-No) Net Change
Feb 2026 April 2026
Total +29 +27 -2
Men +25 +22 -3
Women +33 +31 -2
< 50 +36 +32 -4
50+ +23 +22 -1
Men < 50 +31 +25 -6
Women < 50 +40 +41 +1
Men 50+ +19 +19 0
Women 50+ +26 +24 -2
White +37 +29 -8
POC +14 +24 +10
Non-College +33 +25 -8
College +28 +28 0
Hills +27 +31 +4
Central /South +32 +22 -10
West +30 +25 -5
Own +32 +29 -3
Rent +26 +28 +2
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
February 2026 April 2026

24 Voters who are undecided on the sales tax are highly educated (with a graduate degree), college-educated women, women in the Hills, renters (especially those who are women), and NPP/other party voters.

Like the other undecided and persuadable targets, sales tax persuadable voters are more likely to be NPPs.

They are disproportionately older women, postgraduate educated, college women, and homeowners, especially women.

Sales Tax Target Profiles
Profile of Sales Tax Undecided Voters – 16% of Electorate Demographic % of Undecided % of Electorate
Hills women 33 25
NPP/Other 24 19
Graduate degree 44 37
College women 52 43
Rent 51 42
Rent women 31 23
Profile of Sales Tax Persuadable Voters – 21% of Electorate Demographic % of Persuadable % of Electorate
NPP/Other 24 19
Women 50+ 38 31
Graduate degree 47 37
College women 48 43
Homeowner 59 54
Homeowner women 37 31

25 Ballot Order Effect

26 39
7 34 14
70 13
64 22
Yes No Yes No
40 10
41 13
67 19
64 18
Yes No Yes No
*SPLIT SAMPLED
Q8: [GO BOND – $300m] This is a ballot measure that would increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure through a general obligation bond. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?:

And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? Ballot order has a minimal impact on GO bond
support. The Yes vote on the informed ballot is
the same regardless of order, though intensity is
somewhat higher among those who heard the
GO bond ballot first.

GO Bond Measure by Ballot Order
Heard GO Bond First Heard Sales Tax First
% Yes Initial Informed Initial Informed
Total 67 64 70 64
Men 67 65 65 60
Women 66 63 75 67
< 50 71 70 71 64
50+ 62 58 70 63
Men < 50 72 68 62 59
Women < 50 71 73 81 70
Men 50+ 62 62 68 62
Women 50+ 63 56 71 64
White 68 62 69 64
POC 66 69 74 64
Non-College 64 57 66 55
College 68 67 72 67
Hills 73 70 67 62
Central/South 68 69 74 63
West 56 51 72 68
Own 64 65 67 64
Rent 68 64 76 65
Heard GO Bond First* Heard Sales Tax First*
Initial Informed Initial Informed

27 24 23 25 22
50 36
54 32
Yes No Yes No
22 20 26 19
53 29
58 27
Yes No Yes No
*SPLIT SAMPLED
Q8: [GO BOND – $300m] This is a ballot measure that would increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure through a general obligation bond. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?:

And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? For the sales tax measure, it is mildly beneficial
for voters to hear the GO bond ballot first.

Support on both the initial and informed ballot is
slightly elevated among voters who heard the GO
bond first, particularly among younger voters and
in the Hills.

Sales Tax Measure by Ballot Order
Heard GO Bond First Heard Sales Tax First
% Yes Initial Informed Initial Informed
Total 53 58 50 54
Men 52 60 43 49
Women 55 57 56 59
< 50 60 65 52 53
50+ 47 52 49 56
Men < 50 52 67 39 45
Women < 50 69 62 65 62
Men 50+ 51 51 49 53
Women 50+ 45 53 49 57
White 54 58 49 57
POC 55 62 52 50
Non-College 59 56 55 52
College 52 60 48 55
Hills 57 64 47 53
Central/South 56 57 45 52
West 46 50 60 60
Own 52 58 49 56
Rent 54 61 54 55
Heard GO Bond First* Heard Sales Tax First*
Initial Informed Initial Informed

28 OTHER

MEASURES

29 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q3: This is a ballot measure that would provide funding for regional transit through an increased sales tax in the Bay Area. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? The Bay Area regional transit funding measure is
widely popular in Berkeley, with almost eight-in-
ten voting Yes. Young women and voters in the
Hills are most supportive.

Regional Transit Measure Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 55 79 9 12 +70
Men 57 79 12 9 +67
Women 53 79 6 14 +72
< 50 57 81 8 10 +73
50+ 53 76 10 14 +67
Men < 50 55 78 11 11 +66
Women < 50 60 85 5 9 +80
Men 50+ 60 81 13 6 +67
Women 50+ 49 74 7 18 +67
White 56 80 8 11 +72
POC 53 76 10 13 +66
Non-College 51 71 12 16 +59
College 56 82 8 10 +74
Hills 61 87 5 8 +82
Central/South 53 74 10 15 +64
West 48 70 13 16 +57
Own 55 79 9 11 +69
Rent 56 80 8 12 +72
GO Bond No 29 55 33 12 +22
GO Bond Und 38 61 5 33 +56
Sales Tax No 42 71 21 7 +50
Sales Tax Und 43 63 2 35 +61
55 5
79 9 12
0 (+70)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly

30 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q4: This is a ballot measure that would raise the minimum wage in Alameda County. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean?
The Alameda County living wage measure also
has widespread support, including over half of
Berkeley voters who strongly support raising the
minimum wage.

Living Wage Measure Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 55 78 14 8 +64
Men 51 74 19 8 +55
Women 59 81 10 8 +71
< 50 62 83 13 5 +70
50+ 49 73 15 11 +58
Men < 50 54 75 19 5 +56
Women < 50 70 91 6 4 +85
Men 50+ 48 72 18 10 +54
Women 50+ 51 74 14 12 +60
White 52 77 13 10 +64
POC 63 80 16 4 +64
Non-College 59 81 17 2 +64
College 54 77 13 10 +64
Hills 57 77 15 9 +62
Central/South 55 84 9 7 +74
West 53 74 18 8 +56
Own 52 75 16 9 +59
Rent 60 81 12 7 +69
GO Bond No 27 45 43 12 +3
GO Bond Und 44 66 15 19 +50
Sales Tax No 47 65 28 7 +37
Sales Tax Und 51 74 9 17 +65
55 8
78 14 8 0
(+64)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly

31 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q5: This is a ballot measure that would provide funding for the arts in the City of Berkeley through a special parcel tax. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean?
Two-thirds of Berkeley voters vote Yes on the arts
funding ballot measure. This is particularly
popular among younger women and renters.

Those who vote No on the GO bond and sales tax
measures are more likely to also vote No on the
arts tax.

Arts Tax Measure Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 31 67 21 11 +46
Men 30 66 26 8 +40
Women 33 68 17 14 +51
< 50 32 72 19 9 +53
50+ 30 63 23 14 +39
Men < 50 30 67 26 7 +41
Women < 50 34 77 11 12 +66
Men 50+ 29 65 26 9 +38
Women 50+ 31 61 22 16 +40
White 30 67 23 10 +44
POC 34 69 16 14 +53
Non-College 37 68 23 8 +45
College 29 67 21 13 +46
Hills 34 70 20 10 +50
Central/South 28 69 21 10 +48
West 29 61 23 15 +38
Own 29 62 24 14 +38
Rent 36 75 17 9 +58
GO Bond No 16 23 62 16 -39
GO Bond Und 29 61 13 24 +48
Sales Tax No 19 40 47 13 -6
Sales Tax Und 26 60 14 27 +46
31 15
67 21 11
0 (+46)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly

32 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q6: This is a ballot measure that would increase the current tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in the City of Berkeley. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean?
The soda tax increase is also likely to pass, with
69% support and 45% strong support. As with the
other local Berkeley measures, voters who vote
No on the GO bond are more likely to vote No on
this tax.

Sugar-Sweeted Beverages Tax Measure Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 45 69 23 9 +46
Men 41 68 26 6 +42
Women 48 69 20 10 +49
< 50 44 68 21 11 +48
50+ 46 69 25 6 +44
Men < 50 39 62 28 9 +34
Women < 50 49 75 12 13 +62
Men 50+ 45 75 22 2 +53
Women 50+ 47 65 26 9 +39
White 45 71 21 8 +49
POC 46 64 26 10 +39
Non-College 43 66 25 9 +41
College 46 70 22 9 +48
Hills 50 71 20 9 +51
Central/South 42 71 21 8 +50
West 40 62 29 9 +33
Own 46 71 20 9 +50
Rent 44 67 26 7 +42
GO Bond No 20 40 55 5 -16
GO Bond Und 31 53 24 23 +29
Sales Tax No 29 52 45 3 +7
Sales Tax Und 29 51 22 26 +29
45 15
69 23
9 0
(+46)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly

33 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q7: This is a ballot measure that would support a public bank to fund Berkeley’s needs through a parcel tax. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean?
The public bank measure has the lowest support
of the measures tested, aside from the sales tax
(note that it was also tested after the previous
measures, though before the GO bond and sales
tax). It still has majority support at 58% Yes.

Public Bank Measure Yes -
strongly Yes No Und Net
Total 26 58 24 18 +34
Men 24 55 29 15 +26
Women 28 60 20 20 +40
< 50 29 66 18 15 +48
50+ 23 49 29 21 +20
Men < 50 26 57 27 15 +29
Women < 50 34 77 8 15 +68
Men 50+ 22 53 31 16 +22
Women 50+ 24 47 28 24 +19
White 28 59 24 17 +34
POC 23 56 22 20 +34
Non-College 33 60 22 17 +38
College 24 57 24 18 +33
Hills 30 61 24 15 +36
Central/South 26 60 20 19 +40
West 22 51 27 22 +24
Own 23 52 27 21 +25
Rent 30 65 19 16 +46
GO Bond No 7 17 71 13 -54
GO Bond Und 8 36 22 40 +15
Sales Tax No 15 32 54 14 -22
Sales Tax Und 13 33 17 48 +16
26 16
58 24 18
0 (+34)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly

34 Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY
LakeResearch.com
202.776.9066
David Mermin
[email protected]
Emma Scotty
[email protected]

Potential Bond Measure Projects
Item # Project Name Description Estimated Costs
1 Frances Albrier Community Center
Community Recreation Facility Replacement. Replaces the Frances Albrier Community Center, the only major City community facility — recreation, senior, or library — that has not been rebuilt or funded for required seismic upgrades. Located in San Pablo Park, this high-use facility is significantly undersized and requires modernization to better serve community needs. A conceptual plan for a new facility was completed through T1 Phase 1 in 2019. 36,850,000$
2 King Pool (25 Meter) & Locker Room Aquatic Facility Replacement and Modernization. Replaces concrete decking and piping at King Pool to address aging infrastructure, improve safety and reliability, and extend the useful life of the facility. 5,000,000$
3 Adeline Corridor Open Space Equity-Focused Open Space Expansion. Funds design and construction of four new or expanded open space areas within the Adeline Corridor Plan area south of Ashby Avenue, expanding park access in an equity-priority area. Federal resources have been secured for the design phase. 6,000,000$ 4 Cedar Rose Restroom High-Use Greenway Restroom Replacement. Replaces the existing block restroom at Cedar Rose Park with a smart restroom and adds a high-volume restroom along the Ohlone Greenway to meet growing public demand. 570,000$
5 Codornices Restroom High-Use Park Restroom Replacement. Replaces the existing block restroom at Codornices Park with a smart restroom, providing a higher-volume, more secure restroom facility in one of Berkeley’s most popular and well-used parks. 570,000$
6 Harrison Park Restroom Sports Field and Skate Park Restroom Upgrade. Modernizes the 26-year-old restroom serving Harrison Park’s high-volume sports fields and skate park to improve accessibility, usability, and public convenience. Conceptual design was funded and completed through T1 Phase 2. 1,280,000$ 7 Waterfront Restroom Waterfront Restroom Replacement. Replaces existing portable toilets on the south side of Spinnaker Way with a permanent smart restroom to better support waterfront visitors and public access. 790,000$ 9 Cedar Rose 2-5 Play Structure Play Area Modernization. Upgrades the heavily used Cedar Rose 2–5 play area to meet current safety and accessibility standards. The 5–12 play structure is being completed with Parks Tax funding in 2027, and this project is fully designed. 2,650,000$ 10 Glendale LaLoma Park Improvements:

Playgrounds, Parking, Paths
Neighborhood Park Accessibility and Safety Improvements. Improves Glendale La Loma Park with new play structures, parking lot upgrades, and safer, more accessible pathways throughout the multi-level park. The project is currently in conceptual design. 3,900,000$ 12 Harrison Field Conversion to Artificial Turf Sports Field Renovation and Capacity Expansion. Replaces failing natural grass fields at Harrison Park with artificial turf using environmentally friendly cork infill. The project will increase field capacity, reduce maintenance needs, and support expanded year-round recreational use. 6,600,000$ 15 Waterfront Park Perimeter Pathway
(60% funding)
Waterfront Park Pathway Modernization. Provides 60% of the funding needed for the Waterfront Park perimeter pathway project, which was designed in 2025 using State Coastal Conservancy grant funds. The remaining funding gap is anticipated to be addressed through additional grant funding or Parks Tax resources. 2,280,000$ 16 Marina Blvd Sea Level Rise and Bay Trail
(50% funding)
Sea-Level-Rise Resilience and Bay Trail Improvement. Raises and renovates the Marina Boulevard pathway to Bay Trail standards, improving waterfront resilience and connecting the pathway from University Avenue to Waterfront Park. This funding would serve as a 50% match for a potential grant to complete the project. Design is currently funded by a State Coastal Conservancy grant. 1,900,000$ 17 Marina Docks Timber Pile Replacement
Marina Infrastructure Stabilization. Replaces the remaining timber piles in the Marina with concrete piles, stabilizing all docks and extending their useful life by 50 or more years. Conceptual design and permitting were completed in 2024.
3,000,000$
18 Seawall Drive and Bay Trail from Adventure
Playground to Pier
(20% funding)
Shoreline and Bay Trail Access Improvements. Provides funding to help complete the Bay Trail connection from Adventure Playground to the Pier and advance Seawall Drive improvements. This funding would serve as a 20% match for a potential grant to complete the project. 5,250,000$ 19 South Cove Seawall Critical Seawall Replacement. Replaces the South Cove seawall to prevent imminent failure that could close public access to South Cove. Conceptual design is currently in progress. 5,689,000$ 21 Dwight/ Telegraph Open Space Improvements
Urban Open Space Expansion. Expands and improves the Dwight/Telegraph open space following completion of the Telegraph Multimodal Plan, creating a more usable hardscape public space in a high-traffic urban corridor.
3,500,000$
22 Sacramento Median Conversion to Native Plant
Garden (Bancroft to University)
Native Plant Median Conversion. Converts three long blocks of the Sacramento Street median, from Bancroft Way to University Avenue, into a native plant garden. Work includes soil replacement, new irrigation, and installation of native plantings.
1,300,000$
23 University Ave Median Conversion to Native Plant
Garden (6th- 9th)
Native Plant Median Conversion. Converts four blocks of the University Avenue median, from 6th Street to 9th Street, into a native plant garden. Work includes soil replacement, new irrigation, and installation of native plantings.
268,000$
25 Monkey Island / Garber Path improvements Park Access and Pathway Improvements. Improves Monkey Island Park and the Garber Path right-of-way through ADA accessibility upgrades, potential park expansion, new stairs, landscaping, electrical improvements, and pathway enhancements.
3,300,000$
90,697,000$
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Lead Projects | Community Facilities & Quality of Life Safe, accessible, resilient parks and facilities; modernized recreation and aquatic spaces; improved play areas, restrooms, and sports infrastructure; expanded park amenities; shoreline protection; sea-level-rise resilience; long-term public access and infrastructure preservation.

Total: Parks Recreation and Waterfront Projects

Potential Bond Measure Projects
Item # Project Name Description Estimated Costs
21 50/50 Sidewalk Program
(50 % funding)
Sidewalk Accessibility and Safety Improvements. Addresses the citywide backlog of cracked, uneven, and unsafe sidewalks while advancing ADA accessibility upgrades through the City’s shared- cost 50/50 sidewalk program. Under this program, 50% of eligible project costs are paid by individual property owners. 14,600,000$ 22 ADA Barrier Removal Projects Citywide ADA Accessibility Improvements. Funds the backlog of accessibility improvements identified through the City’s ADA Transition Plan, including path-of-travel upgrades, restroom improvements, signage, and removal of facility access barriers. 4,530,000$ 23 Animal Services Facility Modernization Animal Services Facility Modernization. Replaces or upgrades major building systems, including roofing, HVAC, drainage, electrical, and plumbing, while supporting programmatic improvements to improve operational efficiency and long-term facility performance. 3,650,000$ 24 2636 MLK Jr. Ave. Berkeley Mental Health Services
Building Annex Renovations (HHCS) (40% funding)
Behavioral Health Facility Replacement. Provides 40% of the estimated $8.0 million project cost for a new two-story mental health services building that will expand program capacity and fully replace the existing aging structure. The remaining project funding is through an awarded BHCIP State grant. 3,390,000$ 25 South Berkeley Senior Center Improvements
(HHCS)
Community Center Mechanical System Upgrade. Replaces end-of-life HVAC and related mechanical components to ensure reliable operations at the senior center. This funding will be combined with $5.5 million in T1 Phase 2 funding for seismic upgrades. 3,590,000$ 27b 1947 Center Street- City Office's
MLK Jr. Civic Center Elevator Replacement
Civic Office Building Modernization. Replaces existing elevators and associated equipment, including machinery, controls, electrical systems, and related ancillary improvements, to improve reliability, safety, and accessibility.
8,300,000$
28 2180 Milvia Street - City Hall
MLK Jr. Civic Center Building Modernization
City Hall Facility Modernization. Replaces end-of-life mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; addresses hazardous materials; and includes ADA improvements for the 89,000-square-foot civic building.
11,745,000$
29 2100 Martin Luther King Jr .

Public Safety Building Modernization
Public Safety Facility Modernization. Updates the 24-hour public safety building through programmatic, structural, and ADA improvements. The project includes renovation of the 911 Dispatch Center to support rising call volumes, modernize critical infrastructure, and create a safer, more efficient workspace. Improvements include expanding the operations floor, upgrading technology and HVAC systems, and adding training and wellness spaces to support operational readiness and staff retention. 18,430,000$
30 Old City Hall- Maudelle Shirek Bldg
Preservation & Renovation
Civic Building Seismic Upgrade. Se
ismic upgrade for the Maudelle Shirek Building to return facility to public use. This project advances the broader Civic Center Vision and Design Concept Plan, which was developed through extensive community outreach beginning in 2019, adopted by Council in 2020 and 2023, and was underwritten by Measure T1 funding. Improvements will support the return of civic functions to the building, including meeting rooms and other community-serving spaces. The total seismic upgrade cost for this project is $13,942,000. The estimated costs for this project represent a portion of $5.4 million in matching grant funds shared between two Civic Center buildings; Old City Hall/Maudelle Shirek Bldg and Veterans Memorial Building. 3,600,000$
31 Veterans Memorial Building
Preservation & Renovation
Civic Building Seismic Upgrade. Seismic upgrade for the Veterans Memorial Building to return facility to public use. This project advances the broader Civic Center Vision and Design Concept Plan, which was developed through extensive community outreach beginning in 2019, adopted by Council in 2020 and 2023, and was underwritten by Measure T1 funding. Improvements will support the return of civic functions to the building, including performance venues, exhibition, and community-use spaces for Berkeley’s cultural and artistic groups. The total seismic upgrade cost for this project is $13,942,000. The estimated costs for this project represent a portion of $5.4 million in matching grant funds shared between two Civic Center buildings; Old City Hall/Maudelle Shirek Bldg and Veterans Memorial Building.
1,800,000$
32 African American Holistic Resource Center Community Resource Center Facility. Provides funding to close an estimated $1.5 million gap for the $14 million T1-funded African American Holistic Resource Center project. 1,500,000$ 75,135,000$
Public Works Lead Projects | Critical Infrastructure & Accessibility​ Life-safety; seismic resilience; ADA accessibility; civic infrastructure; aging public buildings; essential services; long-term liability reduction; facility modernization; functional public spaces; equitable access; community well-being; reliable built environment.

Total: Public Works Lead Projects

Potential Bond Measure Projects
Item # Project Name Description Estimated Costs
33 Fire Station 4 Replacement
(1900 Marin)
Emergency Response Facility Replacement. Station 4 is 66 years old, undersized for current and future operational needs, unable to safely support expanded staffing during high fire-danger days, and does not meet modern health and safety standards. It also cannot accommodate an ambulance, which is needed to support rising emergency medical call volume in this area of the city.

Replacing the station would enable a cost-saving expansion into the adjacent roadway and avoid the higher cost of relocation. The project includes photovoltaic solar, battery energy storage systems, and backup power to support the facility’s critical emergency response function. 56,151,000$
34 Fir e Station 6 Replacement
(999 Cedar)
Emergency Response Facility Replacement. Station 6 is more than 60 years old and too small to meet current and projected service demands. A full replacement is required to support expanded staffing, modern apparatus, and safe working conditions for firefighters. The project includes photovoltaic solar, battery energy storage systems, and backup power to support the facility’s critical emergency response function.
20,383,000$
36 Fir e Training Center Replacement
(Harrison at 8-9th)
Fire Training Facility Replacement. Th
e current training facility is undersized, located in a residential neighborhood, and unable to support essential training activities, scheduling needs, or parking demand, while creating significant quality-of-life impacts for nearby residents, including noise, odors, and parking challenges. A new, purpose-built training center is required to meet the operational needs of a modern fire department. The project includes photovoltaic solar and battery energy storage systems to support long-term energy resilience and sustainability. 30,134,000$
106,668,000$
300,000,000$
13,000,000$
313,000,000$
$272,500,000
40,500,000$
$ 313,000,000
Fire Department Lead Projects | Public Safety
Emergency response facilities; public safety; long-term resilience; climate readiness; operational reliability; future-ready infrastructure; sustainable investment; emergency preparedness; essential services; community safety; facility modernization.

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
Project Manager Costs ( Salary, Workstations, Software, Auditing, supplies, etc.) over 12 years

TOTAL BOND SALES
Total: Fire Department Projects

TOTAL BOND INTEREST

TOTAL REVENUE

Criterion Code Short Name Weight Primary intent Evaluation question What it captures What it does not capture / guardrail Illustrative indicators / evidence Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) Scoring note HLS Health, Life & Safety 20 Immediate risk
reduction
Does the project materially reduce
risk of physical harm or protect public
well-being?
Life-safety hazards, emergency response, severe
sanitation issues, major public health exposure,
critical operational safety.

Do not inflate score solely because a project is
useful, popular, or generally in poor condition. The
question is severity and immediacy of risk to
people.

Seismic deficiencies; structural failure risk; unsafe
access; fire/life-safety issues; emergency
operations dependency; sanitation gaps.

Minimal, indirect, or unclear
safety / health impact.

Moderate or preventative
safety / health benefit; risk
exists but is not acute.

Directly addresses a
significant safety hazard,
urgent health issue, or
critical operational risk.

Strongest criterion for fire,
dispatch, seismic life-
safety, hazardous
conditions, and basic
sanitation projects.

IAR
Infrastructure
Co
ndition,
Accessibility &
Resilience
20 Long-term
infrastructure
resilience, reduced
liability, long-term
costs, and economic
resilience
Will the investment improve asset
condition, accessibility, durability, or
lifecycle performance and reduce
liability and long-term costs? Does
this project provide economic
resilience?
Deferred maintenance, ADA access, system
replacement, durability, long-term serviceability,
resilience to operational and physical stressors;
ability to generate revenue.

Do not use this criterion to score popularity or
immediate health risk; that belongs in CUE or HLS.

Climate-specific benefit may overlap but should
only drive CRS when it is a major differentiator.

Asset age; failure trajectory; maintenance backlog;
ADA barriers; useful life extension; replacement of
obsolete systems; ability to generate revenue.

Limited lifecycle benefit;
short-term fix; little
improvement to condition or
access.

Moderate repair /
modernization that
improves performance or
access.

Major replacement or
system upgrade that
substantially extends useful
life or addresses serious
condition / ADA
deficiencies.

Best used to capture the
difference between reactive
patching and durable capital
improvement.

CUE Community Use &
Equ
ity 20 Public benefit and
access
Does the project deliver meaningful
public use and equitable community
benefit?
Usage intensity, community access, service to
underserved or historically underinvested
populations, inclusion benefits.

Do not rely on volume of users alone. A high-use
project in a well-served area may still score Medium
if equity benefit is weak.

High attendance/use; equity-priority geography;
underserved population served; gap in access to
recreation, services, or public space.

Limited or unclear
community benefit; weak
equity case.

General public benefit with
some equity considerations,
or strong use but less
targeted equity value.

Clear and meaningful
benefit to underserved / high-
need communities and/or
major improvement to
equitable access.

Where use and equity
diverge, scorer should
explain tradeoff in notes.

GRS Green Resiliency &
Sustainability 20 Direct climate benefit
Does the project materially reduce
climate risk or produce meaningful
sustainability gains above standard
modernization?
Sea level rise adaptation, heat mitigation,
electrification with measurable operational change,
stormwater capture, decarbonization, climate
hazard reduction, resilient backup power and
critical service continuity.

Important guardrail: because sustainability features
are likely woven into many projects, do not score
High merely because a project will be modern, more
efficient, or code compliant. High requires direct
and material climate benefit.

Sea level rise adaptation; shoreline protection; tree
canopy/heat island reduction; building
electrification replacing fossil systems; stormwater
green infrastructure; emissions reduction;
improving preparedness/response capacity.

No meaningful climate
benefit beyond ordinary
modernization, or benefit is
indirect / minimal.

Some sustainability or
resilience benefit is likely,
but secondary, partial, or
not yet well documented.

Climate adaptation /
decarbonization is a clear
and material project
outcome or core rationale.

Use the Climate
Additionality Check on the
scoring sheet to document
whether climate value is
direct vs baseline.

DR Deliverability &
Readiness 10 Implementation
feasibility
Can the City move this project
forward in a realistic timeframe?
Defined scope, design progress,
permitting/environmental status, land control,
matching funds, organizational capacity,
stakeholder alignment.

Do not score based on desirability. A worthy project
can still be low-readiness if key prerequisites are
missing.

Existing design; conceptual plan; environmental
review; permitting; site control; matching funds
identified; project phase notes.

Early stage; major
unknowns; unclear scope or
approvals; unlikely to
advance soon.

Partially developed; feasible
but needs more
coordination, approvals, or
design.

Scope defined and major
prerequisites substantially
in place; near-term
implementation feasible.

Useful for distinguishing
shovel-near projects from
aspirational projects.

EFP External Funding
Potential 10 Leverage of City
dollars
Can the project attract grants, match
funds, partnerships, or other outside
resources?
Grant competitiveness, match-readiness, identified
external funding source, partnership leverage.

Do not confuse “City has no other way to pay” with
leverage. Lack of alternatives may be important
context, but high EFP requires a realistic outside
funding path.

Grant eligibility; identified program; local match
requirement; pending State/Federal funds;
partnership commitment.

Limited or no realistic
external funding pathway.

Possible eligibility or
moderate leverage
potential, but uncertain or
not yet developed.

Strongly positioned to
unlock outside dollars or
meet a specific matching
opportunity.

Score based on realistic
competitiveness, not
hypothetical future grant
hunting.

Rating Label Meaning Numeric
Value (NV)
Weighted score
formula Priority bands
Low Limited / weak / early
/ indirect 1 NV/3*Weight Lo wer Priority: Below 50
Medium Moderate / mixed /
partial 2 NV/3*Weight Me dium Priority: 50-74
High
Strong / direct /
material / well-
supported
3 NV/3*Weight High Priority: 75-100
Infrastructure + Evaluation Framework
This framework combines the City’s six-factor infrastructure rubric with the PRW Commission Bond selection concepts. Use Low / Medium / High ratings (1 / 2 / 3). Weighted score = (Rating ÷ 3) × Weight.

Item # District Dept. Lead Project Name Description Est. Cost (Prior) Updated Costs Staff Recommendation
Health, Life &
Safety Rating HLS Score
Inf. Condition,
Accessibility &
Resilience
Rating
IAR Score Community Use
& Equity Rating CUE Score
Climate /
Sustainability
Rating
CRS Score
Deliverability &
Readiness
Rating
DR Score External Funding
Potential Rating EFP Score Total Score Priority Band
1 D2 PRW Frances Albrier Community Center
Community Recreation Facility Replacement. Replaces the Frances Albrier Community Center, the only major City community facility — recreation, senior, or library — that has not been rebuilt or funded for required seismic upgrades.

Located in San Pablo Park, this high-use facility is significantly undersized and requires modernization to better serve community needs. A conceptual plan for a new facility was completed through T1 Phase 1 in 2019.
30,000,000$ $33,500,000 33,500,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1.3 8.6666667 2 6.666667 1 3.333333 78.66666667 High Priority 2 D5 PRW King Pool (25 Meter) & Locker Room
Full Replacement/Modernization. Replaces existing locker rooms and builds new 25 Meter pool to replace existing 25 yard and dive pools. 25 Meter pool will double programmatic use of existing facility.
25,000,000$ $25,000,000 5,000,000$ 2 13.33333333 2.5 16.66667 2.5 16.666667 1 6.6666667 2 6.666667 1 3.333333 63.33333333 Medium Priority 3 D3 PRW Adeline Corridor Open Space
Equity-Focused Open Space Expansion. Funds design and construction of four new or expanded open space areas within the Adeline Corridor Plan area south of Ashby Avenue, expanding park access in an equity-priority area. Federal resources have been secured for the design phase.
6,000,000$ $6,000,000 6,000,000$ 1 6.666666667 2 13.33333 3 20 2.3 15.333333 2 6.666667 3 10 72 Medium Priority 4 D1 PRW Cedar Rose Restroom
High-Use Greenway Restroom Replacement. Replaces the existing block restroom at Cedar Rose Park with a smart restroom and adds a high-volume restroom along the Ohlone Greenway to meet growing public demand. 500,000$ 500,000 500,000$ 2.5 16.66666667 2 13.33333 2.5 16.666667 1 6.6666667 2 6.666667 0 0 60 Medium Priority 5 D6 PRW Codornices Restroom
High-Use Park Restroom Replacement. Replaces the existing block restroom at Codornices Park with a smart restroom, providing a higher-volume, more secure restroom facility in one of Berkeley’s most popular and well-used parks. 500,000$ 500,000 500,000$ 2 13.33333333 2 13.33333 2.5 16.666667 1 6.6666667 2 6.666667 0 0 56.66666667 Medium Priority 6 D1 PRW Harrison Park Restroom
Sports Field and Skate Park Restroom Upgrade. Modernizes the 26-year-old restroom serving Harrison Park’s high-volume sports fields and skate park to improve accessibility, usability, and public convenience. Conceptual design was funded and completed through T1 Phase 2.
750,000$ $1,250,000 1,250,000$ 2 13.33333333 2.5 16.66667 3 20 1 6.6666667 3 10 0 0 66.66666667 Medium Priority 7 D1 PRW Waterfront Restroom
Waterfront Restroom Replacement. Replaces existing portable toilets on the south side of Spinnaker Way with a permanent smart restroom to better support waterfront visitors and public access.
750,000$ $750,000 750,000$ 2 13.33333333 2 13.33333 3 20 1 6.6666667 2 6.666667 0 0 60 Medium Priority 8 D2 PRW Aquatic Park: Dreamland Area (20%
funding)
Plan Implementation. Advances the community-vetted Dreamland Area Plan completed in 2025 to support increased recreation and waterfront activation. This funding will augment other sources or serve as a grant match to complete funding of $8M plan.
2,100,000$ $2,100,000 -$ 1 6.666666667 2 13.33333 2.5 16.666667 2.5 16.666667 2.5 8.333333 3 10 71.66666667 Medium Priority 9 D1 PRW Cedar Rose 2-5 Play Structure
Play Area Modernization. Upgrades the heavily used Cedar Rose 2–5 play area to meet current safety and accessibility standards. The 5–12 play structure is being completed with Parks Tax funding in 2027, and this project is fully designed. 2,500,000$ $2,500,000 2,500,000$ 2.5 16.66666667 2 13.33333 2.5 16.666667 1 6.6666667 3 10 0 0 63.33333333 Medium Priority 10 D6 PRW Glendale LaLoma Park Improvements:

Playgrounds, Parking, Paths
Neighborhood Park Accessibility and Safety Improvements. Improves Glendale La Loma Park with new play structures, parking lot upgrades, and safer, more accessible pathways throughout the multi-level park. The project is currently in conceptual design.
3,500,000$ $3,700,000 3,700,000$ 3 20 3 20 2.5 16.666667 2 13.333333 3 10 1 3.333333 83.33333333 High Priority 11 Various PRW Dog Parks- City Wide New Facilities. Adds 4–6 dog parks across Berkeley to address significant community demand. Community input will help determine potential locations. 2,500,000$ $2,500,000 -$ 1.5 10 1 6.666667 1.5 10 1.5 10 3 10 0 0 46.66666667 Lower Priority 12 D2 PRW Harrison Field Conversion to Artificial Turf
Sports Field Renovation and Capacity Expansion. Replaces failing natural grass fields at Harrison Park with artificial turf using environmentally friendly cork infill.

The project will increase field capacity, reduce maintenance needs, and support expanded year-round recreational use.
6,000,000$ $6,000,000 6,000,000$ 1 6.666666667 3 20 3 20 2 13.333333 2 6.666667 0.5 1.666667 68.33333333 Medium Priority 13 D5 PRW Live Oak Soccer, Basketball Courts and
Lighting
Facility Modernization. Converts existing grass turf area to artificial turf with environmentally friendly cork "in-fill", levels basketball and volleyball courts, improves lighting, and makes area more usuable year round. 3,000,000$ $3,000,000 -$ 1.5 10 2.5 16.66667 1.5 10 1.5 10 1.5 5 2 6.666667 58.33333333 Medium Priority 14 D2 PRW
San Pablo Sports Field Irrigation and
Drainage
System Replacement. Fixes failing irrigation and drainage at the City’s most used sports fields. 1,600,000$ $1,600,000 -$ 2 13.33333333 3 20 3 20 3 20 1.5 5 2.5 8.333333 86.66666667 High Priority 15 D1 PRW Waterfront Perimeter Pathway (60%

funding)
Waterfront Park Pathway Modernization. Provides 60% of the funding needed for the Waterfront Park perimeter pathway project, which was designed in 2025 using State Coastal Conservancy grant funds. The remaining funding gap is anticipated to be addressed through additional grant funding or Parks Tax resources. 2,250,000$ $2,250,000 2,250,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1.5 10 3 10 3 10 90 High Priority 16 D2 PRW Marina Blvd Sea Level Rise and Bay Trail
(50% funding)
Sea-Level-Rise Resilience and Bay Trail Improvement. Raises and renovates the Marina Boulevard pathway to Bay Trail standards, improving waterfront resilience and connecting the pathway from University Avenue to Waterfront Park. This funding would serve as a 50% match for a potential grant to complete the project.

Design is currently funded by a State Coastal Conservancy grant. 1,900,000$ $1,900,000 1,900,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 2 6.666667 3 10 96.66666667 High Priority 17 D2 PRW Marina Docks Timber Pile Replacement -
130 piles
Marina Infrastructure Stabilization. Replaces the remaining timber piles in the Marina with concrete piles, stabilizing all docks and extending their useful life by 50 or more years. Conceptual design and permitting were completed in 2024. 6,000,000$ $6,000,000 3,000,000$ 2.5 16.66666667 3 20 1 6.6666667 2 13.333333 3 10 0 0 66.66666667 Medium Priority Potential Infrastructure Project List | Scoring

Item # District Dept. Lead Project Name Description Est. Cost (Prior) Updated Costs Staff Recommendation
Health, Life &
Safety Rating HLS Score
Inf. Condition,
Accessibility &
Resilience
Rating
IAR Score Community Use
& Equity Rating CUE Score
Climate /
Sustainability
Rating
CRS Score
Deliverability &
Readiness
Rating
DR Score External Funding
Potential Rating EFP Score Total Score Priority Band
18 D2 PRW Seawall Drive and Bay Trail from Adventure
Playground to Pier (20% funding)
Shoreline and Bay Trail Access Improvements. Provides funding to help complete the Bay Trail connection from Adventure Playground to the Pier and advance Seawall Drive improvements. This funding would serve as a 20% match for a potential grant to complete the project.
5,000,000$ $5,000,000 5,000,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 2 6.666667 3 10 96.66666667 High Priority 19 D2 PRW South Cove Seawall
Critical Seawall Replacement. Replaces the South Cove seawall to prevent imminent failure that could close public access to South Cove. Conceptual design is currently in progress.
5,000,000$ $5,300,000 5,300,000$ 3 20 3 20 2 13.333333 3 20 2.5 8.333333 0 0 81.66666667 High Priority 20 D2 PRW University Ave Sea Level Rise and Bike Park
(50% funding )
Shoreline Improvements. Addresses Sea level Rise vulnerabilities from Frontage Road to Marina Blvd and constructs a Bike Park adjacent to University Ave in Marina. Funding will be used as a $50% match for a potential grant 2,750,000$ $2,750,000 -$ 2.5 16.66666667 2.5 16.66667 1 6.6666667 2 13.333333 2 6.666667 2.5 8.333333 68.33333333 Medium Priority 21 D7 PRW Dwight/ Telegraph Open Space
Improvements
Urban Open Space Expansion. Expands and improves the Dwight/Telegraph open space following completion of the Telegraph Multimodal Plan, creating a more usable hardscape public space in a high-traffic urban corridor. $3,500,000 3,500,000$ 2.5 16.66666667 2 13.33333 2 13.333333 1.5 10 2 6.666667 2 6.666667 66.66666667 Medium Priority 22 D2 PRW Sacramento Median Conversion to Native
Plant Garden (Bancroft to University)
Native Plant Median Conversion. Converts three long blocks of the Sacramento Street median, from Bancroft Way to University Avenue, into a native plant garden.

Work includes soil replacement, new irrigation, and installation of native plantings.
$1,300,000 1,300,000$ 1 6.666666667 3 20 2 13.333333 3 20 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 66.66666667 Medium Priority 23 D1/D2 PRW University Ave Median Conversion to Native Plant Garden (6th- 9th)
Native Plant Median Conversion. Converts four blocks of the University Avenue median, from 6th Street to 9th Street, into a native plant garden. Work includes soil replacement, new irrigation, and installation of native plantings. $260,000 260,000$ 0.5 3.333333333 3 20 2 13.333333 3 20 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 63.33333333 Medium Priority 24 D7 PRW
Piedmont Avenue Conversion to Native
Plant Garden (dwight to Channing)
Native Plant Conversion.Coverts three blocks into Native plant garden. Cost includes replacing soil, installing new irrigation and new plants. $500,000 -$ 0.5 3.333333333 3 20 0 0 3 20 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 50 Medium Priority 25 D8 PRW Monkey Island / Garber Path inprovemnets
Park Access and Pathway Improvements. Improves Monkey Island Park and the Garber Path right-of-way through ADA accessibility upgrades, potential park expansion, new stairs, landscaping, electrical improvements, and pathway enhancements.
$3,300,000 3,300,000$ 0.5 3.333333333 3 20 1.5 10 2 13.333333 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 53.33333333 Medium Priority 21 Various PW 50/50 Sidewalk Program (50 % funding)
Sidewalk Accessibility and Safety Improvements. Addresses the citywide backlog of cracked, uneven, and unsafe sidewalks while advancing ADA accessibility upgrades through the City’s shared-cost 50/50 sidewalk program.

Under this program, 50% of eligible project costs are paid by individual property owners
14,000,000$ $14,600,000 14,600,000$ 0.5 3.333333333 3 20 3 20 2.5 16.666667 2 6.666667 1 3.333333 70 Medium Priority 22 Various PW ADA Barrier Removal Projects
Citywide ADA Accessibility Improvements. Funds the backlog of accessibility improvements identified through the City’s ADA Transition Plan, including path-of- travel upgrades, restroom improvements, signage, and removal of facility access barriers
4,342,000$ $4,530,000 4,530,000$ 1 6.666666667 3 20 3 20 2.5 16.666667 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 70 Medium Priority 23 D2 PW Animal Services Facility Modernization
Animal Services Facility Modernization. Replaces or upgrades major building systems, including roofing, HVAC, drainage, electrical, and plumbing, while supporting programmatic improvements to improve operational efficiency and long-term facility performance.
1,996,000$ $3,650,000 3,650,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 2 6.666667 1 3.333333 76.66666667 High Priority 24 D3 PW
2636 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue
Berkeley Mental Health Services Building
Annex Renovations (HHCS) (40% funding)
Behavioral Health Facility Replacement. Provides 40% of the estimated $8.0 million project cost for a new two-story mental health services building that will expand program capacity and fully replace the existing aging structure. The remaining project funding is through an awarded BHCIP State grant. 3,250,000$ $3,390,000 3,390,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 3 10 3 10 86.66666667 High Priority 25 D3 PW South Berkeley Senior Center
Improvements (HHCS)
Community Center Mechanical System Upgrade. Replaces end-of-life HVAC and related mechanical components to ensure reliable operations at the senior center. This funding will be combined with $5.5 million in T1 Phase 2 funding for seismic upgrades.
3,900,000$ $3,590,000 3,590,000$ 1 6.666666667 3 20 3 20 2 13.333333 3 10 2 6.666667 76.66666667 High Priority 26 D1 PW West Berkeley Family Wellness Center
Modernization (HHCS)
Facility Modernization. Repairs and upgrades windows, flooring, HVAC, seismic components, electrical systems, and ADA features to address deferred maintenance.
6,500,000$ $15,120,000 -$ 2 13.33333333 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 66.66666667 Medium Priority 27 D4 PW 1947 Center Street- City Office's
MLK Jr. Civic Center Elevator Replacement
Facility Modernization. Addresses seismic upgrades, HVAC, electrical, elevator replacement, hazardous materials abatement, and ADA improvements. Funding for window replacement is identified in T1 Phase 2.
18,306,000$ $24,660,000 -$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 1 3.333333 2 6.666667 76.66666667 High Priority 27b D4 PW
1947 Center Street- City Office's
MLK Jr. Civic Center Elevator Replacement
Civic Office Building Modernization. Replaces existing elevators and associated equipment, including machinery, controls, electrical systems, and related ancillary improvements, to improve reliability, safety, and accessibility. -$ -$ 8,300,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 73.33333333 Medium Priority 28 D4 PW
2180 Milvia Street - City Hall
MLK Jr. Civic Center Building Modernization
City Hall Facility Modernization. Replaces end-of-life mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; addresses hazardous materials; and includes waterproofing and ADA improvements for the 89,000-square-foot civic building. 11,745,000$ $27,000,000 11,745,000$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 73.33333333 Medium Priority 29 D4 PW 2100 Martin Luther King Jr Avenue
Public Safety Building Modernization
Public Safety Facility Modernization. Updates the 24-hour public safety building through programmatic, structural, and ADA improvements. The project includes renovation of the 911 Dispatch Center to support rising call volumes, modernize critical infrastructure, and create a safer, more efficient workspace.

Improvements include expanding the operations floor, upgrading technology and HVAC systems, and adding training and wellness spaces to support operational readiness and staff retention.
8,405,000$ $18,430,000 18,430,000$ 3 20 2 13.33333 2 13.333333 1 6.6666667 1 3.333333 1 3.333333 60 Medium Priority

Item # District Dept. Lead Project Name Description Est. Cost (Prior) Updated Costs Staff Recommendation
Health, Life &
Safety Rating HLS Score
Inf. Condition,
Accessibility &
Resilience
Rating
IAR Score Community Use
& Equity Rating CUE Score
Climate /
Sustainability
Rating
CRS Score
Deliverability &
Readiness
Rating
DR Score External Funding
Potential Rating EFP Score Total Score Priority Band
30 D4 PW Old City Hall- Maudelle Shirek Bldg
Preservation & Renovation
Historic Civic Building Seismic Upgrade. Seismic upgrade for the Maudelle Shirek Building, part of the larger Civic Center Vision and Design Concept Plan, which was developed through extensive community outreach beginning in 2019 and partially advanced through Measure T1 funding. This project also includes a portion of approximately $5.4 million in matching grant funds shared across the two Civic Center seismic projects. Improvements will support the return of civic functions to the building, including meeting rooms and other community-serving spaces. The total seismic upgrade cost for this project is $13,942,000. 13,942,000$ $38,570,000 13,942,000$ 2 13.33333333 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 0.5 1.666667 2 6.666667 68.33333333 Medium Priority 31 D4 PW Veterans Memorial Building
Preservation & Renovation
Historic Civic Building Seismic Upgrade. Seismic upgrade for the Veterans Memorial Building, part of the larger Civic Center Vision and Design Concept Plan, which was developed through extensive community outreach beginning in 2019 and partially advanced through Measure T1 funding. This project also includes a portion of approximately $5.4 million in matching grant funds shared across the two Civic Center seismic projects. Improvements will support assembly, exhibition, and community-use spaces for Berkeley’s cultural and artistic groups and the public. The total seismic upgrade cost for this project is $6,720,000. 6,720,000$ $28,150,000 6,720,000$ 2 13.33333333 3 20 3 20 1 6.6666667 0.5 1.666667 2 6.666667 68.33333333 Medium Priority 32 D3 PW African American Holistic Resource Center
Community Resource Center Facility. Provides funding to close an estimated $1.5 million gap for the $14 million T1-funded African American Holistic Resource Center project.
$1,500,000 1,500,000$ 2 13.33333333 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 10 3 10 93.33333333 High Priority 33 D5 FIRE Fire Station 4 Replacement (1900 Marin)
Emergency Response Facility Replacement. Station 4 is 66 years old, undersized for current and future operational needs, and unable to safely support expanded staffing and a second ambulance unit. Replacement would also enable a cost- saving expansion into the adjacent roadway, avoiding the higher cost of relocation. The project includes photovoltaic solar and battery energy storage systems, with full backup power recommended due to the facility’s critical emergency response function.
48,051,000$ $56,150,050 56,150,050$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1.5 10 2 6.666667 0 0 76.66666667 High Priority 34 D1 FIRE Fire Station 6 Replacement (999 Cedar)
Emergency Response Facility Replacement. Station 6 is at the end of its useful life and too small to meet projected service demands. A full replacement is required to support expanded staffing, modern apparatus, and safe working conditions for firefighters. The project includes photovoltaic solar and battery energy storage systems, with full backup power recommended due to the facility’s critical emergency response function.
22,246,000$ 20,382,552$ 20,382,552$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1.5 10 2 6.666667 0 0 76.66666667 High Priority 35 D4 FIRE Fire/EMS/Police Dispatch Center Remodel
(2100 MLK)
Facility Modernization. The 911 Dispatch Center requires renovation to handle rising call volumes, modernize critical infrastructure, and create a safer, and more efficient workspace. Improvements include expanding the operations floor, upgrading technology and HVAC systems, and adding training and wellness spaces to support operational readiness and staff retention. 3,979,000$
Folded into
2100 MLK (Item
#29)
-$ 3 20 3 20 3 20 1.5 10 1.5 5 0 0 75 High Priority 36 D1 FIRE Fire Training Center Replacement (Harrison
at 8-9th)
Fire Training Facility Replacement. The current training facility is undersized, located in a residential neighborhood, and unable to support essential training activities, scheduling needs, or parking demands. A new, purpose-built training center is required to meet the operational needs of a modern fire department. The project includes photovoltaic solar and battery energy storage systems, with full backup power recommended due to the facility’s critical public safety function. 28,000,000$ 30,133,247$ 30,133,247$ 3 20 3 20 2.5 16.666667 1.5 10 1.5 5 1 3.333333 75 High Priority

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

ACTION CALENDAR
December 2, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: David White, Deputy City Manager
Terrance Davis, Director of Public Works
Scott Ferris, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Henry Oyekanmi, Finance Director
David Sprague, Fire Chief

Subject: Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election

RECOMMENDATION
Review staff recommendations, provide input and direction on project priorities, and discuss which infrastructure projects should be reflected in a community survey for potential inclusion in a bond measure.

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to discuss services and/or capital infrastructure needs that the City Council may wish to consider funding through a revenue measure – or measures – on the November 2026 ballot.

On June 17, 2025, the City Council referred to the City Manager an item to assess the potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support capital improvements to fire department facilities1. Subsequent to that, on September 30, 2025, the City Council referred to the City Manager an item to assess the potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support the improvement of recreation and community facilities2. This report also builds on the work of Vision 2050, an initiative that resulted from the passage of Measure R in 2018. Measure R advised the Mayor to engage a panel of citizen experts to identify and guide implementation of a plan to bring climate smart, technologically advanced, integrated and efficient infrastructure to support a safe, vibrant and resilient future for Berkeley. The City Council accepted the Vision 2050 report3 in 2020 and in 2025, the Mayor convened a Task Force of subject matter experts to review and update recommendations in the 2020 report. The City Council’s discussion at this meeting will inform the development of a community survey to aid decision making in placing an item or items on the 2026 ballot. 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-06- 17%20Item%2028%20Fire%20Facility%20Revenue%20Measures.pdf. 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09- 30%20Item%2011%20Recreation%20and%20Community%20Facility%20Improvement%20Measures.pdf. 3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Vision-2050-Framework.pdf.

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

Given the City’s significant unfunded infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs that must be addressed over the coming decades and the lack of resources to invest in its infrastructure, staff recommend that the City Council provide direction to gauge voter interest for a General Obligation (GO) bond on the November 2026 ballot that could generate up to $300 million. This work session provides the City Council an opportunity to review staff recommendations, provide input and direction on project priorities, and discuss which infrastructure projects should be reflected in a community survey for potential inclusion in a bond measure. The survey would be designed to gauge voter interest in a variety of infrastructure projects and varying levels of funding support. The City Council may also wish to provide staff with feedback on additional measures planned for the 2026 ballot that should be part of a community survey.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Ballot Measure Development
In order to prepare for a possible community survey, the City Manager’s Office is in the process of soliciting proposals from firms that are interested and qualified in performing a community survey for the City of Berkeley.

Should the City Council choose to move forward, the next steps in the community survey process are as follows:
 The survey would take place in winter / early spring of 2026 and at least 500 Berkeley voters would be surveyed.
 Staff and the vendor would present the results of the survey(s) to the City Council.  Based on those results, the City Council would be able to discuss whether to narrow the focus of any measure(s) and could direct staff to develop specific measures for the community’s consideration. A second survey would then be conducted to assess the more focused approach.
 Following a second survey, the City Council would decide upon a specific ballot measure or measures, if any, and direct the City Manager and City Attorney to develop ballot measure language for City Council consideration in June and July.

Ballot Measure Considerations
As part of this discussion, staff has provided a comparison of the City’s property-based taxes and assessments with other neighboring jurisdictions, and information about other likely items on the November 2026 ballot.

Property Tax Bill Comparison: When comparing the property tax bills between Berkeley, Oakland, and Albany, the primary differences relate to taxes based on the General Obligation (GO) Bond debt and the jurisdiction’s special taxes, assessments and fees.

GO Bond debt is voter-approved and can be issued by the City or a school district. Special taxes can be used to meet a broad variety of needs and can be based on different formulas.

Berkeley’s special taxes are generally based on a tax rate multiplied by the building square footage, while Oakland and Albany’s special taxes are usually a flat amount per parcel with

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

some land-use variations. The table below illustrates tax differences between Berkeley, Oakland and Albany by comparing a single-family residence with an assessed value of $550,0004, a $7,000 homeowner’s exemption and 1,900 square feet.

Summary of FY 2026 Property-Based Taxes and Assessments Comparison* *For the full table, see Attachment 1.

Funding Mechanism
A General Obligation (GO) Bond is a form of long-term borrowing to finance capital improvements to real property such as buildings, roads and school facilities. Under a GO Bond structure, all tax requirements are shared proportionally based on taxable assessed value.

Key features of a GO Bond are:
 May be used only for capital improvements, not for ongoing operational costs;  Requires two-thirds voter approval to pass;
 The principal and interest are paid with the proceeds of tax levies made upon taxable property;
 Bonds are repaid by taxpayers based on their property’s assessed value; and  Bonds are generally repaid over 30 years.

Berkeley voters have passed several bonds, and the charts below show historical and projected tax rates from all the bonds issued by the City dating back to 1993. 4 Represents the median assessed value in the City of Berkeley.

AGENCY
Rate Amount Rate Amount Rate Amount
COUNTYWIDE AD VALOREM TAX 1.00% 5,500 $ 1.00% 5,500$ 1.00% 5,500$ Voter-Approved Ad Valorem Debt Service
Voter-Approved Ad Valorem Debt Service (Combined) 0.2323% 1,279 $ 0.2779% 1,529 $ 0.3571% 1,965 $ TOTAL ALL AD VALOREM TAXES 1.2323% 6,779 $ 1.2779% 7,029 $ 1.3571% 7,465 $ Total City Special Taxes $1.05974 2,013 $ Flat 1,397$ Flat 491$ Total City Special Assessments 128 $ Flat 16$ Flat 985$ Total County Assessments/Charges 500 $ Flat 488$ Flat 476$ Total Unified School District Special Taxes $0.79159 1,504 $ Flat 435$ Flat 591$ TOTAL CURRENT ANNUAL TAXES 10,924 $ 9,365$ 10,008$ Berkeley FY2026 Oakland FY2026 Albany FY2026

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

The City has maintained the annual tax levy at levels below the initial estimates for each GO Bond authorization (since 1993). As shown in the graphs above, the current remaining bond debt service is projected to require an average tax of $31/year (per $100,000 in assessed value) over the next 30 years.

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

As depicted in the figure below, when combined with existing authorizations, a new GO Bond authorization for $300 million, assuming $100 million is issued every five years, is estimated to require an average tax rate over 40 years of 0.0441% or $44 (per $100,000 in assessed value).

Should the City Council place a $300 million GO Bond on the 2026 ballot, the figure above indicates that the resulting projected average tax rate (assuming $100 million is issued every five years commencing in 2027) when combined with existing authorizations (2027-2067) is less than the historical average tax rate from existing authorizations until they are anticipated to be paid off (1993-2056). Also notable is that the combined average tax rate for the new $300 million GO bond plus existing authorizations is less than the tax rate in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

2026 Ballot Measure Schedule
To meet deadlines set by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to place items on the November 3, 2026, ballot, the following timeline has been developed for the City Council’s consideration.

December 2, 2025 City Council to discuss possible revenue measures and questions to be included
January 2026  Launch community engagement
 If necessary, City Council provides additional direction on proposed ballot measure(s) and options for funding
mechanisms (January 27, 2026)
February 2026 First survey development, including meetings with staff, survey to field
March 24, 2026  Presentation and Discussion of first Community Survey Results
 City Council refines which issues deserve additional
testing with more focused language.

April 2026 Possible second survey
May 19, 2026 Presentation and Discussion of Second Community Survey Results and Direction About Next Steps
June 2026 Draft Ballot Language to City Council (from May 2026 direction)
July 2026 Revised Draft Ballot Language to City Council July 28, 2026 Last City Council meeting before recess; Adopt Final Ballot Language and Resolutions placing measures on the ballot
August 7, 2026 Last Day to Place a Measure on the 2026 Ballot Attachment 2 provides a more detailed calendar for the November 2026 election.

BACKGROUND
The City maintains an extensive portfolio of capital assets and infrastructure that contribute to the City’s vibrancy and enhance the community’s quality of life, including 215 miles of streets, 300 miles of sidewalks, 50 miles of paths and bicycle infrastructure; 50 acres of Marina harbor, 52 parks with play areas and public restrooms, four (4) community centers, three (3) resident camps and two (2) pools. Maintaining these assets is costly and requires significant resources and constant attention. Current resource allocations are inadequate to meet existing City infrastructure needs, let alone modernizing these assets. This leaves the community vulnerable to unplanned failure, a reduction in access to infrastructure and service interruptions. For community members, residents, workers, and businesses trying to go about their daily lives, this can translate to unsafe conditions, unexpected costs, and inequity between neighborhoods.

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

Over the years, voters have approved the following items to address community needs and priorities. The following is a partial list of items that have been approved:
 2008: $27 million Library Bond Measure to fund branch libraries.  2012: $30 million infrastructure bond (Measure M) funded street paving and related green infrastructure throughout the City.
 2014: Parks Tax Increase of 16.9% (Measure F) to ensure well maintained parks.  2016: $100 million infrastructure bond (Measure T1) to fund critical improvements to numerous city facilities including, but not limited to the following:
o North Berkeley Senior Center;
o Adult Mental Health Services Center;
o Berkeley Health Clinic;
o Public Safety Building;
o Live Oak Community Center;
o Martin Luther King Youth Services Center;
o Rose Garden Pergula, Tennis Courts and ADA needs;
o Waterfront docks, pilings and streets;
o Fire Stations 2 and 6;
o Willard Clubhouse; and
o Improvements to numerous parks, restrooms, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, storm drains and green infrastructure.

The $100 million in Measure T1 funding has been fully allocated, leveraging an additional $80 million in grant and other funding resources, to produce over $183 million in 76 community benefiting infrastructure projects. With the final issuance of these bonds planned for 2026, these funds will be fully spent by 2028 as numerous projects such as the Tom Bates Sports Complex, African American Holistic Resource Center and the South Berkeley Senior Center will commence soon.

A detailed overview of Measure T1 and all the improvements that have resulted from this bond can be found on the City’s website - https://berkeleyca.gov/your- government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/measure-t1.
 2018: $135 million affordable housing bond (Measure O) as well as an increase in property transfer tax on the top 1/3 of properties (Measure P) to increase the supply of affordable housing and services for people who are homeless.

Since the adoption of Measure O, the City has allocated approximately $238.1 million to build more than 1,421 units of affordable housing. This includes $129 million from Measure O, $7.3 million from Measure P, $28.2 million from Measure U1, and $56.7 million from the City’s Housing Trust Fund. These commitments helped to leverage infrastructure improvement funding through the state, including $11.1 million from the Infill Infrastructure Grant program, and $79.8 million (for infrastructure and housing) from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grant program.

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

Resources generated by Measure P have enabled the City to support a variety of programs and services to address homelessness. In addition, resources generated by Measure P have been leveraged to support a significant expansion of housing opportunities that enabled the City to achieve a 45% decrease in unsheltered homelessness. In 2024, Berkely voters adopted Measure W, which removed the sunset associated with Measure P and increased the tax rates.

Attachments 3 and 4 provide additional information on Measures O and P and how those resources have been deployed.
 2020: Measure FF, a parcel tax (current rate is $0.12990 per square foot of taxable improvements) that provides funding for fire services, emergency response, 9-1-1 communication, hazard mitigation, and wildfire prevention.  2024: Measure FF, a parcel tax ($0.17 per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and $0.25 for non-residential properties) that generates resources for the repair, repaving and reconstruction of streets, sidewalks and pedestrian paths, safety improvements to streets, sidewalks and pedestrian paths, and environmental enhancements to sidewalks and pedestrian paths.
 2024: Measure Y that increased the parcel tax for parks to $0.2652 per square foot of taxable improvements to maintain and invest in parks and include on-going funding for Waterfront Parks including Cesar Chavez Park.
 2024: Measure X, a parcel tax ($0.06 per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and $0.09 for non-residential properties) that provides resources for library services.

While marking important progress, the measures outlined above have not been enough to address the City’s unfunded infrastructure needs that are estimated to be greater than $1 billion. For this reason, staff recommend that the City Council survey registered voters on their support for a General Obligation Bond on the November 2026 ballot that could generate resources up to $300 million for infrastructure. While a GO bond of this size will not address all the City’s needs, it will enable the City to begin to address critical infrastructure projects that not only enhance quality of life but ensure an effective public safety response and accelerate the City’s path toward sustainability and resilience as envisioned in the Vision 2050 Framework.

Attachment 5 consists of a summary of proposed projects for a potential 2026 revenue measure. Projects were identified through a collaborative, cross-departmental process to ensure they represent community priorities and are consistent with Vision 2050 and other guiding plans. Projects were evaluated based on core criteria including:
 Health, life, and safety needs;
 Critical infrastructure condition and accessibility;
 Community use and equity;
 Geographic distribution; and

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

 Potential to leverage external or matching funds.

In addition to the above, projects were evaluated using criteria recommended by the Vision 2050 framework. The Vision 2050 criteria is consistent with the core criteria listed, and also includes elements such as equity, public health and safety, climate resiliency and sustainability as core values for infrastructure development. The projects that are outlined in Attachment 5 were analyzed for readiness, feasibility, and opportunities to reduce costs through grant offsets or matching contributions, refining the list to approximately $100 million for each of the categories outlined below:
 Community Facilities and Quality of Life;
 Public Safety; and
 Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility.

The cost estimates in Attachment 5 reflect 2025–2026 values, with escalation anticipated in later phases.

Community Facilities and Quality of Life Category
The range of proposed projects address aging facilities or upgrades to existing facilities that will greatly enhance the community’s quality of life. Some of the projects in this category include:
 Revitalization of the Frances Albrier Community Center;  Replacement of the King Pool and locker room;
 Installation of artificial turf at Harrison Field;
 Renovation of existing restroom facilities and construction of new restroom facilities where they are needed; and
 Increasing the number of dog parks throughout the City.

Public Safety Category
The list of proposed projects largely centers on the replacement of Fire Stations, which is detailed in a comprehensive Fire Facilities Master Plan, completed in 2023, along with much needed improvements to the City’s emergency communications center and Fire training facility. Most of Berkeley’s fire stations were built in the 1960s, with seismic upgrades completed in the 1990s. However, the City’s Fire Stations no longer meet current health, safety, or operational standards. The City has conceptual designs for all its fire stations and has determined that all but one, Fire Station 1 (2442 8th Street), can be renovated or replaced on existing City-owned land.

It is essential that the replacement of the City’s fire stations begin as soon as possible as the City only has the capacity to manage one firehouse remodel/rebuild at a time and each will take three to five years to complete. The highest operational need for the Fire Department is to remodel or replace the following:
 Fire Station 4 (1900 Marin Ave.) which has a projected cost of $48 million;  The Fire, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Community Emergency Response (CERT) Training Center (997 Cedar Street) which has a projected cost of $28 million;

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

 The City’s Emergency Communications Center (Dispatch) (2100 MLK Jr. Way) at a projected cost of $4 million; and
 Fire Station 6 (999 Cedar Street) which has a projected cost of $22 million.

Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility Category
The list of proposed projects builds on a variety of assessments performed over the years to determine deferred infrastructure investments and identify replacement costs for assets.

These assessments include an evaluation of City buildings and right of way, the growing backlog of sidewalk repairs to be addressed through the City’s 50/50 Sidewalk Repair Program5 that exceeds existing city resources, and the adopted Self Evaluation and Transition Plan that identified a total of $48 million in projects for sidewalks and facilities to meet accessibility requirements. Some of the projects in this category include:
 Fully funding the repair of all sidewalks in the City’s 50/50 Sidewalk Repair Program;  Seismic upgrades to the Veterans Building and Maudelle Shirek Building to support a safe, vibrant and thriving civic and cultural arts center;  Modernization and upgrades to facilities such as the West Berkely Family Wellness Center, Animal Services Facility, South Berkeley Senior Center, Public Safety Building, and 1947 Center Street; and
 Projects to enhance American with Disabilities Act (ADA)accessibility at various city facilities.

In addition to feedback from the City Council and the results of the community survey and community engagement, additional factors that will be deployed to refine the preliminary list of proposed projects for a potential November 2026 revenue measure includes an analysis of the City’s bonding capacity, deliverability, phasing, and staff capacity.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Many of the infrastructure needs identified for potential inclusion in a 2026 revenue measure present opportunities to advance the City’s climate and sustainability goals. Modernizing aging public facilities enables the City to incorporate energy-efficient building systems and high-performance materials consistent with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan. In addition, several projects support stormwater management, sea-level rise adaptation, and climate- resilient design, aligning with the Vision 2050 Framework and broader sustainability efforts.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The City Council could consider funding mechanisms to support infrastructure or service needs. While city staff are in the process of soliciting proposals and selecting a firm to implement a community survey, the feedback received from the City Council will be used to inform the development of the survey instrument. Once the survey has been implemented, city staff will return to City Council to provide the results of the survey to determine if an additional community survey is necessary and to receive feedback that is needed to develop any potential revenue measure(s) for the November 2026 ballot. 5 https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/streets-sidewalks-sewers-and-utilities/sidewalk-repair.

Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for ACTION CALENDAR the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election. December 2, 2025

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The cost of the two community surveys is expected to not exceed $100,000.

CONTACT PERSON
David White, Deputy City Manager, 981-7014
Attachments:
1: FY 26 Comparison of Property-Based Taxes & Assessments - Berkeley, Oakland, and Albany
2: November 2026 Election Calendar
3: Measure P Update (https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03- 28%20Measure%20P%20and%20Impact%20on%20Homeless%20Services%20in%20Berkele y.pdf)
4: Measure O Update (https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-2- 06%20Measure%20O%20Update.pdf)
5: Proposed Infrastructure Projects for November 2026 revenue measure

Attachment 1

FY 2026 Comparison of Property-Based Taxes & Assessments Berkeley, Oakland, and Albany

Ad Valorem Taxes: Berkeley, Oakland, and Albany properties are all equally subject to the 1% countywide ad valorem tax based on assessed value, as well as the ad valorem debt service imposed by the Peralta Community College, Bay Area Rapid Transit, and East Bay Regional Park. In FY 2026 these combined taxes represent $5,874 for a home with a $550,000 assessed value in each city.

City General Obligation (GO) Bonds: Berkeley, Oakland, and Albany have each approved City GO bond debts, which is based upon the assessed value of properties. In FY 2026, Berkeley’s cumulative GO bond tax is $270 which is significantly lower than Oakland’s cumulative GO bond tax at $660 and Albany’s GO bond tax at $685.

Special Taxes: Each of these cities has its own set of voter-approved special taxes and other assessments; however, Oakland and Albany do not use the same taxation basis as the City of Berkeley. For instance, while most of Berkeley’s special taxes are based on a tax rate multiplied by the building square footage, those in Oakland and Albany are usually a standard flat rate amount per parcel with some variation in the flat rate based upon land use. In all three cities, most of the voter approved special taxes allow for an annual cost of living adjustment based either on the annual Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Statewide Personal Income Growth (PIG) rate. Berkeley’s Emergency Services for the Severely Disabled Tax, Library Taxes, Fire Protection/Emergency Response Taxes, Safe Street Tax, and Parks/Landscape Maintenance Tax use the higher of the two.

There are several significant differences in the special taxes imposed by Berkeley, Oakland, and Albany. For example, Berkeley’s Library Taxes are at $680 which is significantly higher than Oakland’s library tax at $3191 or Albany’s library and library supplemental tax at $285.

Another significant difference is in school taxes. Each city has approved School GO bond debt and special school taxes. Berkeley Unified School District’s combined GO bond and special school taxes total $2,139, Albany Unified School District’s GO and special school tax is significantly lower than Berkeley’s at $1,491, and Oakland Unified School District’s GO and special school tax is even lower at $930.

County and other agency assessments (such as County Service Area (CSA) Vector Control, AC Transit, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), East Bay Trail LLD and East Bay Regional Parks (EBRP)) are parcel-based, flat rate assessments based on land use. And, with some limited exceptions2, apply equally to all property in these three cities. There are a few other variations billed on property tax statements.

1 Parcels located in the Rockridge Community Facility District (CFD) 1 pay an additional tax of $25 annually. 2 Albany is not subject to the additional Mosquito Abatement fee and is not included in the CSA Lead Abatement program. Oakland properties pay higher CSA Vector Control assessments than Berkeley or Albany.

The table on the following page summarizes the comparison of total FY 2026 annual property taxes and assessments for Berkeley, Oakland, and Albany using an ‘average’ single family property that is 1,900 square feet with an assessed value of $550,000 and a homeowner’s exemption of $7,000.

AGENCY
Rate Amount Rate Amount Rate Amount
COUNTYWIDE AD VALOREM TAX 1.00% 5,500 $ 1.00% 5,500$ 1.00% 5,500$ Voter-Approved Ad Valorem Debt Service
County Wide GO Bond 0.0084% 46 $ 0.0084% 46 $ 0.0084% 46 $ City GO Bond 0.0490% 270 $ 0.1200% 660 $ 0.1245% 685 $ Unified School District GO Bonds 0.1154% 635 $ 0.0900% 495 $ 0.1647% 906 $ Peralta Community College 0.0432% 238 $ 0.0432% 238 $ 0.0432% 238 $ Bay Area Rapid Transit 0.0152% 84 $ 0.0152% 84 $ 0.0152% 84 $ East Bay Regional Park 0.0011% 6 $ 0.0011% 6$ 0.0011% 6$ Voter-Approved Ad Valorem Debt Service (Combined) 0.2323% 1,279 $ 0.2779% 1,529$ 0.3571% 1,965$ TOTAL ALL AD VALOREM TAXES 1.2323% 6,779 $ 1.2779% 7,029 $ 1.3571% 7,465 $ City Voter-Approved Special Taxes Rate X BSF 1,900 1,900 1,900 Landscape/Park
Oakland: City Landscape
Albany: City Landscape 88-1
Street / Sidewalk Repair (Safe Streets Measure FF of 2024) $0.17000 323 $ Albany Sidewalk Tax 0.017 $ 32$
Library Tax/Services
Oakland: City Library
Albany: Serv & Supplemental
Paramedic Supplemental
Oakland: Emg Medical and Paramedic Supplement
Albany: EMS/ALS (Measure K) & Paramedic Supplement
Emergency Services for the Severely Disabled $0.02229 42 $ Fire/Emergency Response (Measure GG) $0.06695 127 $
Fire, Emergency Svcs & Wildfire Prev Tax (Measure FF of 2020) $0.12990 247 $ Parks and Homelessness Tax (Measure Q of 2020) parcel/unit 258$ Police and Violence Reduction Parcel Tax Measure NN of 2024 parcel/unit 264$ Education Parcel Tax (Measure AA) parcel/unit 198$
Oakland Zoo (Measure Y of 2022) parcel/unit 147$
Total City Special Taxes $1.05974 2,013$ parcel/unit 1,397$ parcel/unit 491$ City Assessments
City Street Lighting $0.01080 21 $
2018 Street Light parcel/unit 19 $
Clean Storm Water (3,000 sqft lot area)
Oakland Flood Benefit12
Albany Street/Storm Drains & Clean Storm Water
2018 Storm Water Formula 61 $
Albany City Sewer Service parcel/unit 638$
Albany Emergency Svcs Tax (Measure K of 2022) 0.0740 $ 141$ Total City Special Assessments 128$ 16$ 985$
BUSD: Educator Recruitment Measure E of 2020 $0.14509 276$ BUSD Special Taxes (Measure H of 2024)
Oakland Measure N
BUSD: School Maintenance (Measure H of 2020)
Oakland Measures G & G1
Albany Measure J
Total Unified School District Special Taxes $0.79159 1,504 $ parcel/unit 435$ parcel/unit 591$ County/Agency Assessments & Fixed Charges
Mosquito Abatement parcel/unit 2 $ parcel/unit 3$ parcel/unit 2$ Mosquito Assess 2 parcel/unit 3 $ parcel/unit 4$ parcel/unit 3$ CSA Paramedic parcel/unit 41 $ parcel/unit 83$ parcel/unit 41$ CSA Vector Control parcel/unit 6 $ parcel/unit 14$ parcel/unit 6$ CSA Vector Control B parcel/unit 7 $ parcel/unit 10$ parcel/unit 7$ CSA Lead Abatement parcel/unit 10 $ parcel/unit 20$ AC Transit (Measure VV) parcel/unit 96 $ parcel/unit 96$ parcel/unit 96$ EBMUD Wet weather parcel/unit 250 $ parcel/unit 160 $ parcel/unit 160 $ East Bay Trail LLD parcel/unit 5 $ parcel/unit 5$ parcel/unit 5$ Hazardous Waste Program parcel/unit 8 $ parcel/unit 16$ parcel/unit 8$ EBRP Park Safety/M parcel/unit 12 $ parcel/unit 17$ parcel/unit 12$ Peralta CCD Measure B parcel/unit 48 $ parcel/unit 48$ parcel/unit 48$ Albany Open Space Tax parcel/unit 76$
Total County Assessments/Charges 500 $ 488$ 476$ TOTAL CURRENT ANNUAL TAXES parcel/unit 10,924 $ parcel/unit 9,365$ parcel/unit 10,008$ 591$
$0.54000 1,026 $ parcel/unit 120 $
parcel/unit315$
SFBRA Measure AA 12 $ 12$ parcel/unit 12$ parcel/unit parcel/unit 98$
$0.04740 90 $ parcel/unit 67$ parcel/unit 285 $
$0.35800 680 $ parcel/unit
parcel/unit202 $ $0.10650
Formula 27 $ parcel/unit 16$ parcel/unit 206 $
FY 2026 Property Based Taxes and Assessments Comparison Single Family Home $550,000 Assessed Value (AV) and 1,900 Square Feet Berkeley FY2026 Oakland FY2026 Albany FY2026
$0.26520 504 $ parcel/unit 144 $ parcel/unit 76$
319$ parcel/unit

Attachment 2

CITY OF BERKELEY - GENERAL ELECTION CALENDAR
November 3, 2026

DAYS PRIOR

TO ELECTION DATE ACTION TAKEN
Public Financing payments are made on the Thursday following the Tuesday submission of matching funds requests.

Fixed Date April 30, 2026
Each committee that makes expenditures in excess of $270 in support of or in opposition to a measure must file campaign statements for quarterly reporting period (1/1/26 - 3/31/26) BMC § 2.12.271
180 May 7, 2026 Suggested Last Day to file initiative petitions. Qualified petitions received after this date will be accepted, but may not be on the November ballot. 158 May 29, 2026
103 July 23, 2026
113 July 13, 2026 FILING PERIOD OPENS - CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPERS 103 July 23, 2026 Deadline to file Signature In-Lieu petitions with City Clerk.

Fixed Date July 31, 2026 Semi-Annual Campaign Statements due. (1/1/26 - 6/30/26) 90 August 5, 2026 Independent Expenditure Disclosure Period Begins. ($1000+) 90 August 5, 2026 Late Contribution Disclosure Period Begins. ($1000+) 88 August 7, 2026 Deadline to deliver resolution placing a measure on the ballot to Registrar and request election consolidation.
88 August 7, 2026 FILING PERIOD CLOSES - CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPERS 87 August 8, 2026
83 August 12, 2026
82 August 13, 2026 Secretary of State to conduct Random Alpha Draw for candidate name order on ballot. EC §13111
81 August 14, 2026 Primary ballot measure argument filing deadline (12:00 p.m.). 74 August 21, 2026 Rebuttal ballot measure argument filing deadline (12:00 p.m.). 57 September 7, 2026
14 October 20, 2026
40 September 24, 2026
21 October 13, 2026
40 September 24, 2026 First Pre-Election Campaign Statement due. 29 October 5, 2026 Voting period opens. Ballots mailed to all voters starting 29 days before Election Day.

Offices to be Elected: City Auditor, City Council Districts 1, 4, 7, 8 Rent Board (5 seats); School Board (3 seats)
Voter Information Guide mailing period.

Candidate filing period extended if an incumbent eligible for re-election does not file nomination documents by the 8/7/25 deadline. Incumbents cannot file during the extended period. EC §10225
Filing Period - Candidate Nomination Papers for Write-in Candidates.

Signature In-Lieu of Filing Fee - Candidates may collect signatures during this period to offset the $150 filing fee. Valid signatures are worth $1 each. Charter Art. III, Sec. 6.1, BMC §2.16.020
1

CITY OF BERKELEY - GENERAL ELECTION CALENDAR
November 3, 2026

DAYS PRIOR

TO ELECTION DATE ACTION TAKEN
16 October 18, 2026 48-Hour Late Contribution Reporting Period begins for contributions of $100 - $999 (FPPC Form 497) BMC §2.12.295
15 October 19, 2026 Last Day to Register to Vote for the 11/3/2026 election 14 October 20, 2026 Close of write-in candidate filing period at 5:00 p.m. 12 October 22, 2026 Second Pre-Election Campaign Statement due. 7 October 27, 2026 Campaign contributions list published online and at designated locations in the final seven days before Election Day. BMC §2.12.065 Election Day November 3, 2026 Election Day - EC §1000; Charter Art. III, Section 4. Polls open at 7:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m.

DAYS AFTER

THE ELECTION DATE ACTION TAKEN
15 November 18, 2026 All campaign signs must be removed fifteen days after the Election (BMC §§ 20.08.240, 20.44.030)
Fixed Date December 1, 2026 Taking office date for newly elected officials (actual swearing in at later date). Charter Art. V , Sections 14, 14.1, 15, 16.
30 December 3, 2026 Last day for County to certify election results to City. EC §15372 30 December 3, 2026 Last day to submit matching funds requests (public financing) BMC §2.12.505.J
35 December 8, 2026 Council to certify election results. EC §§9217, 10262, 10263; Charter Art. III, Sec. 10
60 January 2, 2027
All unspent funds held by Public Financing candidate committees must be repaid to the Fair Elections Fund no later than 60 days after the election BMC 2.12.505(H)
Fixed Date January 15, 2027 $50 fee due to Secretary of State for open campaign committees Fixed Date February 1, 2027 Semi-Annual Campaign Statement due. (January 31 is a Sunday, deadline moved to next business day)
Fixed Date March 31, 2027 Campaign funds become surplus (defeated candidate or candidate that withdrew). Surplus funds may not be used for a future election.

EC: Election Code; GC: Government Code; BMC: Berkeley Municipal Code Updated 1/24/2025
2

Attachment 3

Office of the City Manager

March 28, 2025

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Subject: Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley This memo gives an overview of the City’s implementation thus far of Measure P and provides the Council with a broad overview of the history, expenditures, and accomplishments of the Measure to date.

Measure P is a 2018 ballot measure approving a real property transfer tax that has provided, on average, $11 million
1 in funding annually for general municipal purposes
including navigation centers, physical and mental health supports, rehousing and other services for unhoused people living in Berkeley. As this report demonstrates , the funds had a significant impact on homeless services in the City of Berkeley.

Measure P went into effect on January 1, 2019 and, unless re-authorized by voters, was set to sunset on January 1, 2029. However, with the passage of Measure W in November 2024, the expiration date was removed, and certain tax thresholds for high- value properties were changed.

The City seeks to house people who are unhoused. The primary driver of homelessness is a lack of affordable housing, yet there are also tools and strategies that can help guide some unsheltered people into safer conditions and housing. Measure P has expanded those tools and strategies.

The City addresses unsheltered homelessness and encampments both by coordinating services and shelter for those on the street as well as ensuring safe, clean, and accessible public spaces for all. This interdepartmental work, led by the Homeless Response Team in Neighborhood Services, is a direct result of an allocation of Measure P made by the City Council in 2021.

1 Revenues— which have ranged from ~$6.5M to ~$20M—fluctuate greatly with market conditions .

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

This funding supports the staffing, labor, equipment, and other resources across several departments that participate in its work. These include Public Works, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront and the City Manager’s Office.

This Measure P allocation has also allowed the Homeless Response Team to leverage over $15 million in State resources dedicated to encampments, including the third round of Encampment Resolution Funding, announced by the State on October 4, 2024. This enabled the City to triple its inventory of non-congregate shelter beds and nearly double the shelter acceptance rate of people leaving encampments, especially during an encampment closure.

As a result, over the period of time that Measure P has been in place, we have also seen a sharp decline in the number of unsheltered people in Berkeley, even compared to our immediate neighbors in Alameda County.

Priorities for funding

The City uses Measure P funding to:

• establish new permanent housing for formerly homeless people • address immediate street conditions and hygiene at encampments • prevent households from becoming homeless
• provide emergency shelter and temporary accommodations for those on the street.

Importantly, Measure P is not the City’s only funding for homeless services . W hile a significant source of funding, Measure P also leverages millions of dollars in other local, State and Federal resources. In FY2024 , the City spent approximately $3 5M on

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

homelessness, with Measure P accounting for approximately 66 percent of that total (see graph on the right). State funds accounted for an additional 18 percent, while federal funds accounted for 4 percent more. Other local funds (City of Berkeley General Fund) account for an additional 12 percent.

BALLOT MEASURE

Measure P provides $11 million of funding on average from real property transfer taxes to pay for homeless services. Berkeley voters passed Measure P in November 2018 with

72.4% approval. The original ballot question read:

Shall ordinance raising funds for general municipal purposes such as navigation centers, mental health support, rehousing and other services for the homeless, including homeless seniors and youth; increasing the real property transfer tax for ten years from 1.5% to 2.5% for property sales and transfers over $1,500,000, adjusted annually to capture the top approximately 33% of transfers; generating an estimated $6,000,000 - $8,000,000 annually; and establishing Homeless Services Panel of Experts to recommend homeless services, be adopted?

PROGRESS ON HOMELESS SERVICES PROJECTS

Emergency Shelter

Measure P currently funds five projects that provide shelter beds and supportive services for adults seeking to move out of encampments and off the streets. Services include, but are not limited to , housing navigation , job training placement and medical/legal assistance. The City anticipates spending $4.8 million in Measure P funding on the following emergency shelter services through June 2025:

2.00M

0.95M

0.94M

0.57M

0.35M

0.0 M 0.5 M 1.0 M 1.5 M 2.0 M 2.5 M
Pathways STAIR Center
1720 San Pablo Avenue - Supportive
Services
1720 San Pablo Avenue - Master Lease
Dorothy Day House - Emergency Shelter
Storm Shelter - Winter Shelter

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

See below for a short description of each program:

• Dorothy Day House - Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter (BESS): Operating out of 2134 Martin Luther King Way (Old City Hall) 24 hours a day from December 1 to April 30 to provide relief from inclement weather or other natural events.

• Dorothy Day House - Emergency Shelter: Operating out of the Veterans Building on 1931 Center Street, this is a low-barrier, permanent, congregate shelter that offers services 24/7. Meals are provided three times daily and there is a locker program on-site.

• Dorothy Day House - Beyond Horizon: is a non-congregate shelter that provides 27 motel rooms to encampment residents through a master lease with the Berkeley Inn at 1720 San Pablo Avenue. This non- congregate shelter has been integral in addressing homeless encampments by providing low -barrier private rooms to individuals referred by the Homeless Response Team.

• Bay Area Community Services - STAIR Center: run by Bay Area Community Services, has 45 beds, though they are currently planning a renovation to convert the space from congregate shelter beds to non-congregate through installing pallet shelters which will result in a slight reduction of beds. The Pathway STAIR Center budget includes housing navigation services and rapid rehousing funds to help people move into permanent housing.

• Insight Housing - Campus Motel: is a non-congregate shelter that provides 23 motel rooms to encampment residents through a master lease with the Campus Motel at 1619 University Avenue. This non- congregate shelter has been integral in addressing the needs of our hardest to serve encampment residents by providing low -barrier private rooms to individuals referred by the Homeless Response Team. While t his program is initially being paid for through the state’s Encampment Resolution Funding 2 Program, Measure P will be used as leverage beginning in FY26.

Immediate street conditions and hygiene

Measure P funds currently support six projects aimed at addressing immediate street conditions and hygiene. These projects address the immediate needs of persons currently living on the streets or in vehicles. The projects provide a range of services, including mental health crisis response, outreach workers, and portable toilets . The City anticipates spending $3.4 million in Measure P funding on the following services through June 2025:

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

See below for a short description of each program:

• Bay Area Community Services - Coordinated Entry System, Housing Resource Center, and Shallow Subsidies Programs: The North County Housing Resource Center and Coordinated Entry System is the systematic approach designed by our community to ensure the highest needs unsheltered individuals in Berkeley receive necessary services and interventions to promptly end their homelessness. Coordinated Entry resources include problem solving with participants to utilize all resources available to them, assessing participants for vulnerabilities to make appropriate referrals to programs that match individual needs, and housing navigation to assist clients matched to housing resources with leasing up in their unit. The Shallow Subsidy program targets low -cost housing subsidies to individuals that need minimal support to live independently but cannot afford market rate rent in Berkeley’s expensive and competitive real estate market.

• Berkeley Fire Department - 5150 Response and Transport: Provides emergency medical transport services to individuals that are experiencing a mental health crisis.

• City Manager’s Office - Homeless Response Team: The team’s primary objective is to help guide the more than 400 people who are living on the streets of Berkeley on any given night to ward housing and safety. The team’s outreach workers use motivational interviewing through compassionate conversation, assistance with navigating nonprofit and government resources, and patient problem solving . The team builds relationships, informs people of available resources, provides immediate necessities, and links to supp ortive services. On September 24, 2024 the team was also approved by Alameda County to directly

1.24M

0.81M

0.69M

0.53M

0.10M

0.04M

0.0 M 0.4 M 0.8 M 1.2 M
BACS CES, HRC, & Shallow Subsidies
Fire: 5150 Response & Transport
Homeless Response Team
LifeLong Medical - Street Medicine
Portable Toilets
DBA- Homeless Outreach Worker

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

assess people on the streets , provide immediate housing interventions and add qualified people to the County’s housing queue in real-time. Previously, the team had to rely on nonprofit providers for these assessments – a slower, indirect process that often led to miss ed housing opportunities. Provides street outreach workers and supportive staff to address the immediate street conditions and needs of people who are living unsheltered. Even if people living in encampments are not interested in available shel ter, the team uses Council policies to mitigate immediate health and safety threats to encampment residents and the community at large.

• LifeLong Medical Care – Street Outreach: Provides direct medical care to clients living on the streets. The team also provides housing navigation, services referrals, and case management. Participants are among the over 400 identified unsheltered households living on the streets of Berkeley on any given night.

• City of Berkeley - Portable Toilets: The City of Berkeley also provides portable toilets throughout the city to ensure our unhoused residents have the dignity of an appropriate place to use the bathroom.

• Downtown Business Association - Homeless Outreach Worker: Provides immediate necessities and supportive services to unsheltered people living in the Downtown area. Participants are among the over 400 identified unsheltered households living on the streets of Berkeley on any given night.

Permanent Housing

Measure P currently funds one permanent housing project for individuals/families. This project provides immediate housing and supportive services for single adults that were formerly homeless. Services provided include housing retention services and mental health treatment. The City anticipates spending $ 61,000 in Measure P funding on the following permanent housing project in fiscal year 2025:

61.2 T
00 T 10 T 20 T 30 T 40 T 50 T 60 T 70 T
LifeLong Medical - Maudelle Shirek
Affordable Housing (NPLH)

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

See below for a short description of the program:

LifeLong Medical Care – Maudelle Shirek Affordable Housing: This project is also part of the NPLH program. The Measure P funding provides the supportive services necessary for these 12 units at the site which serves both adults and families with children.

Homekey Housing

In addition to th is project, Measure P contributes one-time funding for two additional permanent supportive housing projects as part of the match requirement for State Homekey funding. The City’s Measure P contributions to these projects (over $15M) leveraged external Homekey funding (over $30M) on a 2:1 basis. The two projects are listed below:

Bay Area Community Services – Project Homekey Golden Bear Inn: This project received $7.3 million in Measure P funding in FY22 to acquire the Golden Bear Inn as a new permanent supportive housing site with 44 units for formerly homeless adults.

Housing Consortium of the East Bay – Project Homekey Rodeway Inn: This project will receive $8.5 million in local funding, likely including Measure P, to acquire the Rodeway Inn as a new permanent supportive housing site with 43 units for formerly homeless adults.

Staffing/Infrastructure

Measure P funds also support key infrastructure necessary to maintain and support homeless services. This category includes city staff working directly on homelessness programming, training, and evaluation. The City anticipates spending less than a million dollars of Measure P funding on the following costs through June 2025:

0.22 M

0.13 M

0.13 M

0.23 M

0.00 M 0.05 M 0.10 M 0.15 M 0.20 M 0.25 M
CMO: Homeless Services Coordinator
HHCS: 50% Senior Management Analyst
Training and Evaluation
HHCS: Limited Term Community Services
Specialist II

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

See below for a short description of each program/position:

Health, Housing and Community Services - Community Services’ Specialist: Works with the program supervisor, other City departments and public agencies, boards and commissions, and the private sector in developing a comprehensive and integrated approach to homeless programs.

Health, Housing and Community Services - Senior Management Analyst: Assists in developing policy, procedure, and budgets for Measure P funded projects. Supervises work including fiscal and program analysis and oversight of contract and grant compliance requirements.

City Manager’s Office - Homeless Service Coordinator : Provides administrative support to the Homeless Services Panel of Experts and assists in coordinating Berkeley’s homeless services providers including the Homeless Response Team.

Leveraging Outside Funding to Reduce Unsheltered Homelessness

In 2021, the Berkeley City Council endorsed the All Home Regional Action Plan, a Bay Area-wide strategic homelessness plan that called for a 75% reduction in street homelessness by focusing on investments to bring people inside and off the streets, and then find permanent solutions for them. Since then, the City has used Measure P to implement that plan, and the source has leveraged roughly $35M in State funding in 3 years by being used as a matching source to:

• Bring in roughly $5 M in State Encampment Resolution Funds to open 23 motel- based, non- congregate shelter beds at the Super 8. The addition of non- congregate shelter to Berkeley’s portfolio has nearly doubled our shelter acceptance rate (from 43% to 79%) among unsheltered people living in encampments.
• Bring in over $30M in State Homekey funding to open 85 units of new permanent supportive housing at two former motels.

The city’s local efforts to fund homelessness programs, alongside the City’s use of Measure P to robustly leverage new State funding opportunities, has contributed to a measurable decrease in homelessness in our city.

Berkeley, in partnership with the Alameda County Continuum of Care, conducts a Point- in-Time Count every two years which provides a snapshot of who is experiencing homelessness on any given night in our community. The most recent count was conducted in January 2024 and showed a major 45% reduction in Berkeley’s unsheltered homeless population and an increase of 57% in our sheltered population from the previous count in 2022. This continued a downward trend in homelessness observed in Berkeley between 2019 and 2022 as well.

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

As shown in the graph s above, Berkeley’s 45% reduction in unsheltered homelessness occurred while other major cities in the county continued to trend upwards. Hayward saw a 4% increase in their unsheltered population and Oakland saw an increase of 10%.

Overall, as seen in the graph below, the county’s homeless population dropped 3% from 9,747 in 2022 to 9,450 in 2024. We also saw a 19% increase of sheltered homelessness, going from 2,612 in 2022 to 3,107 in 2024. Meanwhile, unsheltered homelessness across the county dropped 11%, going from 7,135 in 2022 to 6,343 in 2024. Unsheltered homelessness remains the majority’s experience as 67% of the population experiencing homelessness in 2024 were unsheltered. Berkeley is getting closer to closing this gap, as only 52% of the population experiencing homelessness in 2024 were unsheltered.

308 295 254 399
664
813 803
445
972
1108 1057
844
0 200
4 00
600
800
1000
1200
2017 2019 2022 2024
Berkeley
Sheltered Unsheltered Total
859 861
1718 18261902
3210 3337 3664
2761
4071
5055 5490
0 2000
4000
6000
2017 2019 2022 2024
Oakland
Sheltered Unsheltered Total
84 115 114 234
313 372
267 278397
487
381
512
0 200
400
600
2017 2019 2022 2024
Hayward
Sheltered Unsheltered Total

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

Berkeley’s investment of Measure P funding to permanent housing, immediate street conditions, prevention, and emergency shelter, all contributed to ensuring that the number of people experiencing homelessness in our community continues to decrease over time.

Funds expended to date

The following chart shows the amount of funding spent in each spending category since Measure P began funding projects in FY 2020:

Since FY 2020, $58.3 million has been spent in Measure P funding in the above categories listed. The FY 25 budget allocated an additional $10.9 million in Measure P revenue for a total of $69.2 million spent by the end of this fiscal year.

If current projections remain the same, Measure P will have a 2.2 million-dollar deficit by the end of FY 2026. Without additional revenue or program cuts, this deficit will grow to $19.8 million by the time the Measure sunsets in FY2029. The below chart shows the Measure P revenue that has been collected to- date as well as the projections moving through the measure’s sunset:

1766 1710 2612 31073863
6312 7135 63435629
8022
9747 9450
0 2000
40 00
6000
8000
10000
12000
2017 2019 2022 2024
Alameda County
Sheltered Unsheltered Total

0.0M

5.0M

10. 0M
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Emergency Shelter Homelessness Prevention
Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene Permanent Housing

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

If interest rates, which greatly affect real estate market activity, decline in the coming years, these projections may change as revenues may come in stronger than forecasted.

Alternatively, if the economy enters a recession, real estate activity may slow and deficit projections may worsen.

MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT

The measure also established the Homeless Services Panel of Experts. The Panel was developed to make recommendations on how and to what extent the City should establish and/or fund programs to end or prevent homelessness in Berkeley and provide humane services and support. The panel is composed of members that have expertise in at least one of the following areas:

1. Development, administration, provision and/or evaluation of homeless programs in a government or non-profit capacity,

2. Current or past lived experience with homelessness,

3. Researching the causes, impacts and solutions to homelessness,

4. State and/or local homeless policy, funding or programs,

5. Federal homeless policy and funding administration such as the Continuum of Care Program,

6. Development and financing of affordable housing for formerly homeless persons, and

7. Provision of mental health and/or substance use programs for homeless persons.

The Homeless Services Panel of Experts meets the first Wednesday of each month except for August and December. Members of the public who are interested in learning more about Measure P funds as they are allocated and expended can consult the Homeless Servi ces Panel of Experts’ meeting agendas and materials online, and/or attend the Commission meetings.

Council will review and act on the additional funding required to reduce and address the impacts of homelessness and will undoubtedly continue to rely on Measure P as a source for such efforts until the measure sunsets in 2029.

2.9M

9.5M 10.9M

20. 6M

14.1M

6.5M 8.2M 8.6M 9.0M 9.5M

4.7M

0.0M

5.0M

10.0M

15.0M

20.0M

25.0M
FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Measure P Revenue

Measure P and Impact on Homeless Services in Berkeley
March 28, 2025

Information about Measure P can be found in the Bond and Revenue Measures2 section of berkeleyca.gov. Members of the public interested in learning more about the allocation and expenditure of Measure P funds can also consult the Homeless Services Panel of Experts3, refer to their meeting agendas and documents, and/or attend their meetings.

Attachment:
• Spreadsheet of Measure P projects

cc: David White, Deputy City Manager
Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, Neighborhood Services Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Director
Matthai Chakko, Communications Director/Assistant to the City Manager Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Farimah Brown, City Attorney

2 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures 3 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/homeless-services-panel-experts

Internal

TRANSFER TAX -- MEASURE P PROGRAM BUDGET-----DRAFT
Category of Spending FY 2024
Preliminary
Estimate
FY 2025 Estimate FY 2026 Estimate FY 2027
Estimate
FY 2028
Estimate
FY 2029
Estimate
Revenues
Beginning Fund Balance 19,887,422$ 5,583,073$ 2,603,208$ (1,231,027)$ (10,099,726)$ (14,409,877)$ Measure P Revenues* 6,500,000$ 6,199,580$ 6,509,559$ 6,835,037$ 7,176,789$ 3,588,395$ Total Revenues and Balance of Funds 26,387,422$ 11,782,653$ 9,112,767$ 5,604,011$ (2,922,937)$ (10,821,482)$ LESS: Total Expenses 20,804,349$ 9,179,445$ 10,343,794$ 15,703,736$ 11,486,940$ 11,968,445$ Personnel Costs (1) 530,359$ 780,206$ 842,623$ 666,353$ 719,661$ 777,234$ CMO: Homeless Services Coordinator Staffing/Infrastructure 202,899$ 219,131$ 236,661$ 255,594$ 276,042$ 298,125$ HHCS: Community Services Specialist II Staffing/Infrastructure -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ HHCS: 50% Senior Management Analyst Staffing/Infrastructure 116,560$ 125,885$ 135,956$ 146,832$ 158,579$ 171,265$ HHCS: 2 Year Limited Term Community Services Specialist II Staffing/Infrastructure 17,459$ 226,274$ 244,376$ 263,926$ 285,040$ 307,843$ Non-Personnel Costs/ Program Expenses 20,273,990$ 8,399,239$ 9,501,171$ 15,037,384$ 10,767,279$ 11,191,211$ Fire: 5150 Response & Transport - Measure P portion of contract Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 1,321,605$ 814,302$ 814,302$ 814,302$ 814,302$ 1,321,605$ Dorothy Day House Shelter Emergency Shelter 566,000$ 566,000$ 566,000$ 580,150$ 594,654$ 609,520$ Dorothy Day House Drop In Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 182,000$ -$ -$ 205,916$ BACS Pathways STAIR Center Emergency Shelter 2,499,525$ 2,002,768$ 2,002,768$ 2,002,768$ 2,002,768$ 2,499,530$ BACS Coordinated Entry System (BACS HRC & Shallow Subsidies) Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 829,498$ 1,235,411$ 1,235,411$ 1,235,411$ 1,235,411$ 1,235,411$ BACS Permanent Housing Subsidies / Shallow Subsidies Permanent Housing -$ -$ -$ 1,600,000$ No Place Like Home - Scattered Unit Supportive Services Permanent Housing -$ -$ -$ 105,000$ 105,000$ No Place Like Home - Scattered Unit Supportive Services -$ -$ -$ 138,800$ 138,800$ 43,800$ LifeLong Medical - Maudelle Shirek Affordable Housing (NPLH) 15,300$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ Insight Housing Hope Center (NPLH) Permanent Housing 95,000$ -$ -$ 95,000$ Insight Housing - Men's Housing Program Emergency Shelter 170,502$ -$ -$ 170,502$ BDIC Locker Program Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ LifeLong Medical - Street Medicine Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 525,001$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ YSA Tiny Home Emergency Shelter 78,000$ -$ -$ DBA- Homeless Outreach Worker Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Downtown Streets Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ Shelter at 742 Grayson Street Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Shelter at 1720 San Pablo Ave Lease Emergency Shelter 908,796$ 935,160$ 962,315$ 990,284$ -$ -$ Dorothy Day House Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter (Winter Shelter) Emergency Shelter 350,000$ 350,000$ 358,750$ 367,719$ 376,912$ 386,335$ Dorothy Day House - Inclement Weather Shelter Emergency Shelter 412,185$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TRANSFER TAX -- MEASURE P PROGRAM BUDGET-----DRAFT

Internal
Dorothy Day House Beyond Horizon - 1720 San Pablo Avenue - Supportive Services
Emergency Shelter 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ -$ -$ 1367 University Avenue Step Up Housing Project* Permanent Housing -$ 0 1,066,027 1,092,678 1,119,995 1,147,995 Russell Street Residence Acquisition Permanent Housing 4,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ HHCS: Square One Hotel Vouchers Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Training and Evaluation Staffing/Infrastructure 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ Homeless Response Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 920,085$ 690,064$ 690,064$ 690,064$ 690,064$ 690,064$ Berkeley Relief Fund Homelessness Prevention -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Portable Toilets Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ Old City Hall Sprinkler system Emergency Shelter 400,000$ -$ -$ Reimagining Public Safety-Expand Downtown Streets Teams as placement for low-level violations
Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Expand the scope of services for the Downtown Streets Team to address the need for enhanced services around commercial and industrial areas in the Gilman District twice weekly
Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Reimagining Public Safety: Funding to organizations for Respite from Gender/Domestic Violence
Emergency Shelter 220,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 701 Harrison Transition - Site Security Emergency Shelter 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Encampment Resolution Fund 2 Awarded Grant Match- Super 8 Emergency Shelter -$ -$ $0 2,527,538$ -$ -$ HCEB Contract- Interim Housing at Rodeway Inn 1,925,256$ -$ -$ Encampment Resolution Fund 3 Tentative Grant Match -$ -$ -$ 2,567,136$ 2,608,840$ Fiscal Year Surplus (Shortfall) (14,304,349)$ (2,979,865)$ (3,834,235)$ (8,868,699)$ (4,310,151)$ (8,380,051)$ Ending Fund Balance 5,583,073$ 2,603,208$ (1,231,027)$ (10,099,726)$ (14,409,877)$ (22,789,927)$ Notes:
(1) Personnel Costs from FY 2025 to FY 2029 assumes an 8 percent increase for increased pension costs

Attachment 4

Office of the City Manager

February 6, 2025

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Re: Measure O Update

This memo gives an overview of the City’s implementation thus far of Measure O, a 2018 ballot measure dedicated to increasing affordable housing.

Measure O has thus far guided $109M toward an array of projects that will create at least 1,000 new affordable apartments and 44 shelter beds. This includes five completed projects, one project under construction, and a healthy pipeline of new construction projects in various stages of predevelopment and planning. Due to the robust Housing Trust Fund project pipeline, the City is on track to nearly double the number of restricted affordable units in its portfolio since 2018, largely thanks to the impact of Measure O. This powerful expansion of City investment in affordable housing will help low- and middle-income households in Berkeley.

Building permanent affordable housing is complex, challenging and takes significant time. Affordable housing financing in California requires nonprofit developers to braid together funding from multiple sources. County, state, and federal sources usually require committed local funding – making the City’s investment a critical first step for most of these multi-year developments. City staff also use these funds to help project sponsors leverage funding from outside sources. None of this would be possible without highly skilled, creative staff who navigate a labyrinth of regulations, government agencies and nonprofits. Guided by our work, every Measure O dollar multiplies more than 4x.

Permanent affordable housing is just one of the City’s strategies to address the statewide housing crisis, which is at an extreme in the Bay Area. Measure O helps create a more inclusive Berkeley, expanding affordability for neighborhoods across the City and making them available to a broader group of people.

Measure O Update
February 6, 2025

BALLOT MEASURE

Measure O provides $135 million of funding from bond revenue to pay for affordable housing projects. Berkeley voters passed Measure O in November 2018 with 77.5% approval. The original ballot question read:

Shall the measure to issue $135 million in bonds to create and preserve affordable housing for low-income households, working families, and individuals including teachers, seniors, veterans, the homeless, and persons with disabilities; subject to citizen oversight and independent audits, be adopted?

PROGRESS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS

Affordable housing projects funded by Measure O are providing housing for low- and middle-income members of the Berkeley community.

Completed Projects
Five projects are complete, creating 240 new units of affordable housing and modern shelter space with 44 beds.

Jordan Court
1 opened in North Berkeley in spring of 2022. This project created 34 affordable studio units for low-income seniors, with 12 set aside for formerly homeless seniors. Jordan Court serves households earning between 20% and 60% of the area median income (AMI). (Measure O funding: $3.5 million, fully disbursed) Berkeley Way2 opened in Downtown Berkeley in October 2022, and includes three sub-projects that received $13,820,423 in Measure O funding:

• The Hope Center homeless shelter has 3
2 beds for homeless individuals
and 12 transition beds for homeless veterans. (Measure O funding: $6.9 million, including $6.7 million in loans already disbursed.) • The Hope Center permanent supportive housing has 53 apartments for people with disabilities or other special needs who would benefit from support services. This project serves households earning up to 30% AMI. (Measure O funding: $6.7 million, with all but $10,000 disbursed) • The Berkeley Way Apartments has 89 units of affordable housing, consisting of studios, one- and two-bedroom apartments for households earning between 50-60% AMI. (Measure O funding:
$179,000, with all but $18,000 disbursed)

1 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/jordan-court 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/berkeley-food-and-housing-project- bfhp-hope-center

Measure O Update
February 6, 2025

The Grinnell3 (formerly known as Blake Apartments) in West Berkeley was completed in June 2024 and has 63 units of housing, consisting of studios and one- and two-bedroom apartments. The Grinnell serves households earning between 30-60% AMI. (Measure O funding: $7.3 million, fully disbursed)

In Progress Projects
Two additional projects are in progress (either under construction or in predevelopment with site acquisition completed) and will create 141 uni ts of
affordable housing:

Maudelle Miller Shirek Community 4 in South Berkeley will have 87 units of housing, consisting of studios as well as one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments. The units will be affordable to households earning between 20-80% AMI. The project is under construction, with anticipated completion in Fall 2024. (Measure O funding: $12.9 million, including $11.2 million disbursed)

1740 San Pablo
5 in West Berkeley will have 54 affordable homes for families earning between 30% and 60% AMI, including three units reserved for artist households. (Measure O funding $7.5 million, including $6.1 million disbursed)

Projects in Predevelopment
Several projects have Measure O fundi
ng reserved but construction has not yet begun:

Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) Workforce Housing Development6 will have 110 apartments affordable to households earning between 30% and 120% AMI, with leasing preference for BUSD employees. Construction start is anticipated in 2025. (Measure O funding: $24.5 million)

City Council reserved $40 million in Measure O funding to support the development of affordable housing at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART (NBB) sites. Ashby is still in the planning stages; the selected nonprofit affordable housing developer(s) will have access to up to $20 million in Measure O.

The City and BART partnered to select a team of developers for NBB, three of which
are nonprofit affordable housing developers. The $26.5 million City subsidy (including $20 million in Measure O) will be split between the following projects:
• NBB BRIDGE Phase 1 Project will have 120 units of family housing, serving incomes between 30% and 70% AMI.
• NBB EBALDC Project will have 45 units of family housing (up to 70% AMI),

3 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/grinnell 4 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/maudelle-miller-shirek-community 5 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/1740-san-pablo-avenue 6 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects/berkeley-unified-school-district-busd- workforce-housing

Measure O Update
February 6, 2025

plus 15 units of permanent supportive housing (up to 30% AMI). • NBB BRIDGE Insight PSH Project will have 85 units of permanent supportive housing (up to 30% AMI) serving formerly homeless households.

A fourth NBB affordable project will be subsidized by the market rate developer partnering on the site development.

Additionally, Council approved funding reservations for the following projects that will likely include some Measure O funds. The final mix of funding sources will be determined prior to loan closing, based on available funding at that time. • Supportive Housing in People’s Park
• St. Paul Terrace
• Ephesian Legacy Court
Net Measure O funds received by the City to date are $76,682,000. All of these funds have been committed or reserved for projects. The City will issue the remaining $57 million when there is debt capacity and developments are ready for the funding. The next issuance is anticipated in 2025.

POLICIES GUIDE FUNDING

The City has made Measure O dollars available through the Housing Trust Fund Program, which is subject to Council-approved Guidelines as well as administrative criteria and funding source restrictions. These Guidelines have been in place since 1990 and are updated from time to time. The most recent update was adopted by Resolution No. 69-683-N.S. on January 19, 2021.
7 In addition to staff’s work on
housing developments, the City’s Housing Advisory Commission, made up of community members appointed by Councilmembers and the Mayor, reviews projects and makes recommendations to the full City Council about expenditure of the City’s affordable housing dollars.

Development of affordable housing is traditionally divided into several phases:
• Predevelopment: Project sponsors design the development, engage with the community, apply for financing from multiple sources, obtain a use permit, apply for a building permit, then finally enter into financing agreements and pay for the building permit. Permits and financing are finalized.
• Construction: Staff continue to monitor the developments, disburse City funds, and help resolve issues that may arise.
• Lease-up: This phase starts about 6 months before Construction finishes.

Sponsors begin the Lease-Up phase by clarifying all tenant screening

7 https://berkeleyca.gov/community-recreation/affordable-housing-berkeley/housing-trust-fund

Measure O Update
February 6, 2025

criteria, marketing the housing through community partners, accepting applications, screening tenants, preparing lease and when the building is complete, working with tenants as they move in.
• Operations: The development is occupied and leasing up apartments when someone moves out. Staff monitor Operations for 55 years.

The City’s affordable housing development funds are most often reserved early in the predevelopment process. This allows project sponsors to successfully compete for state and federal funds.

Typically, the City executes a loan agreement once all permits are ready to issue and full financing has been secured, a process which usually takes years. At times City funds are loaned at site acquisition. As a result, funds may be reserved or committed for years before they are expended. Please see Attachment 1: Affordable Housing for details on the Measure O-funded projects, including income ranges served, total City funds, project type, and status.

Measure O has a powerful role. For every dollar in Measure O funding, project sponsors have been able to secure $4.20 in outside funding from state, regional or private sources.

FUNDS EXPENDED TO DATE

Once Measure O funds are committed to a project, they are typically disbursed on a monthly (or less frequent) schedule when the project sponsor has incurred eligible project expenses as well as satisfied various conditions of the loan agreement. The project sponsor submits an invoice along with documentation of each expense, which is reviewed and approved by multiple City staff before funds are released.

As of 8/12/2024 the City had disbursed $41,585,898 in Measure O funds through seven development loans as detailed in the attached table. Five are complete (Berkeley Hope Center, Berkeley Hope Center Permanent Supportive Housing, BRIDGE Berkeley Way, Jordan Court, and The Grinnell), one is under construction (Maudelle Miller Shirek Community), and site acquisition has been completed for 1740 San Pablo. These represent a total of 240 units and 44 shelter beds completed with Measure O support to date, 87 units currently in construction, and 54 units in predevelopment.

Additionally, $143,347 was disbursed to support external legal services for the Berkeley Way projects. The total Measure O funds expended for all purposes is $41,729,245.

Measure O Update
February 6, 2025

MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

The Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services manages the affordable housing projects funded by Measure O. Funds are distributed through the Housing Trust Fund, which pools funds for affordable housing construction from a variety of sources and makes them available to developers through one single application process.

The Housing Advisory Commission and City Council review and approve projects to receive Measure O
funding. Oversight was previously provided by the Measure O Bond Oversight Committee, which met 10 times from April 2019 - March 2021.

The commission’s role is to review requests for funding, make funding recommendations to Council and receive information about the status of funding reservations and commitments. Neither commission produced its own report assessing the status of Measure O.

The City’s Finance Department contracted with an outside auditor to audit Measure O expenditures as required by the ballot measure. The first fiscal year including Measure O expenditures ended on June 30, 2021 and was the first year to be audited. The draft audit was completed on September 20, 2023 and had no findings.

Information about Measure O can be found in the Bond and Revenue Measures and the Capital Projects8 sections of berkeleyca.gov.9 Members of the public interested in learning more about the allocation and expenditure of Measure O funds can also consult the Housing Advisory Commission, refer to their meeting agendas and documents, or attend their meetings.10

Attachment: Spreadsheet of Measure O projects

cc: Tasha Tervalon, Interim Deputy City Manager
Sharon Friedrichsen, Interim Deputy City Manager/Budget Manager Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Margot Ernst, Manager, Housing and Community Services
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department
Matthai Chakko, Assistant to the City Manager
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Farimah Brown, City Attorney

8 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/capital-projects 9 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures 10 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/housing-advisory-commission

Project Name Project Address Development Partner Description Units1 Affordability Total Measure O
Funds Committed or
Reserved2
Measure O
Disbursements
Through June 2024
Total City Funds
Reserved Projected Sources of Funds3 Project Status
BRIDGE Berkeley Way 2012 Berkeley Way BRIDGE Housing
89 affordable homes and services
for low- and very low- income
families.
89 50-60% AMI $179,494 $161,544 $2,774,925 Measure O, HTF Completed Berkeley Hope Center 2012 Berkeley Way Insight Housing / BRIDGE Housing
32-bed homeless shelter, 12
transitional beds for homeless
veterans, a community kitchen and
wrap-around services for mental
health, substance abuse, job
training and social activities.
44 0-30% AMI $6,909,837 $6,652,191 $16,964,507
Berkeley's Housing Trust Fund
(HTF), Measure U14 (U1),
Measure O
Completed
Berkeley Hope Center Permanent
Supportive Housing 2012 Berkeley Way Insight Housing / BRIDGE Housing
53 permanent supportive housing
apartments. 53 0-30% AMI $6,731,092 $6,721,092 $7,727,630 Measure O, HTF Completed Jordan Court 1601 Oxford Street Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA)
34 affordable studio units for
seniors. 12 units will also be set
aside for formerly homeless
households.
35 20-60% AMI $3,501,884 $3,501,884 $6,026,927 HTF, Measure O Completed The Grinnell (formerly Blake
Apartments)
2527 San Pablo
Avenue SAHA
62 affordable apartments for
families and individuals. 12 units
are prioritized for people with an
intellectual or developmental
disability.
63 30-60% AMI $7,266,032 $7,266,032 $12,000,000 Measure O, U1, State Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Completed
Maudelle Miller Shirek Community 2001 Ashby Avenue Resources for Community Development (RCD)
86 apartments
for families and individuals. 12
units will also be set aside for
formerly homeless households.
87 20-80% AMI $12,932,000 $11,225,017 $17,000,000 Measure O, U1, LHTF Under Construction 1740 San Pablo Avenue 1740 San Pablo
Avenue BRIDGE Housing
53 new affordable homes for
families. 3 units will be set aside
for artist households.
54 30-60% AMI $7,500,000 $6,058,137 $7,500,000 Measure O Predevelopment Berkeley Unified School District
(BUSD) Workforce Housing
Development
1701 San Pablo
Avenue BUSD/SAHA/Abode
109 affordable apartments.

Employees of BUSD and their
households will have a leasing
preference.
110 30-120% AMI $24,500,000 - $24,500,000 Measure O Predevelopment NBB BRIDGE Phase 1 North Berkeley BART
Site BRIDGE Housing 119 affordable apartments for
families and individuals. 120 30-70% AMI - $11,563,636 Measure O, HTF Predevelopment NBB EBALDC Project North Berkeley BART
Site
East Bay Asian Local
Development Corporation
(EBALDC)
59 affordable homes, including
family housing and 15 units of
permanent supportive housing
60 0-70% AMI - $5,926,364 Measure O, HTF Predevelopment NBB BRIDGE Insight PSH Project North Berkeley BART
Site
BRIDGE Housing + Insight
Housing
85 permanent supportive housing
apartments 85 0-30% AMI - $9,010,000 Measure O, HTF Predevelopment Ashby BART Projects Ashby BART Site TBD TBD TBD TBD $20,000,000 - $26,500,000 Measure O, HTF Planning >800 New Units $109,520,339 $41,585,897.62 $147,493,989 Supportive Housing at People's Park 2556 Haste Street TBD 118 affordable units with 62 units
set aside for formerly homeless
households.
119 10-50% AMI FR5 - $14,359,593 TBD Planning
St. Paul Terrace 2024 Ashby Avenue
Community Housing
Development Corporation
(CHDC)
49 affordable units, including 11
studios, 6 one-bedrooms and 17
two-bedrooms, and 15 three-
bedrooms.
50 30-60% AMI FR5 - $12,250,000 TBD Predevelopment
Ephesian Legacy Court 1708 Harmon Avenue CHDC 79 one-bedroom units. 80 30-60% AMI FR5 - $18,087,701 TBD Predevelopment 249 New Units $44,697,294
4 General Funds generated pursuant to Measure U1
5 FR = Funding Reservation that the City Council has approved from currently available affordable housing funds. Final mix of funding to be determined at development loan closing.

City of Berkeley
Affordable Housing Projects Supported by Measure O
Total Authorized Bonds = $135M
Projects with Measure O Commitments and Reservations
1 total units, including managers' units
2 committed = in contract, and reserved = set aside for a particular project 3 the final mix of funds is determined at loan closing
Projects with City Funding Reservations
Measure O Impact
$20,000,000

Attachment 5

Department Project Count Estimated Costs Project Summary PRW 19 107,600,003$
This portfolio of park, facility, sports field, and shoreline improvements advances community well-being by delivering safe, accessible, and resilient public spaces across Berkeley. The projects modernize aging community and aquatic facilities, improve play areas and restrooms, expand high-demand park amenities, upgrade sports infrastructure, and address critical shoreline and sea-level-rise vulnerabilities to protect public access and essential infrastructure for the long term.

PW 8 97,445,061$
This set of facility, seismic, and accessibility projects strengthens the City’s civic infrastructure by addressing life-safety risks, modernizing aging public buildings, and ensuring essential services remain resilient, functional, and accessible for decades to come. Together, these investments reduce long-term liability, improve ADA compliance, and advance a safer, more reliable built environment that supports community well-being and equitable access to public services.

FIRE 4 102,272,678$
These projects modernize essential emergency response facilities, strengthening the City’s long-term resilience and ability to protect public safety amid evolving climate and operational demands. Together, they advance a future-ready infrastructure system that harmonizes with the community’s broader goals for safety, reliability, and sustainable investment.

TOTAL 31 307,317,742$

Bond Measure Proposed Projects
Total Reccomended Projects: 19
Total Amount: $102,272,678
PRW
Item # Projects Description/ Justification Percentage of full funding needed Category Est. Cost Conceptual Design done?
Potential additional
funding source
Immediate
safety
consideration
Council District Dept
Priority
1 Frances Albrier Community Center (no pool)
Facility Modernization. The only major community center not rebuilt or seismically upgraded; San Pablo Park’s high use requires a modern, appropriately sized facility.
100% of project cost needed. Limited eligibility
for FEMA and sustainable energy grants; small
support possible from Parks Tax.

Community Facilities 30,000,
000.00$ Yes Parks Tax; FEMA grant for seismic Yes 2 High
2 Aquatic Park: Dreamland Area Plan Implementation. Advances the community-vetted Dreamland Area Plan to support increased recreation and waterfront activation. 25% of project cost needed. Eligible for State
grant funds; requires a 25% local match if
development funding is not secured.

Park Amenities 2,100,000.00$ Yes Parks Tax; Prop 4 grant; Developer Funds No 2 High
3 Cedar Rose 2-5 Play Structure Facility Modernization. Upgrades the heavily used 2–5 play area to current safety and accessibility standards.
100% of project cost needed. May be partially
supplemented with limited Parks Tax funds. Park Amenities 2,500,000.00$ Yes Parks Tax No 1 High 4 Cedar Rose Restroom New Restroom . Adds a high-volume restroom along the Ohlone Greenway to meet growing demand.
100% of project cost needed. May be partially
supplemented with limited Parks Tax funds. Park Amenities 500,000.00$ No Parks Tax No 1 Medium 5 Codornices Restroom Facility Modernization. Replaces the aging, high-use hills restroom with a permanent Smart Restroom facility.
100% of project cost needed. May be partially
supplemented with limited Parks Tax funds. Park Amenities 500,000.00$ No Parks Tax No 6 Medium 6 Dog Park - City Wide New Facilities. Adds 4–6 dog parks across Berkeley to address significant community demand.
50% of project cost needed. Good candidate for
grants and potential Parks Tax support. Park Amenities 2,500,000.00$ No Parks Tax No All High 7 Glendale LaLoma Park Improvements: Playgrounds, Parking Lot, Pathways Facility Modernization. Improves play structures, parking lot, and pathways for safety and ADA access.
100% of project cost needed. Site not grant
eligble Park Amenities 3,500,000.00$ Yes P arks Tax No 6 High 8 Harrison Field Conversion to Artificial Turf Full Conversion. Replaces failing natural fields with artificial turf to double field capacity and reduce maintenance.
100% of project cost needed. May be
supplemented with limited Parks Tax and small
state grants.

Sports Facilities 6,000,000.00$ No Parks Tax No 2 High 9 Harrison Park Restroom Facility Modernization. Advances restroom improvements designed under T1 Phase 2.
100% of project cost needed. May be partially
supplemented with limited Parks Tax funds. Park Amenities 750,000. 00$ Yes Parks Tax No 1 High 10 King Pool (25 Meter) & Locker Room Replacement Facility Modernization. Rebuilds locker rooms and replaces existing pools with a modern, competition-capable 25-meter facility. 100% of project cost needed. Difficult to secure
grants for pool facilities; Parks Tax cannot be
used.

Community Facilities 25,000,
000.00$ Yes None No 5 High
11 Live Oak Soccer and Basketball Courts and Lighting Facility Modernization. Levels basketball courts, converts soccer practice field to turf, and improves lighting.
66% of project cost needed. Remaining costs
may be funded with Parks Tax. Sports Facilities 3,000,000.00$ No Parks Tax No 5 Medium 12 San Pablo Sports Field Irrigation and Drainage System Replacement. Fixes failing irrigation and drainage at the City’s most used sports fields.
100% of project cost needed. Maintenance-
focused project; not eligible for grants. Sports Facilities 1,600,000.00$ No Parks Tax No 2 Medium 13 Cesar Chavez Park Restroom and Pathway New Restroom + Pathway Renovation. Improves access and replaces aging facilities at a high-use waterfront park. 60% of project cost needed. Eligible for Parks Tax
support. Park Amenities 3,000,000.00$ Yes
Parks Tax, State Coastal
Conservancy (SSC) grant
eligible
No 1 Medium
Project Summary: This portfolio of park, facility, sports field, and shoreline improvements advances community well-being by delivering safe, accessible, and resilient public spaces across Berkeley. The projects modernize aging community and aquatic facilities, improve play areas and restrooms, expand high-demand park amenities, upgrade sports infrastructure, and address critical shoreline and sea-level-rise vulnerabilities to protect public access and essential infrastructure for the long term.

Bond Measure Proposed Projects
Total Reccomended Projects: 19
Total Amount: $102,272,678
PRW
Item # Projects Description/ Justification Percentage of full funding needed Category Est. Cost Conceptual Design done?
Potential additional
funding source
Immediate
safety
consideration
Council District Dept
Priority
Project Summary: This portfolio of park, facility, sports field, and shoreline improvements advances community well-being by delivering safe, accessible, and resilient public spaces across Berkeley. The projects modernize aging community and aquatic facilities, improve play areas and restrooms, expand high-demand park amenities, upgrade sports infrastructure, and address critical shoreline and sea-level-rise vulnerabilities to protect public access and essential infrastructure for the long term. 14 Marina Docks Timber Pile Replacement - 130 piles Infrastructure Stabilization. Replaces remaining timber piles to extend Marina dock life for 50+ years.
100% of project cost needed. Not eligible for
grants or Parks Tax.

Shoreline & Sea Level
Rise Projects 6,000,000.00$ Yes No ne No 2 Medium 15 Marina Blvd Sea Level Rise and Bay Trail Sea Level Rise Adaptation. Protects shoreline pathways and roadway segments.
50% of project cost needed. The sea level rise
portion of the project is grant-eligible.

Shoreline & Sea Level
Rise Projects 1,900,000.00$ Yes Federal and State grant eligible No 1 and 2 High
16 University Ave Sea Level Rise- Bike Park on University Avenue Sea Level Rise Adaptation. Addresses vulnerabilities at the Bike Park.
50% of project cost needed. The sea level rise
portion of the project is grant-eligible.

Shoreline & Sea Level
Rise Projects 2,750,000.00$ Yes Prop 4 and SSC grant eligble No 2 High
17 South Cove Seawall Replacement Full Replacement. Prevents imminent seawall failure that would close public access to South Cove.
100% of project cost needed. Minimal grant
eligibility due to maintenance scope; not eligible
for Parks Tax.

Shoreline & Sea Level
Rise Projects 5,000,000.00$ Yes SSC grant eligble Yes 2 High 18 Univ Ave / Seawall Dr / Bay Trail / Plaza Shoreline Improvements. Advances CEQA/NEPA-ready shoreline upgrades funded by multiple partner sources.
20% of project cost needed. Requires local
matching funds to unlock potential state and
regional shoreline resilience grants.

Shoreline & Sea Level
Rise Projects 5,000,000.00$ Yes
SSC grant eligble,
Measure FF, future 199
Seawall tennant
No 2 High
22 Adeline Corridor Open Space New Open Space. Aligns with the Adeline Corridor Plan to expand park access in an equity-priority area.
100% of project cost needed. Portions of the
project are grant-eligible, though transportation
elements are a stronger fit for competitive grant
program
Park Amenities $ 6,000,000.00 Yes Misc. Transportation grants No 3 High
Total - Recommended PRW Projects 107,600,002.50$

Total Reccomended Projects: 11
Total Amount: $97,445,061
Public Works
Item # Projects Description/Justification Percentage of Full Funding Needed Category Est. Cost Conceptual Design done?
Potential additional
funding source
Immediate
safety
consideration
Council District Dept Priority
23 Veterans Memorial Bldg (VMB) Ph 1
Renovation - Seismic Upgrades
Seismic Upgrade. Strengthens the historic 1928 Veterans Memorial Building as the first phase of the Civic Center restoration effort; the building lacks seismic integrity and has not received structural reinforcement since 1993.
20%–100% of project cost needed. FEMA
grant application (2025) requested $21M; if
awarded, a $6M City match is required. No
other City funding available.

Facilities $ 13,941,742 Yes FEMA Grant pending Yes 4 High 24 Maudelle Shirek Bldg (MSB) Ph 1
Renovation - Seismic Upgrades
Seismic Upgrade. Improves seismic performance of the historic 1909 building, which predates seismic codes and is structurally deficient, posing significant life-safety risk; work brings the facility to Damage Control Plus standards.
20%–100% of project cost needed. FEMA
grant application (2025) requested $21M; if
awarded, a $6M City match is required. No
other City funding available.

Facilities $ 6,719,513 Yes FEMA Grant pending Yes 4 High 25 Berkeley Mental Health Services Building
Renovations
Facility Replacement. Constructs a new two-story mental health services building to expand program capacity and replace aging structures with significant deferred maintenance.
40-50% of project cost needed. Pending
grant is not secured. $1.7M in cash match
has been identified with exiting funding for
the project.

Facilities $ 3,249,
900 Yes Grant pending No 3 Medium
26 50/50 Sidewalk Program
Sidewalk Repairs (ADA). Funds backlog of sidewalk safety and accessibility repairs through the City’s shared-cost 50/50 program to address cracked and uneven sidewalks citywide.
50%–100% of program cost needed.

Measure FF may support the City’s share
beginning FY27, but annual availability is
limited to approximately $3M citywide.

Pedestrian/ADA $ 14,000,000 Backlog Measure BB; Measure FF; State Gas Tax Yes Various Medium
27 MLK Civic Center Annex Modernernization
(1947 Center)
Facility Modernization. Addresses deferred maintenance through seismic upgrades, HVAC, electrical, elevator replacement, hazardous materials abatement, and ADA improvements.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Facilities $ 18,306,000 Yes None Yes 4 Medium 28 MLK Civic Center Building Modernization
(2180 Milvia)
Facility Modernization. Replaces end-of-life mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, addresses hazardous materials, and includes waterproofing and ADA improvements for the 89,000 sq. ft. civic building.Need exterior envelope waterproofing. ADA Improvements are included.
100% of project cost needed. Deferred
maintenance remains unfunded; no
dedicated funding source beyond baseline
corrective maintenance.

Facilities $ 11,745,
040 Assessment None No 1 Medium
29 Animal Services Facility Modernization
Facility Modernization. Repairs roofing, HVAC, drainage, electrical, plumbing, and interior finishes to address deferred maintenance and improve operational efficiency.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Facilities $ 1,995,400 Yes None No 2 Medium Project Summary: This set of facility, seismic, and accessibility projects strengthens the City’s civic infrastructure by addressing life-safety risks, modernizing aging public buildings, and ensuring essential services remain resilient, functional, and accessible for decades to come. Together, these investments reduce long-term liability, improve ADA compliance, and advance a safer, more reliable built environment that supports community well-being and equitable access to public services.

Total Reccomended Projects: 11
Total Amount: $97,445,061
Public Works
Item # Projects Description/Justification Percentage of Full Funding Needed Category Est. Cost Conceptual Design done?
Potential additional
funding source
Immediate
safety
consideration
Council District Dept Priority
Project Summary: This set of facility, seismic, and accessibility projects strengthens the City’s civic infrastructure by addressing life-safety risks, modernizing aging public buildings, and ensuring essential services remain resilient, functional, and accessible for decades to come. Together, these investments reduce long-term liability, improve ADA compliance, and advance a safer, more reliable built environment that supports community well-being and equitable access to public services. 30 Public Safety Building Modernization
Fa
cility Modernization. Updates the 24-hour essential services building by repairing roof leaks, improving interior finishes, replacing doors and hardware, and completing accessibility upgrades.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Facilities $ 8,404,398 No None No 4 Medium 31 West Berkeley Family Wellness Center
Modernization
Facility Modernization. Repairs and upgrades windows, flooring, HVAC, seismic components, electrical systems, and ADA features to address deferred maintenance.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities; scope not included in
current T1 improvements.

Facilities $ 6,500,000 No None No 1 High 32 South Berkeley Senior Center
Improvements
Mechanical System Upgrade. Replaces end-of-life HVAC and related mechanical components to ensure reliable operations at the senior center.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities; scope not included in
current T1 improvements.

Facilities $ 3,900,000 Yes None No 3 High 33 ADA Self Evaluation Barrier Removal
Projects
ADA Barrier Removal. Funds backlog of accessibility improvements required under the ADA Transition Plan to address path-of-travel, restroom, signage, and facility access barriers.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 4,341,534 Backlog None No Various Medium 33a Fire Department Warehouse
45 items, including: Ramps, Doors, Signage, and Restrooms. 100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 63,400 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 2 Medium
33b Fire Station #1
51 items, including: Parking, Curb Ramps, Path of Travel, Doors, Signage, Restrooms, Break/Conference Room, Accessible Showers, and Reach Ranges.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 49,000 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 2 Medium

Total Reccomended Projects: 11
Total Amount: $97,445,061
Public Works
Item # Projects Description/Justification Percentage of Full Funding Needed Category Est. Cost Conceptual Design done?
Potential additional
funding source
Immediate
safety
consideration
Council District Dept Priority
Project Summary: This set of facility, seismic, and accessibility projects strengthens the City’s civic infrastructure by addressing life-safety risks, modernizing aging public buildings, and ensuring essential services remain resilient, functional, and accessible for decades to come. Together, these investments reduce long-term liability, improve ADA compliance, and advance a safer, more reliable built environment that supports community well-being and equitable access to public services. 33c Fire Station #2 56 items, including: Parking, Path of Travel, Doors, Signage, Restrooms, Dr
inking Fountains, and Reach Ranges.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 74,000 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 4 Medium
33d Fire Station #3 36 items, including: Path of Travel, Doors, Signage, and Restrooms. 100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 64,000 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 8 Medium
33e Fire Station #5
50 items, including: Path of Travel, Stairs, Doors, Signage, Restrooms, and Benches.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 112,000 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 3 Medium
33f Fire Station #7 69 items, including: Parking, Path of Travel, Elevators, Stairs, Doors, Signage, Restrooms, Break/Conference Room, and Accessible Showers. 100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 136,500 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 6 Medium
33g Aquatic Park
378 items, including: Parking, Curb Ramps, Path of Travel, Ramps, Stairs, Doors, Signage, Restrooms, Drinking Fountains, Outdoor Sports Areas, Play Area, Sinks, Picnic Areas, Reach Ranges, Benches, Fitting/Dressing Rooms, Fishing Piers, and Trails.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 753,000 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 2 Medium
33h Berkeley Yacht Club
278 items, including: Curb Ramps, Path of Travel, Stairs, Doors, Counters, Signage, Restrooms, Food Service Tables, Break/Conference Room, Picnic Areas, Accessible Showers, and Laundry Rooms.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 604,000 B acklog
Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 1 Medium
33i Center Street Garage and Commercial
Space
191 items, including: Parking, Path of Travel, Elevators, Stairs, Doors, Signage, Restrooms, Drinking Fountains, and Reach Ranges. 100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 365,000 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 1 Medium
33j Cultural Arts Center & Theater
131 items, including: Parking, Curb Ramps, Path of Travel, Stairs, Doors, Counters, Signage, Restrooms, Drinking Fountains, Assembly Areas, Break/Conference Room, and Sinks.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 200,000 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 3 Medium
33k MLK Jr. Civic Center Park 120 items including: Path of Travel, Stairs, Doors, Counters, Signage, Restrooms.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 149,668 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 1 Medium

Total Reccomended Projects: 11
Total Amount: $97,445,061
Public Works
Item # Projects Description/Justification Percentage of Full Funding Needed Category Est. Cost Conceptual Design done?
Potential additional
funding source
Immediate
safety
consideration
Council District Dept Priority
Project Summary: This set of facility, seismic, and accessibility projects strengthens the City’s civic infrastructure by addressing life-safety risks, modernizing aging public buildings, and ensuring essential services remain resilient, functional, and accessible for decades to come. Together, these investments reduce long-term liability, improve ADA compliance, and advance a safer, more reliable built environment that supports community well-being and equitable access to public services. 33l Veterans Memorial Hall
145 items, including: Path of Travel, Stairs, Doors, Counters, Signage, Res
trooms, Drinking Fountains, Assembly Areas, Break/Conference Room, and Sinks.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 1,297,211 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 1 Medium
33m Rent Stabilization Board Office
131 items, including Path of Travel, Stairs, Doors, Counters, Signage, Restrooms, Drinking Fountains, Assembly Areas, Break/Conference Room, and Sinks.
100% of project cost needed. City lacks
alternative funding sources or immediate
grant opportunities.

Pedestrian/Accessibility $ 473,755 Backlog Funded annual in CIP for
$250,000/year total for
program
No 1 Medium
Total - Recommended PW Projects $ 97,445,061

Bond Measure Proposed Projects
Total Reccomended Projects: 4
Total Amount: $102,272,678
Fire
Item # Projects Description/Justification Percentage of full funding needed Category Est. Cost Conceptual Design done?
Potential additional
funding source
Immediate
safety
consideration
Council District Dept
Priority
35 Fire Station 4 Replacement (1900 Marin)
Facility Modernization. Station 4 is at end of life, undersized for current and future operational needs, and unable to safely support expanded staffing and a second ambulance unit.

Replacement also enables a cost-saving expansion into the adjacent roadway, avoiding the higher cost of relocation. 100% of project cost needed. Grant
opportunities for fire station
replacement are extremely limited; full
bond funding would be required.

Facilities $48,050,297.94 Yes No Yes 5 High
36 Fire Station 6 Replacement (999 Cedar)
Facility Modernization. Station 6 is at end of life and too small to meet projected service demands. A full replacement is required to support expanded staffing, modern apparatus, and safe working conditions for firefighters.
100% of project cost needed. Grant
opportunities for fire station
replacement are extremely limited; full
bond funding would be required.

Facilities $22,243,
520.43 Yes No Yes 1 High
37 Fire/EMS/Police Dispatch Center Remodel (2100 MLK)
Facility Modernization. The 911 Dispatch Center requires renovation to handle rising call volumes, modernize critical infrastructure, and create a safer, efficient workspace.

Improvements include expanding the operations floor,
upgrading technology and HVAC systems, and adding training and wellness spaces to support operational readiness and staff retention.
100% of project cost needed. Dispatch
center renovation is not eligible for
significant state or federal grant
funding; bond funding is necessary.

Facilities $3,978,860.00 Yes No Yes 1 High
38 Fire Training Center Replacement (Harrison x 8-9th)
Facility Modernization. The current training facility is undersized, located in a residential neighborhood, and unable to support essential training activities, scheduling needs, or parking demands. A new, purpose-built training center is required to meet the operational needs of a modern fire department.
100% of project cost needed. Grant
opportunities for fire station
replacement are extremely limited; full
bond funding would be required.

Facilities $28,000,000.00 Partial No Yes 1 High
Total - Recommended Fire Projects $102,272,678.37
Project Summary: These projects modernize essential emergency response facilities, strengthening the City’s long- term resilience and ability to protect public safety amid evolving climate and operational demands. Together, they advance a future-ready infrastructure system that harmonizes with the community’s broader goals for safety, reliability, and sustainable investment.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

ACTION CALENDAR
March 17,2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Dave White, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office Subject: Presentation and Discussion of Community Survey Results and Direction Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election

RECOMMENDATION
Review the results of the community survey and provide direction to the City Manager and City Attorney regarding potential ballot measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, including whether to:

1. Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare draft ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure for the November 3, 2026, ballot to fund priority infrastructure investments, consistent with the results of the community survey and input received from the City Council at the March 17, 2026, work session;

2. Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare draft ballot language for a potential 0.5 percent increase in the City’s sales and use tax for the November 3, 2026, ballot to address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit and support essential City services; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to conduct a second community survey of likely Berkeley voters to test refined ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond and a 0.5 percent increase in the sales and use tax in the context of the anticipated November 2026 ballot environment.

SUMMARY
This item presents the results of the City’s first community survey related to potential revenue measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election and requests City Council direction on next steps for ballot measure development.

The survey was administered by Lake Research Partners from February 19–23, 2026 and tested voter priorities and support for a potential General Obligation (GO) bond at varying funding levels, as well as voter sentiment regarding a potential increase to the

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

sales and use tax to address the City’s projected General Fund budget deficit that is currently estimated at approximately $27million1.

This survey effort builds on City Council policy guidance provided at the December 2, 2025, worksession regarding priority infrastructure categories and funding concepts. In parallel with the statistically valid voter survey, City staff are soliciting feedback on potential City Council supported projects from focus groups, commissions, and joint community meetings across Council districts.

City Council direction provided at this meeting will guide staff’s next steps, including refinement of project categories, preparation of potential ballot language, and the design of a second, more targeted survey to test refined ballot language with likely voters.

Key findings from the survey include:
 Improved voter sentiment about Berkeley’s direction. In February 2026, 56% of likely voters said Berkeley is headed in the right direction (up from 47% in May 2024), representing the highest “right direction” result since 2016.  Initial support, exceeding the required 2/3rds threshold, for infrastructure investment through a bond measure. A potential $300 million bond measure received 71% support, while a potential $200 million bond received 70% support, indicating little difference in voter support between the two funding levels.  Support remained even after exposure to opposing arguments. When voters were presented with both supportive and opposing statements, support for the $300M bond remained at approximately 72%, suggesting durable voter support.  There was majority support for a sales and use tax increase to address the City’s budget deficit. Approximately 60% of voters initially supported the proposed 0.5% sales and use tax increase, declining slightly to 58% after exposure to pro and con arguments, remaining above the simple majority threshold required for approval.  Top voter priorities include infrastructure resilience, safety, and accessibility. The most frequently identified priorities included climate resilience infrastructure (35%), sidewalk and accessibility improvements (31%), and stormwater upgrades (24%). 1 Represents the City’s current projected deficit after an update to the City’s projected revenues that were presented to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee on February 26, 2026. The estimated deficit will be further refined to reflect resource needs of other funds that are experiencing deficits and resource constraints (i.e., Off Street Parking Fund, Internal Service fund for 1947 Center Street) and the results of ongoing labor negotiations.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

 Individually ranked projects that are important include:
o Renovating the 911 dispatch center to handle higher call volumes and modernize critical infrastructure;
o Improving safety and accessibility by repairing cracked and uneven sidewalks and upgrading curb ramps citywide; and
o Making fire stations citywide safer and more energy efficient by replacing fire stations that are no longer able to meet demands with new stations that run on green energy.

These findings provide an initial indication that Berkeley voters are receptive to infrastructure investment and generating resources to address the City’s deficit, while also highlighting the importance of project prioritization and clear ballot language.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The community survey process, including up to two rounds of survey testing, is funded through an existing contract with Lake Research Partners with a not-to-exceed amount of $100,000. No additional appropriation is required for the survey work. Any future fiscal impacts associated with potential ballot measures will be presented to City Council as part of ballot language development and implementation planning.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This project is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goals to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities and to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

Berkeley faces significant unfunded capital infrastructure needs and a growing deferred maintenance backlog across public safety facilities, community-serving facilities, and critical infrastructure such as sidewalks, ADA accessibility improvements, seismic upgrades, and climate-resilient assets. Many City facilities and right-of-way assets were constructed decades ago and no longer meet current standards for accessibility, seismic safety, climate resilience, or modern service delivery. Annual capital allocations and existing funding sources are insufficient to address these needs at the scale and pace required, resulting in increased risk of facility failure, escalating repair costs, service disruptions, and inequitable conditions across neighborhoods. Current estimates indicate that Berkeley’s long-term infrastructure needs exceed $1.5 billion. While a bond measure of approximately $300 million would not fully address these needs, it would represent a significant step toward stabilizing and modernizing critical civic infrastructure.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

At the December 2, 2025, worksession2, City Council provided direction to staff to explore potential ballot measure concepts for the November 2026 election, including:
• Public safety facilities (e.g., fire stations, emergency response and dispatch facilities);
• Community facilities and quality-of-life investments (e.g., parks, recreation centers, pools, and community centers); and
• Critical infrastructure and accessibility improvements (e.g., sidewalks, ADA compliance, seismic upgrades, and climate resilience).

That feedback informed the structure, categories, and framing of the community survey instrument developed by Lake Research Partners in coordination with City staff.

On January 27, 2026, City Council approved a referral to the City Manager to include, as part of the upcoming community survey for the November 2026 election, a question assessing the perspectives of likely Berkeley voters on a potential increase to the City’s sales and use tax rate3. More specifically, the referral requested that the survey test voter interest in increasing Berkeley’s sales and use tax rate from 10.25 percent to

10.75 percent, consistent with rates adopted by several neighboring Alameda County jurisdictions. The item was framed in the context of generating resources to address the City’s projected General Fund budget shortfall and ongoing fiscal challenges. The referral further emphasized that adding such a question to the survey would provide City Council with data to better understand resident perspectives on revenue options in parallel with feedback on infrastructure priorities, and to inform future policy discussions related to fiscal sustainability and potential ballot measure development.

Summary of Community Survey Results (February 2026)
To ensure the City’s ballot measure development process is grounded in statistically valid voter data, the City conducted an RFP which resulted in a contract with Lake Research Partners to design and administer up to two community surveys of Berkeley voters (Contract No: 32600095)4. The survey tested voter priorities related to infrastructure investment and funding mechanisms, including General Obligation Bonds at multiple funding levels and an exploratory question regarding a potential sales and use tax increase to reduce the City’s projected deficit in the General Fund. The findings below summarize key topline results from the February 19–23, 2026 survey and provide context for City Council discussion and direction on potential next steps. 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-12- 02%20Special%20Item%2002%20Discussion%20Regarding%20Potential%20Ballot.pdf 3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2026-01- 27%20Item%2017%20Refer%20to%20the%20City%20Manager%20to%20include.pdf 4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2026-01- 20%20Item%2002%20Ratification%20of%20City%20Manager%20Action.pdf

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

Comprehensive question-by-question results, including demographic and subgroup breakouts, are provided in Attachment 1.

Survey Fielding Window:

The community survey was conducted February 19–23, 2026, using live telephone interviews and text-to-online methodologies to reach a representative sample of likely November 2026 voters.

Survey Methodology:
 Field dates: February 19–23, 2026
 Sample size: 500 likely November 2026 voters
 Mode: Live telephone interviews and text-to-online
 Margin of error: ± 4.4% at the 95% confidence level
 Split samples: A/B testing of funding levels and message framing to evaluate voter support under different scenarios.

The sample was stratified by age, gender, race, and region of the city to reflect the expected composition of likely voters.

Voter Attitudes about Berkeley:

Respondents were asked whether they believe the City of Berkeley is generally headed in the right direction or on the wrong track.

Q3. Would you say that the city of Berkeley is generally headed in the right direction or the wrong
direction?
Response Percent
Right Direction 56%
Wrong Direction 22%
(Don’t know) 23%
A majority of likely voters believe Berkeley is heading in the right direction.

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

Job Performance of the City:

Respondents were also asked to rate the job the City of Berkeley is doing providing services to residents.

Q4. How would you rate the job the City of Berkeley is doing in providing services to its residents — excellent, good, fair, or poor?
Response Percent
Excellent 11%
Good 45%
Just Fair 32%
Poor 7%
(Don’t know) 5%
Combined Rating
Response Percent
Excellent/Good 56%
Just Fair/Poor 39%
Overall perceptions of City service delivery are positive, with a majority (56%) rating services as excellent or good.

Top Issues and Highest Priorities for Voters
Q5. Now I’m going to read some different issues that have been identified as important needs in the city of Berkeley. If you had to choose, which one or two of the following would be the highest priority for you personally in the city of Berkeley? Response Percent
Safeguarding critical infrastructure from
the threats of climate change, including
flooding and wildfires
35%
Increasing Berkeley's safety and
accessibility by improving sidewalks, curb
ramps, and pathways
31%
Reducing pollution flowing to the Bay and
flood risk by upgrading storm drains and
installing green infrastructure
24%
Improving parks, playgrounds, recreation
facilities, dog parks, and community
centers
23%
Replacing public safety facilities such as
fire stations and emergency response
buildings that are at the end of their
useful life
22%

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

Improving the Berkeley waterfront and
shoreline by protecting waterfront parks
and repairing docks
15%
Advancing the Berkeley Civic Center
Vision by restoring and modernizing
historic buildings for community, arts, and
civic use
11%
None 5%
Don’t know 4%
Refused 1%
Survey Results for Potential Ballot Measures
Q6. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond. Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure to provide funding to replace aging fire stations and emergency response facilities, repair parks and recreation facilities, promote climate change resiliency, and invest in public buildings and infrastructure to create safer, more resilient community spaces by issuing bonds of 300 million dollars, at an average rate of 22 dollars and 14 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
Response Percent
Yes - strongly 42%
Yes - not so strongly 31%
Lean yes 14%
Undecided/DK 16%
Lean no 3%
No - not so strongly 6%
No - strongly 11%
(Refused) 1%
Total Yes 71%
Total No 12%

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

Q7. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond. Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure to provide funding to replace aging fire stations and emergency response facilities, repair parks and recreation facilities, promote climate change resiliency, and invest in public buildings and infrastructure to create safer, more resilient community spaces by issuing bonds of 200 million dollars, at an average rate of 18 dollars and 47 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight? If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
Response Percent
Yes - strongly 36%
Yes - not so strongly 17%
Lean yes 18%
Undecided/DK 15%
Lean no 2%
No - not so strongly 3%
No - strongly 9%
(Refused) 0%
Total Yes 70%
Total No 14%
6/7.Combined Initial GO Bond
Response Percent
Yes - strongly 39%
Yes - not so strongly 16%
Lean yes 16%
Undecided/DK 16%
Lean no 2%
No - not so strongly 3%
No - strongly 8%
(Refused) 1%
Total Yes 70%
Total No 13%

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

Q8. This is a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax in the City of Berkeley to help address the City’s projected budget deficit of $32 million. Shall the City of Berkeley measure to increase funding for essential city services, such as 9-1-1 emergency response; neighborhood police services; fire prevention/protection; youth and senior services; community cultural programs; attracting/ retaining small businesses; and funding for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, by adopting a ½ percent sales tax, providing about $9,000,000 to $10,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds staying local, be adopted?
If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
Response Percent
Yes - strongly 37%
Yes - not so strongly 15%
Lean yes 8%
Undecided/DK 11%
Lean no 5%
No - not so strongly 5%
No - strongly 10%
(Refused) 0%
Total Yes 60%
Total No 29%
Q12. Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in. Is that extremely important, very important, moderately important, slightly important, or not important at all?
Sorted by “Extremely important” Percent
12u.Renovate 911 dispatch 29%
D12t.Replace fire stations 27%
12p.Repair sidewalks 27%
D12f.Upgrade park restrooms 24%
C12s.Repair fire stations 22%
C12b.Earthquake protections for
buildings
18%
12l.Protect Waterfront paths 18%
D12r.Repair public buildings - w/ Civic
Center
18%
12o.Mental health building 17%
C12q.Repair public buildings 17%

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

12a.Repair/rebuild community centers 15%
12d.Safe/accessible playgrounds 15%
D12c.Earthquake protections - specific
buildings
14%
C12e.Add park restrooms 13%
12h.Repair park paths/parking lots 12%
12n.South Berkeley green space 12%
12j.Repair recreational facilities 11%
12m.Repair seawall 11%
12i.Sports fields irrigation 9%
12k.Repair Marina's docks 8%
12g.New dog parks 4%
Key Community Survey Findings:
 Voters report generally positive attitudes about the City’s direction and services (56% right direction; 56% excellent/good job performance).  Top infrastructure priorities are climate resilience (35%), sidewalk/accessibility (31%), and stormwater/green infrastructure (24%).
 Initial GO bond support at both tested levels: $300M (71% yes) and $200M (70% yes).
 After hearing pro/con arguments, GO bond support remains above two-thirds when combined (67% yes).
 Sales tax support is majority: 60% initially, 58% after pro/con arguments.  Project importance ratings place the highest “extremely important” emphasis on 911 dispatch modernization (29%), fire station replacement (27%), and sidewalk repair (27%).

Next Steps
The following provides a high level overview of next steps and key milestones:
 In the event City Council is supportive of advancing the proposed GO bond and increase in the sales and use tax, then city staff would work to refine ballot language based on input received from City Council and the results of the first community survey.
 If City Council is supportive of advancing a second community survey, city staff would work with Lake Research Partners to implement the second community

Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026

survey in April 2026 with results presented to City Council in late April / early May 2026.
 Based on the results of the first and second (if administered) community survey(s) and the input received from the broad community engagement campaign that is underway, a refined project list for the proposed GO bond would be presented to the City Council. The refined project list will also reflect additional cost estimating and resources needed to implement the GO bond.
 Based on City Council direction, final ballot language would be presented to the City Council in July 2026 to meet statutory deadlines that require any measure to be placed on the ballot be submitted to Alameda County by August 7, 2026.

BACKGROUND
The City’s exploration of potential revenue measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election is grounded in a series of City Council actions, long-range planning frameworks, and sustained cross-departmental analysis intended to address Berkeley’s long-standing and growing capital infrastructure needs.

On June 17, 2025, City Council referred to the City Manager an item to assess the potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support capital improvements to Fire Department facilities. On September 30, 2025, City Council subsequently referred an additional item to assess the potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support improvements to recreation and community facilities. These referrals reflected Council’s recognition that critical public safety and community-serving facilities face aging infrastructure, increasing maintenance backlogs, and operational constraints that cannot be fully addressed through existing funding sources.

This work builds on the City’s long-range infrastructure planning framework established through Vision 2050, which emerged from Measure R (2018). Measure R directed the Mayor to convene a panel of subject matter experts to guide the City toward a climate- smart, technologically advanced, integrated, and efficient infrastructure future. The City Council accepted the Vision 2050 Framework in 2020, and in 2025, the Mayor convened a Task Force to review and update the recommendations contained in the original Vision 2050 report. Vision 2050 provides the overarching policy lens through which potential 2026 ballot measure projects are being evaluated, emphasizing equity, public health and safety, climate resilience, sustainability, and integrated systems planning.

At the December 2, 2025, City Council worksession, Council reviewed staff’s preliminary assessment of the City’s significant unfunded infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs and provided initial policy guidance to explore a potential General Obligation (GO) bond for the November 2026 ballot, with a funding capacity of up to approximately $300 million. Staff noted that while a bond of this scale would not fully address the City’s estimated infrastructure needs—currently exceeding $1.5 billion—it