Berkeley City Council Adopts FY 2026 Budget with Amendments on June 26, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Berkeley City Council Regular Meeting – June 26, 2025
This meeting of the Berkeley City Council, originally scheduled for June 24, 2025, extended into the early morning of June 26, 2025, and was dominated by a lengthy debate on the FY 2026 budget. The Council ultimately adopted a budget amended by a substitute motion, which reduced funding for the Small Sites Program while increasing support for the Marina Fund and freezing certain positions. Other actions included approval of a resolution on UCSF Children’s Hospital Oakland, renewal of the Tourism Business Improvement District, and numerous consent calendar items.
Consent Calendar
The Council approved the consent calendar in a single block, which included second readings of several tax rate ordinances (Items A–L, continued from June 17, 2025), amendments to the coordinated pricing algorithms ordinance (Item 1), minutes approval (Item 2), a letter to Alameda County on Measure W funding (Item 3), a contract with Cultural Planning Group LLC for a resilient arts and culture plan (Item 4), reaffirmation of the investment policy (Item 5), the appropriations limit for FY 2026 (Item 6), first readings of tax rate ordinances for Fire Protection (Item 7) and Firefighting/Wildfire Prevention (Item 8), funding reservations for the Maudelle Miller Shirek Community project (Item 9) and for Housing Trust Fund projects (Item 10), donations for Meals on Wheels (Item 11), Shelter Plus Care grant renewals (Item 12), and several contracts and amendments (Items 13–21). Council consent items included a resolution supporting the Berkeley High School All Class Reunion (Item 22).
Public Comments & Testimony
Public comment was taken on the budget and on non-agenda matters. Several speakers expressed support for increased funding for the Small Sites Program and for the Marina Fund. No speakers raised hands for the final non-agenda comment period.
Discussion Items
Urgent Item – UCSF Children’s Hospital Oakland: A resolution calling for delay of UCSF Health’s integration plan at Children’s Hospital Oakland until legal proceedings are resolved was adopted. The resolution was authored by Councilmember Tregub and co-authored by Mayor Ishii and Councilmembers Bartlett and Taplin.
Public Hearing – Tourism Business Improvement District (BTBID): The Council held a public hearing and voted to re‑establish the BTBID for a 10‑year term starting July 1, 2025, and to modify the existing term to end on June 30, 2025.
Public Hearing – FY 2026 Budget Adoption: The majority of the meeting was devoted to the FY 2026 budget. Two competing proposals emerged: a substitute motion from Councilmember Kesarwani and a main motion from Mayor Ishii. After extensive negotiation, the differences were narrowed to one key area: the allocation for the Small Sites Program. The substitute motion allocated $2.5 million for small sites, while the mayor’s proposal allocated $3.9 million. The substitute motion also included a freeze on the investigator position, additional funding for the Marina Fund, and a three‑month freeze on the risk manager position. The mayor’s proposal included a six‑month freeze on the risk manager and no freeze on the investigator, with additional funding for deportation defense. The Council voted on the substitute motion first.
Action Items: Following the budget vote, the Council adopted the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (Item 25) in the amount of $829,213,359 in gross appropriations, as amended by the budget actions. It also approved the borrowing of up to $61 million through Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (Item 26).
Key Outcomes
- FY 2026 Budget Adoption: The substitute motion (Councilmember Kesarwani’s proposal) passed by a vote of 6–2–1 (Councilmembers Kesarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Blackaby, Lunapara, and Humbert in favor; Councilmembers O’Keefe and Mayor Ishii opposed; Councilmember Tregub abstained). The budget includes $2.5 million for the Small Sites Program (a $1.4 million reduction from the original allocation), a 3‑month freeze on the risk manager position, a freeze on the investigator position, $126,374 for the Marina Fund deficit, and funding for speed bumps, Elmwood Music Festival, YouthWorks, and other priorities. The deportation defense fund was allocated $73,650.
- UCSF Children’s Hospital Oakland Resolution: Adopted unanimously.
- Tourism BID Renewal: Approved.
- Annual Appropriations Ordinance: Adopted as amended by the budget vote.
- Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes: Approved for up to $61 million.
Note: The meeting date on the official agenda was June 24, 2025, but the meeting extended into the early morning of June 26, 2025, consistent with the date provided for this summary. The transcript reflects a late‑night session ending after 1:00 AM.
Meeting Transcript
And and that's it. So I actually want to propose that maybe we try and vote on the things that we all agree on and then separate. How do folks feel about that? Does that sound okay? Because I don't want us to choose between because there are some very key differences here that I feel like are actually kind of small. So I because I feel like we agree on this uh chart at the top, minus the item um line 13, which is the small sites, and um, but but for F and G docs for the additional 250K coming from T1, not the initial, but like the additional I think we agree on that. So I I'd maybe like and then and then I think the other things that are not controversial are um the 7k for the speed bump um from council member Bartlett's office and um the 7k from the D8 office budget for the Elmwood Music Festival. I'm just trying to think if there are other things that should be included in the this initial. I'm open to suggestions from my brown act colleagues just to make sure I'm capturing everything. Oh you want to turn to your brown colleagues. Go ahead. The ODPA position is also a difference between the two. Yeah, it is, but I'm talking about just voting to approve the recommendations initially in in the initial proposal chart, um, and then addressing some of the other additional things that we were talking about separately. Does that make sense? Yeah, council member track up. Yeah, I I appreciate the elegance of that. The one thing I'm having some trouble with is I would feel better. No, I could because I think the revenue sources are different. You are suggesting a three-month uh saving for the risk manager position, ours is six months, and then the I I guess the other revenue source that's different is freezing one position at OPDA versus not. And I am if someone can you know help me be more comfortable with the fact that if we do what is the proposal, um, that we would have somehow still be able to keep expenditures with revenues. I would I will feel more comfortable about this. Sure. Can I I'm gonna answer his question? Okay, and then I have a suggestion. Sure. So my suggestion is that um, sorry, can we can I share my screen? Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. We're gonna think we're gonna land it soon. Okay, I know we're almost there, y'all. We got this, it's okay. Um, so what I'm suggesting is that we approve this initial amount of recommendations, um, but separating out the small sites piece because that was a contentious piece. And and so that would be lines through 15 minus line 13 for the small sites, and that was already set and clear. Everything else below is just is extra that we're trying to accept from the friendly amendment. So those revenues are not connected to what is above. Does that make sense? Yeah. Does that make sense? Um, so oh okay. Clarifying question. Yeah, clarifying question about the F and G doc line item. Yeah, so if the F and G, sorry, and then the F and G thank you line item would be instead of the 500k total, it would just be the 250 K for T1, which is what we also agree on. Okay. Thank you for asking that question. Does that is that clear, Councilmember Casarwani? Um, yeah, so so I think that um so so this is my proposal that we can um sever, let's see, because it seems like we do have to sever the small sites issue and just like take an up or down vote on that. And um, but but I I I'm not sure how we can reconcile the rest of the budgets to to Councilmember Trago's point. I am using different revenue sources to pay for things, and and we don't have exactly the same things, right? Because you've augmented the undocumented, and I have not right. So none of this below, none of this below would be included in this item.
openpublica.com