Berkeley City Council Special Meeting on Ballot Measures – March 17, 2026

At a special meeting on March 17, 2026, the Berkeley City Council received a presentation on community survey results and discussed potential ballot measures for the November 3, 2026 general municipal election. The main options were a $300 million general obligation infrastructure bond and a half-cent general fund sales tax increase. Survey results showed support above the required thresholds for both measures. The council unanimously approved directing staff to prepare draft ballot language and conduct a second community survey.

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar items were listed. The meeting had only one agenda item: presentation and discussion of community survey results and direction regarding potential ballot measures.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Dr. Stephen Albert (District 5 resident) criticized the 500-sample survey as too small to be meaningful.
• Dr. Celeste Marks stated the sample was too small and not representative of the city's demographics.
• Former Mayor Gordon Wozniak thanked staff, noted that property tax increases have been driven by parcel taxes (not debt service tax, which declined 50% over 30 years), and emphasized leveraging T1 bond dollars for grants as a powerful selling point.
• Linda Alberti expressed concern about slow 50/50 sidewalk program and questioned past spending on Hopkins corridor bike lanes.
• A speaker from the Commission on Disability urged a separate funding set-aside within the bond for accessibility projects, warning they would otherwise compete against costly civic center seismic upgrades.
• A speaker criticized the half-cent sales tax as regressive and suggested exploring less regressive funding methods.
• Former councilmember L. A. Wood strongly supported civic center seismic upgrades and FEMA grant applications, and highlighted long-term savings from bringing city offices back into city-owned buildings.
• Former Mayor Bates praised the process and encouraged conducting a second poll (or even two more) focused on refining messaging and arguments.
• Ann Harlow (Berkeley Historical Society) supported allocating enough funds to complete the Old City Hall project, noting the building is seismically unsafe.
• David Flores (Executive Director of Berkeley Community Media) supported seismic retrofits for historic buildings, noting cost escalation if delayed.
• Several online commenters raised concerns about survey sample size (Chad, Carolyn, and others).
• Corey requested consideration of taxing square footage rather than assessed value for equity.
• Kelly Hamergren argued many projects listed are already funded by existing taxes, criticized low meeting attendance and canceled meetings of the FF oversight committee.
• Multiple speakers supported restoring Old City Hall and the Veterans Memorial Building (Leila Moncharsh, Christine Uren, Isaac Worshower, Arlene).
• Tony noted the city has burned through five public works directors in 15 years and called for a chief engineer and funding for a drainage plan.

Presentation and Discussion

• Deputy City Manager David White presented infrastructure funding challenges: a $1.87 billion unfunded need, average annual infrastructure spending of $39 million, and the sunsetting of Measure T1 (which leveraged $100 million into $183 million with grants).
• White described a preliminary project list of over 30 items in three buckets: community facilities/quality of life (parks, restrooms, dog parks, cultural centers, waterfront), public safety (fire station modernization, 911 dispatch), and critical infrastructure (seismic upgrades, ADA improvements, 50/50 sidewalk program), all with a climate resilience lens.
• David Merman (Lake Street Partners) presented survey results among 500 likely voters (margin of error ±4.4%):
  • 56% said city is going in right direction (up from 47% in 2024).
  • 56% rated city services good/excellent (up from 51% in 2021).
  • Top infrastructure priorities: safeguarding critical infrastructure from climate change (35%); increasing safety/accessibility of sidewalks (35%); reducing pollution/flood risk (28%); improving parks/playgrounds (25%); replacing public safety facilities (23%).
  • Combined support for a $200M or $300M GO bond: 70% yes (39% strongly yes), 13% no, 16% undecided.
  • Support was essentially identical for $200M (70% yes) and $300M (71% yes); the $300M version tested slightly higher.
  • After hearing pro/con arguments, support dipped to 67% yes (just over the two-thirds threshold).
  • For a half-cent sales tax: initial support 60% yes (above 50% threshold); after arguments 58% yes.
  • Specific high priorities: renovating 911 dispatch (29% extremely important), replacing fire stations (27%), repairing sidewalks (27%), upgrading park restrooms (25%).
• Merman noted that levels of support were consistent across broad geographic areas (hills, central/south, west) and across demographics, with slightly higher support from younger voters and renters.
• Councilmember O'Keefe asked how the measures could address the structural deficit; White replied that the sales tax would bring in ~$9M/year (partially offsetting a $27-30M deficit) and the bond would allow shifting staff off general fund.
• Councilmember O'Keefe also asked about tax burden relative to neighboring cities; staff stated the $300M bond would cost about $22 per $100,000 of assessed value (~$121/year for median home), and the sales tax would bring Berkeley to 10.75% (matching Oakland, Albany, etc.).
• Councilmember Triebe asked about factors that could affect support between polling and election; Merman cited events (new wars), specific ballot language, and ballot crowding from other revenue measures.
• Councilmember Bartlett confirmed that the survey modeled likely voters for a mid-term election, which skews older.
• Councilmember Kesarwani questioned the statistical validity of the 500-sample survey; Merman explained it provides a margin of error of ±4.4% at 95% confidence.
• Mayor Ishikawa noted the importance of transparency, flexibility in ballot language, and ensuring projects reflect community priorities (especially equity and accessibility).

Key Outcomes

• Motion (by Councilmember Kesarwani): Direct the city manager to prepare draft ballot language for a $300 million general obligation infrastructure bond and a half-cent sales tax measure, and to conduct a second community survey testing actual ballot language and interactions with other likely ballot measures. The motion carried unanimously (9-0).
• Councilmember Blackaby urged inclusion of district equity and flexibility in project categories.
• Councilmember Humbert expressed support for the $300M bond but urged a focus on projects polling highest.
• Councilmember Triebe emphasized the importance of clearly communicating the full value of investments, including the cost of not investing, and supported the higher bond amount.
• Councilmember O'Keefe strongly supported the sales tax, arguing Berkeley had been "leaving money on the table."
• Vice Mayor Lunaparra supported the recommendations but noted concerns about the regressive nature of both taxes.
• Councilmember Bartlett encouraged district equity and a strong downtown civic center.
• The meeting was adjourned after the vote.