Okay, hello everyone.

Good afternoon.

I'm calling to order a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.

Today is Tuesday, May 19th.

It is 4:03 p.m.

Clerk, could you please start us off with a roll?

Okay.

Councilmember Casserwani is currently absent.

Councilmember Taplin is currently absent.

Councilmember Bartlett is currently absent.

Cousin.

Councilmember O'Keefe.

I'm here.

Here.

Unapara.

Here.

Present.

And Mayor Easy.

Here.

Okay.

Quorum is present.

All right.

So for our action calendar for this, we really have one item on here, which is the presentation and discussion of the second community survey results and direction regarding potential ballot measures for the November 3rd, 2026 General Municipal Election.

And I will pass it over to our city manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

We are excited, our esteemed panel of staff experts here, as well as our lake research partner firm that did the community survey.

They are online.

So we're excited to present the results of the community survey that was conducted for the $300 million geo bond for infrastructure and the half set sales and use tax measure.

We have a lot of information to go through, both on the uh results of the survey as well as an update on our project revisions that were largely driven by a lot of conversations with the community, conversations with council members, etc.

A reminder that we're not here tonight asking you to vote on ballot measure language or not.

We'll come back with that.

Um we're wanting the approval to move forward after you hear the presentation from staff and lake research partners.

So with that, uh we're excited to walk through all this, and I will turn it over to Deputy City Manager White.

Thank you, City Manager.

Good evening, mayor and city council.

Uh David White, Deputy City Manager.

Um, just to begin the presentation and explain a little bit about what we hope to accomplish this evening, just to amplify a little bit of what our city manager shared.

So we'll start off with some background and context just to set the stage uh for why we're here tonight.

Um subsequent to that, we are going to bring forward Lake Research Partners to talk about the results of the second community survey that we administered in April.

Then we are going to talk more specifically about uh the general obligation bond uh that is being proposed and some of its impacts.

And uh importantly, we're gonna talk about the project portfolio that we brought to you actually back in December of 2025, and I'll touch on in a little bit about all the work that's been done to help refine uh that project portfolio.

Sorry, can I just check uh Mr.

City Clerk?

Is our volume okay online?

Sorry about the interruption.

I just want to make sure folks at home can hear you okay.

Okay, I have other sources telling me that the volume is okay.

So, let's see.

Okay, I think we're good.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

And then after we talk about the general obligation bond, we'll talk about um the sales and use tax uh that is also proposed for the November 2026 ballot, and we'll conclude that discussion with next steps and the timeline moving forward.

So in front of you, uh is that up on the screen?

Uh sorry, Mark.

I think that's that we need to close this settings uh box.

Sorry about that again.

No, it's okay.

Oh, Mark, it's good.

Mark, we're good.

All right, great.

Sorry about that.

Ready, we're good.

We got this.

No problem.

So um what this slide just highlights are the recommended actions that are in front of you uh this evening.

Um we previously received direction from council to proceed with ballot language for a $300 million general obligation bond, and we're seeking council's affirmation to continue that hard work in partnership with our city attorney's office.

Secondly, with the team uh in front of you, we hope to unpack and discuss more about the project list, the infrastructure projects that are part of this package, and talk about what the state of that project list is, uh where changes have occurred, and to provide some recommendations about those projects as well.

And then lastly, similar to the general obligation bond, um council has given us direction to proceed with a half percent increase in the sales and use tax to address our structural deficit in our general fund.

And again, uh after we talk about how those proceeds could be used, uh seeking council's uh direction and affirmation to continue uh with that work.

So to talk a little bit more about uh context before we transition over to the community survey.

At a high level, the city's exploration of the 2026 ballot measures uh really reflect two significant and related realities that uh we're dealing with as a city.

Uh first and foremost, as all of us know, we have a significant unfunded infrastructure liability, anywhere from one and a half billion to two billion dollars.

So the general obligation bond provides a tremendously wonderful vehicle for us to be able to generate the resources needed to invest uh in our infrastructure uh to address issues of accessibility, resiliency, sustainability, and certainly to address issues of liability and reduce costs as we're able to advance those projects in the future.

And then secondly, secondly, as I mentioned, because of our general fund structural deficit, the sales and use tax provides a tremendous opportunity for us to be able to generate the resources needed to help address our structural deficit.

And this process has been multi-phased and it has been incredibly data informed as we'll go through this evening.

The work that we have accomplished has included council work sessions, follow-up and implementation of council referrals, uh infrastructure analysis, uh implementing statistically valid voter surveys, community and commission engagement, which we'll talk more about, and certainly continued refinement of our project priorities.

So with that, I'm gonna transition now to Lake Research Partners to talk about the results of the second community survey, and then certainly uh Mayor, if it's uh at your pleasure, we can stop, uh, respond to questions uh that pertain to the survey and then move to the second part of the presentation.

All right, so if uh I think that's my cue, and it's uh it's David Mervyn here at Lake Research Partners.

Can you all hear me all right?

Yes, we can hear you, excellent.

Good to be with the the council and and staff and uh appreciate the support from the the city staff in building these the survey and helping us uh achieve the uh results and the data we're about to show you.

Um, and uh as you know, we have been uh polling the city of Berkeley now for uh many years, uh various community surveys on many topics, including various ballot measures.

This is the second survey we've conducted this year.

And uh I'm gonna be presenting the both the overall findings and some analysis of those results.

Uh this is an overview, of course.

There are, you know, a lot more data in the full report, which is available to everyone.

And uh happy to take questions at the end.

So I'm gonna put on the screen here the uh presentation of the findings.

Let's make sure that appears.

Everyone see that alright.

Yes.

Excellent.

Uh so again, this is a survey of uh likely voters in the city of Berkeley.

It's conducted from the voter file methodologies combination of live phone interviews and text online.

Um, and it's representative of the electorate that we expect to turn out and vote in November of 2026 in the city.

Uh, and then and uh I'll show you the demographics in a second.

Just get to here we are.

Um this was conducted in the uh week of April 21st, 2026.

Um, data are stratified and weighted to be representative of the electorate in Berkeley margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 4.4%.

These are the demographics, more details on all of these available in the full report.

But it is uh probably representative across the city of again the likely voters we expect to turn out in November.

So as a general uh set of takeaways, we would say uh our main focus here after having tested a range of uh projects and options and priorities with voters in the earlier survey that was conducted in February.

This is a follow-up where we were bearing down on specific language for the uh general obligation bond and the sales tax uh measure for the city budget, um, and uh also testing these measures in the context of other measures that we expect to appear on the November ballot, particularly those having to do with revenue, because we know that that has an impact on how people vote and when they have multiple revenue measures to consider.

What we generally found is that both the general geo bond and the sales tax ballot measures have slightly lower support.

Uh, they were essentially identical to the uh with very slight adjustments to the versions of the measures we tested in February, and they both have majority support, uh, and they are both slightly above the threshold they would need to pass, uh, but they did both go down slightly from where they were in the February poll.

And that is uh possibly just a reflection of uh evolution over time, but also uh very likely affected by the crowded environment on the ballot, which we tested, and we'll show you the other measures that we tested along with these two.

Uh, that probably brings down a little bit the uh level of support when voters have so many revenue measures to consider.

Uh, nonetheless, nearly seven in 10 uh Berkeley voters are inclined to vote yes on the uh GO bond on the initial ballot, 69%.

If that were right on target, that would be just above the two-thirds uh vote needed to pass for that type of bond.

And then the sales tax measure also starts lower than it did in February, but it is at a above a majority of 52 percent.

And that again is just a couple of points over the threshold, the simple majority threshold to pass that type of a revenue measure.

So they were both at the moment in a position to pass, but obviously pretty close to the line in terms of being uh exceeding the threshold.

Um, when we test additional positive and negative information, as you know, we like to do these uh stress tests where we get positive and negative uh messages in equal equal time for both sides to simulate the sort of campaign and additional information that voters would get between now and when they would vote.

And when we do that, uh the geo bond, the support declines slightly, uh which means it just falls just below the threshold for 67, but it is still very close uh to that two-thirds threshold.

Interestingly, the sales tax measure, the support increases after people hear the arguments back and forth.

Um, and so our general conclusion is that both of these measures are in a position to pass.

Um, assuming there is a solid campaign that there is communication done to voters in support of each, it does appear, you know, based on past results, based on uh how close these are to the thresholds, it does appear that these would be in a position to pass, but it would require uh some information, some campaign uh in favor to maintain that support.

We also tested several other local and regional revenue measures, really for context.

We also found most of those also have strong support.

Uh, but the inclusion of so many uh such measures on the 26th ballot probably increases the tax sensitivity, which may be dampening a little bit, the support for these two.

So we'll start with the numbers on the on the bond.

Um, and just to remind everyone, this is how we described it.

We tried to keep these descriptions simple, but also uh very similar to what people would read on the ballot uh when they were voting, uh mentioning uh $300 million dollar general obligation bond, the improvements that it would fund, and noting the costs for property owners, 22 uh estimated 22.14 cents per 100,000 of property value.

Um, and uh so that's the the measure that people were voting on.

Very similar version of that, which we tested in February, would got 71% yes, 12% no.

That margin has decreased a bit, but it is still very healthy.

69% inclined to vote yes, 16% uh inclined to vote no on that measure, and 15% undecided.

Uh so even uh if assuming those numbers are directly on target, uh, even if all of the undecided voters broke toward a no vote, that would still pass by a couple of points.

Um, it is typical for undecided to break more toward a no than a yes, but you would also expect to pick up potentially some of those undecided.

So it's still, we would say in a position to pass.

We also noted here, uh, and so you see that threshold, the two-thirds threshold that we're exceeding slightly in the graph.

Um, and then on the right is some of the demographics broken down, just for analysis, and noting where the shift has been compared to February.

Our overall margin, which was plus 59 points, is now plus 52 points.

The shift in that margin, and when you when you measure a shift in margin, it's uh slightly exaggerated.

It's only a couple of points on the yes vote, but it looks a little bigger on the margin.

We see the older voters and white voters uh uh slipping down a bit more in terms of their support.

Although, again, every group of voters across the city demographically is in favor, and in most cases, large majorities in favor of the geo bond.

We then tested uh these uh arguments uh pro and con in favor and against equal uh time on both sides, which may or may not reflect the actual environment, but wanted to do this to see how strongly that yes vote would hold up uh as a result of that back and forth.

And the answer is pretty well, it does decline by a few points.

And in this uh reballot, after people hear that additional information, the yes vote declines just slightly down to 64%.

The no goes up a bit to 20%, and you still have 15% undecided.

Even if this were the uh end case of uh after the back and forth of the campaign, that would still be a pretty plausible position for the measure to pass.

It would need a few more points from the undecided to get over the two-thirds threshold, but that would be uh a typical uh shift that you might see uh as we've seen in other revenue measures in Berkeley.

But nonetheless, it's pretty close to the threshold and obviously within the margin of error in terms of whether it would pass.

Um, and again, notably, we're comparing this now to the informed ballot from uh the earlier poll in February.

We again see older voters, uh, older men, non-college voters and voters in West and Central Berkeley moving down a little more from where they were compared to February.

Uh, nevertheless, this is still pretty close to the threshold of passage with that 300 million general obligation bond.

Um we also wanted to just note where the undecided voters were and the persuadable voters for those who would be involved in potentially uh communicating.

Uh the undecided voters uh uh African American voters in Berkeley, those who are registered independents, uh, renters, particularly women who are renters, uh, a little more likely to be undecided, uh, the persuadable voters, those who are both undecided and move in the direction of voting for the bond.

Uh, also more women, white women, independent voters, and older black voters, all in that group of being a little bit more persuadable.

Uh so that's the overview, and again, there's more data behind that, but just that's the overview of the findings on the GO bond.

And then we turn to the sales tax uh measure, which uh also we were re-testing to see if the specific version that would go on the ballot would be successful.

Um, this is the description we gave, increasing the sales tax in the city of Berkeley to help address the city's budget deficit of approximately 30 million dollars.

Shuttle measure levying a 0.5% sales tax, increasing the total sales tax rate to 10.75, the amount it would generate, and the things that would be funded should it be adopted.

This measure did decline somewhat from where it was in February.

Uh, we admit we had measured this at about a 60% yes initially.

Uh, current initial ballot on this late April survey is 52% yes to 32% no.

That's still a measure plus with rounding plus 19 points.

And it is still just above the threshold of 50% that a sales tax measure would need.

So you would conclude again that this is a measure that is in a good position to pass, but it is close and it would require some campaign and information probably to ensure that it would.

Again, we stress tested uh supporters and opponents arguing in back and forth about uh whether it's a good idea to pass the sales tax, the things that we need to fund versus the opponent saying that it costs too much, we can't afford it.

Uh, and then reballot.

Interestingly, here, unlike on the geo bond measure, the support actually goes up somewhat, uh, perhaps because voters understand better that the budget need uh as a result of those arguments, uh, but instead of so from a 52% yes on our initial ballot here in April, we go up to 56% yes, up four points.

The no holds steady to about 30%.

The margin is now plus 27 points.

Um, and again, looking at the net, it is pretty close to where it was in February.

It's actually gone up a little bit for among uh voters of color and renters, but it has gone down a bit among white voters, non-college voters and voters in central Berkeley.

Um, we look at where the shifts are.

But again, the overall finding here is that this still has majority support, that majority increases a bit after the head-to-head arguments, um, and it is still has a uh looks like it's in a position where it would pass.

Um, this again is just a breakdown of the undecided and persuadable voters for those who might be interested in communicating.

Uh the uh we have a lot of undecided voters in the Berkeley Hills, particularly women in the Hills on the sales tax measure.

Again, the independent voters.

Interestingly, voters with a graduate degree, the most highly educated voters are usually less undecided on this measure or more so.

Um, college-educated women and again renters showing up in the undecided voters uh disproportionately.

And then we also wanted to share data we learned about the uh ballot order as well as the uh other potential measures uh that could be out there on the local and regional um ballot.

This is uh an experiment we did just between these two measures where we rotated which one people heard first, and we wanted to see if it made a difference as to the overall uh support.

So this is looking all of the numbers you're seeing here, are just for the um general obligation bond.

Uh and whether you hear it first or second, uh, it actually does uh slightly better if you hear it second after the sales tax, which is not necessarily what we would expect, but in both cases it's very close to the threshold of two thirds, but it's slightly higher after they hear the sales tax.

And then once they're they have the back and forth arguments, it's essentially no difference what order they hear it in.

It's a 64%.

So our general conclusion here is it doesn't matter much which one of these two measures goes first.

You're gonna need a very similar range in terms of the level of support.

And then the sales tax measure also does a little bit better when you hear it second rather than first.

Uh, uh, and that evens out somewhat uh even on the informed ballot, it's still true.

Um, I'm sorry, I'm stating that wrong.

In this case, they hear it that they do slightly, yeah, slightly better when the sales tax is heard second.

That would be on the left, 53 versus 50, and uh still true even after the informed ballot that if you've heard the sales tax second, it does slightly better.

So putting all those together, it's it's a close call, it's not a huge effect, but it is plausible that the sales tax does slightly better when it's heard second compared to the geobond.

That looks like the you know, all things being equal to the best order, but it doesn't matter much.

The thing that does matter a little more than that in terms of the order is the fact that these other revenue measures from other jurisdictions uh or just from other sources are on the on the Berkeley ballot in 2026.

Um, and just noting that we in this case we put all of these before the two measures we're most interested in because we want to see the impact that they had on that.

Um, and uh the one that is very popular here in Berkeley, and this is a good sign, although obviously the the rest of the region gets to vote on this as well.

Uh, but the regional transit measure as of uh today would get 79% of the vote voting yes in the city of Berkeley.

Only 9% would vote no.

There's a very pro-transit uh constituency here in the city, only 12% undecided.

Um that is a very supportive vote for the transit measure.

But again, the main reason we had it in this poll was to see what impact it had on our on the city measures.

Um we also tested the Alameda County living wage measure, which is not strictly speaking a revenue measure, but does involve money.

Um, and it does appear to have very strong support in the city of Berkeley as well.

Uh, they are believed gathering signatures and have not uh fully qualified, uh, but uh assuming this is going forward that and is on the ballot, um, has strong support in the city of Berkeley, 78% yes to 14% no.

The arts tax measure, which is uh also gonna be in the ballot in the city.

Uh assuming that is on, we would see 67% right at two thirds of Berkeley voters saying they would vote yes for the arts funding.

It's very popular among younger women and among renters.

Um, there is some correlation.

The people who tend to vote no on the our two core measures that we were measuring uh that we showed you earlier, the geobond and the sales tax also tended to vote no here and vice versa, but it is uh overall getting about two-thirds support, and again, it's just a question of the impact of having the multiple uh revenue measures, and then an additional sales tax measure, which is the specific to sugar sweetened sodas, of course, uh, which Berkeley's had now for many years, but this is uh an increase in that soda tax measure soda tax um uh to increase the impact of the programs that are funded by it.

69% say they would vote yes for the soda tax increase, uh, and 45% strong support.

Uh only 23% would vote no.

This is also in a pretty strong position in terms of the support citywide.

Uh, and again, it's correlated that voters who vote yes on the geobond and the sale fraud or sales tax are also more likely to vote yes on this soda tax measure.

And then finally, the public bank, uh, which also uh involves uh revenue from a parcel tax.

Um, would voters support this?

This is the softest in terms of the level of support that we of the measures we tested, it is still a majority in favor of establishing the public bank uh funded through a parcel tax, but 58% would vote yes, that's lower than some of the other measures, and 24% would vote no, still a positive margin.

And again, renters and younger women being the most supportive.

So all of that is to say that we have several measures, all of which are pretty popular on the ballot, but cumulatively it does appear to have brought down the uh by a few points the total level of support.

Nonetheless, our general conclusion would be uh that we have uh approximately two-thirds or slightly more uh support for the general obligation bond, making it a pretty good position to pass, and slightly uh a narrow majority voting yes on the sales tax measure, uh, but with a wide margin over the no vote, again, suggesting it's still in a pretty good position to pass in November, and that's uh those are the conclusions we bring to the council.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

Um, do folks have any questions about these results?

Sorry.

Um, yes, Councilmember Blackbee.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Um, hey David, quick question on undecided versus persuadables, just to reflect uh refresh my recollection.

Uh sort of undecided are truly the folks who said I don't know how I'm gonna to vote.

Persuadables is undecided plus the lean yes and lean no.

Is that the right way to think about it?

No, the persuadables, the good good question, and it I I went over very quickly, but the persuadables would be the undecided plus the people who shift who are to yes, because even though the overall shift was almost even or some very slightly negative, uh there were people going in both directions, right?

So we're interested in for again uh not necessarily for the official communications, but for anyone who is uh potentially supporting the measure, uh communicating with voters, noting who the persuadable voters are and which would include the undecided as well as the people who move toward a guest.

Um so that that's the difference between those, there's a lot of overlap uh and the general conclusion about who those undecided persuadables are is listed in those tables.

So it's undecided plus those who shifted yes after messaging.

Is that right?

That's correct.

That is correct.

Um and then um in a typical revenue measure in Berkeley, you're measured you're mentioning kind of the history.

If we're at sort of somewhere right around 60, if we're right around the two-thirds now, um how those undecided typically break.

So if we're yeah, it depends what year you look at, right?

And also what's it so in other places?

First of all, I would say, you know, our general rule of thumb that we uh provide to those who are testing revenue measures is that most of your undecided will break, they will be more likely to break toward a no than a yes, uh, because if they're undecided, they're already having some doubts, and then that just you know it's it's easy for doubts to accumulate, and people don't know as a as a default.

Having said that, the city has a history of passing revenue measures, sometimes by quite wide margins, and often uh in our own polling, which we've been done since 2012 in the city, um, those yes margins have exceeded what we measured on the polling that we did around this time in the spring of the of the election year.

So I would conclude that in Berkeley, usually we see a little bit higher yes vote than we measured in the poll six months earlier.

Um, but that's a reflection of actual events there being communication and campaigns and so forth.

And it is also true that for instance in 2022, uh there were a couple there was a measure on the ballot that fell essentially landed almost exactly where the yes vote was measured uh in the spring, which was in fact slight, you know, just a very narrowly short of uh of the mark of the uh threshold needed.

So I don't want to say we know that it will exceed, it doesn't always, but it often exceeds by a few points uh on the final ballot uh on the actual ballot in November what we measured in the poll.

And that's why it's it's good you're starting at the two-thirds because you don't need a majority of the undecided, you need some of the undecided to give you the cushion, but starting at 60%.

You don't need a most of them, you just need a handful really essentially to break your way right toward a yes uh as a result of the uh campaign or information that they got.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Tapling.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and good afternoon.

Um could we just see the arguments for and against the geo bond?

We'll put that up anymore.

And I'm sorry for the geo bond, right?

Correct.

Uh there it is.

Okay, very hopeful.

Thank you.

Okay, Vice Mayor Traegu.

Uh, thank you.

Um three questions.

Um, fourth, just uh clarification.

Um when you mentioned central Berkeley, is that central and south?

Yes.

So the definitions of the uh uh sorry, one second, but I won't pull up my um so yes, it's said it is we did we create three regions.

It's the sample's not big enough to be able to break out every district on its own, right?

They are it's not a reliable pen size in each individual district.

So the definitions of these three regions are what we call the hills is council districts five, six, and eight.

Is districts three, four, and seven, and then West is districts one and two.

Okay, thank you.

Um, you spoke about um I mean the the recommendation.

Well, the the con the overarching conclusion is that based on polling, um, both measures are there is a greater than 50-50 chance that they would pass uh provided that there is a robust campaign.

Um what can you say uh about the intensity or how what might this be impacted by the intensity of the opposition campaign, for example, if there is an organized uh opposition campaign.

Uh certainly I would say if there is no opposition campaign, these are in very strong position to pass.

It would be unlikely for the no vote to increase enough uh to defeat these measures if there was no actual campaign on the no side, and that has been the kick, you know.

Once some occasionally that has been true, there's been very little uh opposition campaign.

There is an opposition campaign, that's what we simulated, right?

With that informed ballot, was a a pro a guess campaign and also a no campaign communicating equal.

Oh, uh oh, with voters.

So I think we would say as you know, what we show them is the.

Sorry, the could you lose me?

Can you all hear me?

Can you all hear me all right?

You're here now, but you you can't.

Okay, there was a tech twitch there.

Apologies, that's probably on my end.

Uh I am traveling uh this week, is why I couldn't be you in here in person.

But um the uh so we if there was no if there was not any opposition campaign, I would say these are in a quite strong position to pass.

If there is an opposition campaign, and it is equal to roughly equal to the yet the the positive campaign in favor of the measures, that's what we simulated in the survey with that head-to-head argument, and that would that would suggest that in that situation it would be close, but you know, more likely to pass than not.

Uh, and of course, if you had a massive opposition campaign and some big funder came in to uh you know constantly hammer at these things and tell voters it's a terrible idea, and that would be you know, voters here more no than yes, uh, this would be these would be in in some nature that would be less likely to pass in that situation.

Yeah, thank you.

Um and obviously when uh in particular the gold bond when it's so close to the line, um I I think this is um probably going to be of importance.

Um my last question is around uh, you know, any high-level thoughts you could share with us around best practices for the packaging of these two um ballot measures if we were to include both of them on the ballot.

Um uh it's you know um the the no argument um like when um you had the battery of uh negative information um out there, um understandably revolves around, you know, we the message we we've been taxed enough.

Um, and there are different um well, it if you put the language back up, um, you know, I think it talks about affordable housing, it talks about other uh areas of investment.

Uh I'm wondering if uh you have any thoughts around how we can explain um this is why um the two measures are needed uh, but uh just as importantly, this is why they're structured differently, because they uh are funding different things that could not necessarily be funded um through um a different revenue stream.

It's a complicated question.

Let me preface it by saying that obviously with the um you know publicly funded research that we're doing here, we are not directly advising any campaign on either the yes or no side, right?

We're just telling you the information based on the uh what we learned uh from the voters.

Uh I would say though, that uh we one thing we know, which we know from previous experience as well as the earlier testing about the contents of the bond and sales tax measure is that we we deliberately highlighted here in this description some of the things that we knew voters care most about in the city of Berkeley, and then that is certainly important if for any effort to pass these measures to highlight the actual impacts that they would have positively on the priorities that voters have, and those include ensuring safety first and foremost and quality of life, um, the importance of repairing uh things that are that need fixing, such as streets and parks, improving and increasing affordable housing.

So those things are specified in part because we know that voters care a lot about them, and we have research data to support that.

Um I hesitate to go too much further in terms of uh offering any any strategic advice other than to say it's uh you know, those in support of the measure would certainly need to talk about the importance of those funding those uh specific outcomes, the improvements that are needed, and creating a sense of uh urgency, recognizing the you know, the structural deficits, the infrastructure uh deficit that is long standing, and the importance of funding to to catch up with those.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilmember O'Keefe.

Thank you.

Um I'll start by saying I um I'm kind of I'm only gonna ask about the sales tax measure.

It's kind of the only thing I have eyes for right now.

Um I'm pretty concerned.

There's a question coming, I promise.

Um I'm concerned about these numbers.

I hear your um confidence.

You know, it's yeah, here you say things like it's very well positioned to pass, and I appreciate your arguments about the um undecided voters and the dynamics of how things can change, but a lot of these numbers for the sales tax are disturbingly close to the 50% threshold, considering the margin of error is 4%.

Um so given that is my concern.

I'm I'm really curious about this result that hearing it second after the geo bond actually seemed to increase am I reading that correct?

It seems to increase the support if they hear the geo bond first and then and then about the sales tax.

Is that right?

Yes, and you are not the only person who was somewhat surprised by that result.

Yeah, because I'm I'm really concerned about it, you know, maybe in a vacuum it would pass, but the um presence of other other items.

So I'm wondering, yeah, thank you for confirming that that is indeed surprising.

Um, can do you have any theories or is that is that a more common result than you would expect?

The only uh my hypothesis, and there's no way to to test this in the uh uh retrospectively, is that um uh a general sales tax.

People think of it as going to just sort of general operations, right?

And it's like sure, maybe you need it, maybe you don't.

Uh, and that the cumulative effect of the description of the urgent funding priorities for the city that were contained in both measures and the specific uh improvements that would result in terms of uh, you know, public safety, quality of life, uh fixing things that are broken, um, may have created uh uh just a slightly greater sense of uh uh belief that yes, we need to fund things in the city, and yes, we have some some deficits we need to address in terms of those um facilities and services, right?

So, that would be my guess as to why it would be slightly higher as a result of having heard both, and uh, but I would say that it generally just reassuring that it doesn't matter much what order you put the two in, but all things being equal, you would go ahead and put the bond first and then the sales uh given these findings.

Um, and I would, and then I would also point to the broader conclusion that there are a lot of revenue measures here, and it does appear that the the cumulative weight of those is pulling these down a little bit from from where they were a couple of months ago.

Yeah, thank you.

Actually, thank you for that last comment.

Because that was my second question.

Um, is it wasn't uh clear to me, and I'm sorry if you did make this clear, but I missed it if you did.

Um, did you you didn't do a similar test?

Um it looks like you you did poll about all the other measures.

Um, but we did all of those before.

Sorry, I just to clarify what I think where I think you're getting at, which is that we did test all of the other local and regional measures before these two deliberately because we wanted to make sure we understood the reality of voters seeing all these measures on the ballot, and the only way to do that in a poll, which is sequential rather than a ballot where you're looking at it all at once, is to ask all the other ones first, and then this and then the two that we were most focused on.

So this is the it's a tougher test, but it is a more realistic test for those two measures to for voters for us to know that voters are going to see, you know, these seven or eight different kinds of local revenue and/or you know money related measures.

Uh, and uh, you know, looks like their support is still pretty solid for both of these, but it is a little bit lower than what we were measuring a couple months ago.

Okay.

Oh, that's that's helpful.

Thank you for clarifying.

So just to be sure I understood you correctly, all of these numbers for both the GO and the sales tax were all measured after asking about the other measures.

That's right, and you'll you'll see that it's quite it's laid out in sequence in the top line results, which is another document submitted as part of the report.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um I would like to move on because I know we have quite a bit of presentation time left.

So I'm gonna pass it back to our city staff.

Sounds good.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Great.

So good afternoon, honorable mayor, city council, and community.

Uh before trans.

Oh, my name's Carrie, I'm an assistant to the city manager, and before transitioning into the revised project portfolio, we want to briefly frame the broader infrastructure context and intended impact of the proposed geo bond.

So, as this slide shows here, existing annual funding addresses only a small portion of Berkeley's infrastructure needs.

Many funding sources for the city are restricted, one-time or competitive when considering grants, and ultimately this deferred maintenance continues to increase long-term repair costs and operational risk.

At the same time, kind of going to the green part in the middle.

Uh Berkeley does have a strong track record of leveraging prior infrastructure investments.

For example, measure T1 passed by voters in 2016, leveraged approximately 100 million dollars in bond funding into roughly 183 million in total investment through grants and external funding.

T one is winding down as less than five of the 75 projects have yet to start construction, and this bond measure has been responsible for improvements across Berkeley, including the adult Mental health clinic, North Berkeley Senior Center, LIVO Community Center, the award-winning Willard Clubhouse, Berkeley Corpyard, Aquatic Park Tide Tubes, improvements to the Berkeley Rose Garden, uh, a variety of streets, including portions of Adeline and University Avalon Avenue along the waterfront, as well as a variety of green infrastructure projects.

Some of the projects under construction right now include improvements to two fire stations, MLK YAP, DE docks, as well as the Santa Fe right-of-way conversion to a park.

So these bonds are, these bond funds are totally committed and will be fully spent in the next 18 to 24 months.

So the proposed geo bond structure would support the next phase of strategic infrastructure investment focused on public safety, accessibility, resilience, community serving facilities, and long-term stewardship of critical public assets.

Just give me one second.

There we go.

This slide may look familiar.

It shows the estimated taxpayer impact of a proposed $300 million general obligation bond, assuming that 100 million dollars is issued every five years beginning in 2027.

So this slide provides two views.

First, a historical look at tax rates associated with previously approved GO bonds.

That's the sort of the gray shaded portion you see there.

And then second, a forward-looking estimate of the proposed $300 million geo bond when combined with existing bond authorizations.

That's sort of the dark blue shading that you see.

So under this scenario, the combined average tax rate from 2027 to 2067 is estimated at 0.0441%, or in layman's terms, $44 per $100,000 of assessed value.

So for the median assessed home value in Berkeley, this equals approximately $242 per year.

So importantly, the projected combined average tax rate remains below historical averages for existing authorizations and below rates seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

So in short, the proposed bond remains within Berkeley's historical range of geobond tax rates.

We're gonna bring back a couple of slides you may have seen.

So this one may look familiar to many, but we wanted to note that the proposed geobond framework still organizes projects into three primary categories or themes: community facilities and quality of life, public safety, and critical infrastructure and accessibility.

This structure was intended to make the project portfolio easier to understand from a public-facing perspective while still reflecting the complexity of Berkeley's infrastructure needs.

Staff have also developed and applied a more formalized evaluation methodology to improve transparency regarding how projects were assessed and prioritized, and I'll get into that in the next couple of slides.

We also wanted to bring back this slide and note for those just being informed about this process.

Following the December 2025 council work session, staff launched a community engagement process from January of this year through March.

This engagement helped inform the draft project portfolio and broader infrastructure priorities.

It included meetings with city commissions, community focused groups, joint district meetings, and a city webpage and email for public feedback.

During these meetings, staff shared the project portfolio and asked for input on which projects felt most urgent, what needs or communities may be missing, where investment could improve access and equity, and which investments would provide the greatest long-term benefit for Berkeley.

In conjunction with council direction, as well as the community survey, this feedback helped staff refine and prioritize the portfolio.

So one of the major goals in refining the project portfolio was improving transparency around how projects were evaluated and prioritized.

So to support that effort, staff developed a six-factor evaluation framework designed to assess both public benefit and implementation feasibility.

I think this is attachment to in your packet.

Projects were evaluated across six categories seen on the slide here: health, life and safety, infrastructure condition, accessibility and resilience, community use and equity, green resiliency and sustainability, deliverability and readiness, and external funding potential.

I do want to note that we did incorporate criteria from the Park Recreation and Waterfront Commission's information report where they evaluated projects.

This helped improve our definitions and framing in our methodology, and just wanted to note that.

So looking at this slide, the highest weighted categories ranging from health life and safety through green resiliency and sustainability, those were weighted at 20%, and deliverability and funding, external funding leverage were weighted at 10% each.

Projects then receive low, medium, and high rankings within each category, which translated into weighted scores, contributing to an overall score out of 100.

So generally, as noted on this slide here, projects scoring 75 and above were considered higher priority, 50 to 74 medium priority, and anything below 50, lower priority.

So importantly, this framework was intended as a decision support tool, not purely a mechanical ranking system.

So staff also considered council direction, geographic distribution, sequencing, community feedback, updated cost estimates, and overall portfolio balance when refining the proposed project list.

So ultimately, this evaluation and methodology is intended to help staff understand priority phasing should the general obligation bond pass.

This slide summarizes the current working financial framework associated with the bond.

The framework currently assumes $300 million in total bond sales, approximately $13 million in assumed bond interest earnings on the conservative end, and a total projected program capacity of approximately $313 million.

The project portfolio itself currently totals approximately $272.5 million across the three infrastructure categories.

And the most important part, the framework also includes approximately 40.5 million in staffing and implementation related resources.

So this is an important component of the framework because the bomb program of this scale requires significant delivery infrastructure over many years.

So this could include project management, compliance, any required costs related to auditing and reporting, and general program administration needs.

So these implementation resources are intended to support a responsible project delivery, not necessarily ongoing operational staffing.

And with that said, I'll turn it over to our parks recreation and waterfront director, uh Scott Ferris, who will talk more about the community facilities and quality of life project portfolio.

Thanks, Carrie.

Mayor and Council.

So she's already introduced me.

I will introduce my staff that are here supported and provide detailed answers to questions if you have them.

They're sitting behind me.

Evelyn Chan is supervising civil engineer and Taylor Lancelot, who is acting.

Acting in Nelson's place, Nelson Lamb is also a supervising civil engineer.

Okay.

So I'm going to take you through 20 proposed PRW projects, parks recreation and waterfront projects, and talk about them just briefly, each project and a little bit of history.

So first on the list here is Francis Albert Community Center.

This project was first of all, Francis Albert is the only senior center that is not seismically safe at this point.

So T1 has taken care of all the other facilities, and we've got one under construction and another one to be under construction soon.

But Francis Albriar was got conceptual money to design the community center and T1 phase one.

And we had an amazing two-year process, which we designed a community center there.

And we'd like to go ahead and build that community center.

And that is essentially replacing teardown and replacement like Willard was.

So it's a full replacement, a brand new facility.

It is a very small facility given the amount of people that it serves, and a much larger facility in the same kind of envelope is going to serve the community much much better.

Next, I'm going to talk about the Harrison Turf field conversion.

So this converts Harrison Park soccer fields or two soccer fields there from grass to artificial turf.

This is really important to all the sports field users because it'll produce about a hundred and twenty percent more play time.

The field is closed six months a year, largely because of the wear and tear, and sometimes more than that.

Um the sub base of that field needs total renovation and needs to be repaired.

And so it really limits the amount of use and how long we can keep that grass green.

So if we replace it with turf, it's gonna really gonna prove the amount of time that the youth can play on the fields.

Um we've got several restrooms here.

We're gonna talk about a couple of them are on the T1 list.

Harrison Park was originally on the T1 list and then got pulled off at the end because we need to consolidate dollars along with the uh the restroom, the park at the waterfront.

So, in this case, um, this would fund the construction of those two restrooms.

Um, and so at Harrison and the Berkeley Waterfront.

Uh, we're adding two new restrooms to this list, Cedar Rose and Courtnesis, and we've gotten a lot of feedback about these two parks and upgrading the restrooms from essentially what we call our block restrooms with just a toilet to something that's more user-friendly.

Um, the last project on the list here is the King Pool and Locker Room.

And I'll talk more about this project at the end on our fourth slide where we talk about uh how our projects have changed.

Next slide, Carrie.

So the next next six projects are uh kind of next seven projects are kind of a uh combination of place structures and open spaces and greenies.

And so this list actually changed dramatically throughout the public process in the city manager's eyes.

Cedar Rose for us is kind of a no-brainer.

It's fully designed and ready to bid out.

In fact, we have bid out the um five to twelve place structure now, and the two to five place structure is designed and ready to go.

We just need the allocation to construct it.

Uh, same something very similar, Gwendela Loma.

We've gone through a two-year process there where we've designed, done a conceptual design, and we're not that far from being able to construct that site, got a lot of good input over the last year and a half, and um we've got a final conceptual design there.

We've added a couple projects here during T1 phase two when we did a lot of public process.

Uh, a couple of the projects that came up in District 8 were Monkey Island Park and the Garber Path right away, which includes um a walkway, kind of a street and a bunch of landscaping.

And they didn't get funded in T1 phase two, but we didn't have a whole lot of projects in district eight, so we we kind of went back and took another look at that and heard some feedback from community and added those two projects.

And while they're right together, so we would include them probably in one project, and we would improve um potentially improve the uh the elements of Monkey Island and just a total we do at Garber Path.

A couple of projects down below.

Uh the Adeline Corridor space.

This is um refers to we have an Adeline corridor plan.

Public works is and is in the process of designing that street plan from Ashby all the way to the Oakland border.

So, and we're also we've got we've got uh 30 percent design funding on that.

We're applying for 100% divine funding.

That design funding doesn't include the open space, and there's gonna be transportation dollars to fund that project as we move forward, but funding the park or the open space, we're not gonna have to.

We have actually uh about eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which will be a HUD grant um to do some design there, but we're gonna need money to construct that as the Adeline plan goes on, and so that's what these dollars are for.

We're, you know, we're talking about a 12 to 15 year spend here, so we're anticipating that the next few years, we'll be ready to to construct those open spaces in in the Adeline Corridor.

Another project, a couple of other projects were added was uh the Dwight Twelve Open Space, which is uh what people refer to as the Adeline Triangle.

As the Telegraph Avenue plan is executed, it's gonna create an additional open space at the line triangle.

And so this project, we would construct it with uh 3.5 million.

Native plant median conversions.

We've heard for years about the importance of converting some of our bigger, larger medians in Sacramento and University to native plant gardens.

And uh we heard a lot of uh fit feedback in the public process, and so this money allows us to do uh three or four blocks on Sacramento and University.

Next slide.

Um the last five projects are all waterfront projects, and the three of these projects are very grant eligible, and so we're only asking for a portion of the projects that we uh and we were anticipate getting grants to fund the remaining portion, um, the uh perimeter pathway, uh the sea level rise bay trail project, um, and uh the South I'm sorry and the seawall drives uh bay trail improvements are all projects that we know we're gonna be able to secure grants for.

Not 100% positive, but given um our ability to secure grants, we're pretty positive that those will we're just these are just leverage money in order to complete the project.

Uh the last two projects, um, the South Coast Seawall project.

If you haven't been down to the South Coast Seawall, you you know it's failing, and once that seawall fails, everything that happens there will cease to happen.

So all the all the um everybody who launches from that South Cove, Cal Adventures, Cal Sailing won't be able to use that um, and won't be able to use that area, and so this totally replaces the seawall, and the other functional project here is the timber pile replacement.

We did some of this in T1 phase one or T1 phase two, and uh we are permit ready.

Our permit doesn't expire for another three to four years.

So as soon as if this bond were measured to pass in November, we could execute the um uh the the addition additional three million dollars of power replacement immediately.

Okay, next slide.

Okay, so what's changed here?

And um I'll kind of skip the top area of what's what we kept in or what's advanced, but what's been scaled down a little bit.

I I talked earlier about King Pool and how that shifted a little bit originally.

We proposed it was in the proposal was 25 million dollars to replace the pool.

We got a lot of feedback about that.

Uh pro and con, uh, not the right location.

We should we should deal with West Campus or put the pool at St.

Francis Albriar.

And so ultimately, as we went through, knowing we needed to scale back on some of our projects, essentially that original list probably had, I think, close to 430,000, 430 million dollars worth of projects, needing to scale back to meet our 300 million dollars.

That was one of the projects that came off the list, and we had a variety of of um a variety of pros and cons, and people who supported and people didn't support it.

So we scaled it back to five million and did a renovation of the existing existing two pools there.

And one of the things that's happening at King as opposed to West Campus.

King is kind of up in the hills.

There's a lot of movement in that ground.

The concrete was poured in the in the um middle 60s, and so it's starting to move, and so we're having constant breaks in our pipes that are associated with that concrete.

We have one now where we're losing water, and uh I'm funding it in um fiscal 27, but this has been constant over the last five years.

The concrete is just getting old, and it's moving, the ground is moving, and so we're having problems there.

That whole thing needs to be replaced.

Um, things that were removed or deferred.

Uh we had proposed uh uh about I think anywhere between um two to four million dollars worth of dog parks.

Uh live oak park improvements that included the basketball courts and the open grass area there, uh South Hambourg Park irrigation, uh, and we also proposed a project for University Avenue Sea Level Rise and Bike Park, and then we had kind of a uh a portion of aquatic park dreamland.

We know that Dreamland area project's gonna cost us about eight million, and we think we have a funding source for about three-quarters of it.

So all those got got removed.

Ultimately, there are grant sources out there that can fund some of that and park stacks, and so that was one of the reasons why for the removal.

If you have detailed questions, I can ask you to tell you about each project, and then I've talked about the ones we've added.

Carrie, I'm not gonna pass it to the chief here.

Thank you.

All right, good evening.

Um, I'm going to talk about the fire and public safety projects.

So there's four main drivers to the urgent need to renovate the city's public safety infrastructure.

Tonight I'm going to provide a high-level overview of why it's important that this work begin now.

First, the stations are simply too old.

The city's 2023 fire facilities master plan found that nearly every facility needs major renovation or replacement.

Most of Berkeley's fire stations were built in the 50s and 60s and no longer support current staffing, employee health and safety standards, or long-term operational demands.

Acting now prevents an emergency situation for future count future councils and staff.

Second, emergency calls and responsibilities have grown dramatically.

In fact, it's almost a misnomer that we're called the fire department.

To meet that expanded mission, the fire department houses far more people in each facility, larger apparatus, and carries more equipment than these mid-century stations were built to support.

Third, the complexity of each project and the impact to employee health and safety.

Fire stations have to remain operational following a large seismic event, which means that they have to meet California's Essential Services Act.

That in turn means that they're some of the most expensive infrastructure to renovate and replace that any city operates.

So it's slow going and it's really expensive.

We also know that emergency responders faced increased risk of cancer from carcinogen exposure.

A lot of this happens in the living quarters because older fire stations aren't built with separated facilities where the contaminated gear and apparatus are off gassing carcinogens throughout the day.

So these new stations will be built with those segregated areas that will improve employee health long term and reduce the number of cancer diagnosis that we have each year.

And finally, all of the public safety projects included within this framework incorporate resilience and sustainability components, primarily solar and battery backup.

So this not only will take the facilities to energy neutral, but will prepare the city for a transition to the fleet a fleet of electric fire engines in the next 10 to 15 years.

So the bottom line for us is these upgrades are not expansions, they're critical reinvestments in aging infrastructure to ensure reliable emergency response for the next 75 years.

Starting now allows the city to phase the work responsibly over the coming decades instead of deferring these complex and necessary projects to the community uh and the councils of the future.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, mayor, council members Wahida Miri, interim director of public works.

Uh, this slide begins with one of the city's most visible and liability sensitive infrastructure needs accessibility.

The 5050 sidewalk program at approximately 14.6 million helps accelerate sidewalk replacement citywide and address a long wait list of unsafe and uh even conditions.

In parallel, the 4.5 million ADA barrier removal allocation focuses on improving access within city-owned facilities and paths of travel for individuals with disability.

The category also preserves funding for essential service facilities, including animal service upgrades, the Berkeley Mental Health Annex Renovation, South Berkeley Senior Center, Mechanical System Improvements, HVAC, and the remaining funding needed to complete the African American Holistic Resource Center.

That was a commitment that the city made.

Overall, these investments prioritize accessibility, public safety, essential services, and long-term facility reliability while helping ensure that limited capital dollars are directed towards the city's highest impact needs.

This slide continues the critical infrastructure and accessibility category with the focus on civic buildings, public safety facilities, and historic civic assets.

These are not just building improvements, they support daily city operations, public access, emergency response, and long-term facility reliability.

Key investments include the 1947 Center Street Elevator Replacement Project, which addresses safety, reliability, and ADA access.

Moving on to the 2180 mil via modernization project, which addresses aging building systems, again, improving accessibility, hazardous material, and so forth.

And moving on to 2100 MLK Public Safety Building, which is a major investment in our 24 hour emergency operations hub, including the 911 dispatch center.

The slide also includes grand match funding for the Model Sharec building and the Veterans Memorial Building, helping the city position these historic civic assets for future restoration and community use.

Overall, with this approximate $75 million investment, this category reflects a practical balance between essential facility modernization, accessibility, public safety operations, and responsible stewardship of important civic assets.

This slide summarizes how staff refine the critical infrastructure and accessibility category to make the portfolio more focused and easy to deliver.

Most of the core projects were preserved because they address well-documented needs related to accessibility, life safety, seismic resilience, essential services, and public safety operations.

A few changes that were made to somewhat improve the alignment and reduce duplication are old City Hall and the Veterans Memorial Building.

They were scaled to the minimum funding needed for grand match opportunities rather than the full funding restoration through the bond for the seismic uh upgrades that's necessary.

The 911 dispatch center was folded into the broader public safety building project, which better reflects the shared facility systems and emergency operation needs at the 2100 MLK building.

The West Berkeley Family Wellness Center was removed because it has recently been worked on, it's been improved, and there's a lower near-term priority for us.

The African American Holistic Resources Center was added to close a known funding commitment that the city has made to fulfill that project.

Overall, these changes preserve the city's highest priority civic accessibility and public safety investments while keeping the portfolio focused, strategic, and defensible.

With that said, I'll hand it over back to our deputy city manager.

Hello again.

So, in addition to looking at the general obligation bond to support infrastructure needs, as we mentioned, we also explored the feasibility of an increase in the sales and use tax measure of 0.5% from 10.25 to 10.75%.

And what we know in working with our outside consultants that could generate anywhere from nine to 10 million dollars in general fund resources that we have proposed to help offset our general fund structural deficit.

And with this slide, it really helps to emphasize how we have proposed those resources be deployed.

So they're uh proposed to be used across three departments parks, recreation, and waterfront, the police department, and fire department.

And working from the bottom to the top for the fire department, these resources would be uh proposed to be used to maintain uh fire station four and keeping that open.

For the police department, it would be proposed to be used for 15 police officers and six dispatchers in total.

That would be uh useful to help keep the department operating in a manner that they can proactively address public safety needs.

And then lastly, for our parks recreation and waterfront department, these resources would be deployed to help support critical staffing to ensure that after school programs, camps, community centers, pools, and other very important programs for our youth can continue to operate as they currently do.

So where are we and what's on the horizon?

So uh as mentioned before, we are bringing we brought forward to you this evening the results of the second survey, the results of the refined uh infrastructure project list, and in terms of going forward uh after this evening, uh we look forward from direction to council to move ahead uh with developing ballot language for both the geo bond and the sales and use tax measure if we receive that direction.

Our intention is to be back in front of you on June 16th with the proposed ballot language, and that will give council plenty of time uh if necessary to make any additional adjustments because we have to have that to the county on August 7th, and we would like to obviously, if necessary, have that done by the last council meeting on July 28th.

So just to uh come back to what we're looking for this evening from the city council, the three actions that we reviewed at the beginning of this meeting.

Uh first is to affirm direction to continue to move ahead uh with the general obligation bond ballot language.

Second is to give us feedback on the project lists that have been presented by uh our three directors, and then lastly, uh to affirm direction to continue to move ahead with the sales and use tax and draft ballot language for that as well.

Mayor, we'll turn it back over to you to facilitate.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Deputy City Manager and also team.

Uh, really appreciate the presentation.

And uh what I'd like to do is start with questions from my council colleagues on the part two of this presentation, um, and then we will take public comment and then we'll come back for deliberations discussions.

Um are there any questions from my council colleagues?

Yes, council member Caserwani.

Thank you very much, madam mayor.

Thank you to our three department folks for for your presentations.

I did want to ask you, Chief Ferris, the the situation with King Pool.

I didn't quite follow, I mean, I understand it's old, so are you pro and and I and the presentation said that so you're just proposing uh actually, can you just clarify what exactly you're proposing for King Pool?

Essentially, we're redoing um uh the infrastructure associated with the two pools there and and the pump room.

So um the concrete, the piping, the pumps and the filters.

Okay, so because I think um because I thought you were suggesting another pool somewhere, but that's not part of this.

Because I I feel like it may or I don't know if I I made it up, but like France you were saying something about a pool of Francis Albriar.

So um there was some feedback as a part of uh conceptual plan for um the community center in San Pablo Park, Francis Albri, there was a discussion over on a pool.

In fact, it was included in the original conceptual plan.

And so as we brought this to the public, um, there was some concern that we were spending money uh king and not building a new pool there.

And uh I just to remind you, we a few years ago in 2020, we signed a new agreement with the school district that it gives us a 30-year uh lease at King pool, but only a 10-year uh two fives lease at West Campus Pool.

Um, and the thought at that time was um as we were going through that process that either the school district might use West Campus for some other um some other thing, or that we wouldn't need it because we potentially would build a pool at in San Pablo Park.

And so, as we started to to take it through public process, we got a lot of that feedback.

Hey, you know, why rebuild a brand new pool of king?

Um, should be more equitable, should you do something in Francis Albriar.

And ultimately, when as we kind of went through priorities and heard feedback, there were some a lot of people in favor of King, a lot of people in favor of Sam Pablo Park for pool, and a lot of people that just thought we should just renovate King the existing king pool.

And so that's where we landed for a variety of reasons.

I didn't quite follow this full story art.

I'm sorry, it wasn't.

So the okay, so and actually this raises another question for me.

So we're leasing King Pool from the school district, both King and West Campus.

Okay, but um, but we are paying for the in these infrastructure improvements.

Correct.

Okay.

That's part of our lease agreement, is that right?

Yeah, can you do that?

It's a no-cost least agreement.

So it it you we're not paying for the, you know, we take care of the facility and operate.

And you know, it's a part of agreement that includes uh King Park, um Thousand Oaks Park, um, and um both pools.

Okay, and the MLK, yeah, facility um next to Grove Park, that community center is also part of that lease.

Okay.

Okay, that's all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember O'Keefe.

Thank you.

Um, my first question was about the King Pools.

So I think you answered most of it.

Um I just want to clarify.

Um, are there under the current version of the proposal?

Are there any improvements to be made to the locker room or the outside of the pool, or is it just you're you're limiting it only to the repair of the concrete and the pump?

Yeah, it's limited just to the um the pool envelope, not to the locker room.

Okay, so no safety improvements or anything like that.

Um not within the current budget, no, okay, proposed budget.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Um, I also um I was uh disappointed to see the removal of the live oak basketball courts from the list, and I was wondering if you could speak more to that.

Um was that the result of community feedback?

Why why was that decision made?

There actually wasn't much, and um and the community feedback that we got was that we if this was a this all that we thought was an important project, even from people in that district, but we would prefer that you spend your money elsewhere.

Um as you know that you know, there's an open grass area that's not really it's you know it's not it's not no irrigation in it, um, and uh the basketball courts, we get all kinds of complaints about the basketball courts and volleyball courts because they slant down, and so this this proposal would have leveled it, created um kind of a uh a smaller uh under aid soccer field there.

Um, but there wasn't a whole lot of community support for it, and as we needed to whittle down um our projects to to get into the 300 million dollars, that was one that we didn't uh that fell off the list.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Count uh Vice Mayor Trackup.

Thank you.

Um, we have uh discussed the uh reductions to um improvements to um to historic buildings in uh downtown Barkley, but uh for the benefit of the Pablo, could you speak um a little bit more to um how the propo the new proposal would work with respect to the grant match and um uh perceived um probability of still receiving the grant.

I'll let you take that one.

So, based on our data, the full amount for the seismic upgrades at the old city hall would be approximately 14 million dollars.

And uh the veterans building, it's about six point seven million dollars, and that's just seismic upgrades.

There's a FEMA grant that we are aiming for, and strategically, uh we're aiming to the goal is to uh match city funds to be able to leverage the FEMA grant that's coming up and use the resources and the funding for other more system safety, uh public safety facilities, as funding is very limited.

So that was the strategy there.

Yeah, and then two more questions.

Sorry.

Three more questions.

I think this one is for Kerry.

On the project evaluation methodology under green resiliency and sustainability.

Yes.

So I can you hear me okay?

Okay.

So for the methodology, so we we looked at the Parks Recreation and Waterfront Commission report and then also the environmental commission report as well.

So what you'll notice in the methodology for green resiliency and sustainability, that's something with in addition to accessibility, that's something that we made an effort to try and incorporate in many of the projects where feasible for green resiliency and sustainability, that's where we have very specific criteria for what it captures and what it doesn't capture.

One thing that I want to note is, you know, we had some notes in here around important guardrails.

So just because sustainability features are woven into many projects, that doesn't necessarily mean we have to score them highly, but is it something like with the fire facilities?

Ensuring that we have solar um backup generators, is that right?

Uh all electric, you know, that's where it would receive a high score, or for the um native plant median conversions, that's where it would receive a high score.

Whereas things that are more traditional, um sort of uh HVAC improvements and things of that nature, that's where clearly it wouldn't receive a high score.

I hope I answered your question.

Oh, yeah, um, I I um enough that uh yeah, I I think I have a better understanding.

Um on the Harrison field torf conversion.

Um I know this uh astroTorf has come up at public meetings.

Um and I understand that what you're proposing is uh perhaps a different kind of astrotorf that is more um environmentally friendly.

Uh could you speak to that and maybe just um a suggestion to be um very specific about how the you know the the word astrotorf is used given its connotation.

Yeah, um so AstroTurf kind of refers to a different product that is essentially all polycarbons is and and rubber.

Um the product that we would be putting in at Harrison is very similar to the product we would be putting, except an upgraded version at Tom Bates that we have now, um, which is um uh it was it's a it's a plastic stem with a cork base initially, and you know what we installed uh Tom Bates was very traditional, where you see everywhere is uh the kind of plastic stem with the the black cork uh black uh rubber pedals, and then 200 um 18, we switched to a different um subservice.

We added a concussion uh subsurface, and we added a different uh plastic stem and a cork base, and so there are a variety of uh trends out there now amongst a lot of these um uh turf turf soccer fields um that we would evaluate.

Uh some of them are moving towards um, you know, walnut-based turf, uh walnut-based in field.

Um, it doesn't float like the um like the cork does.

So if you if you go out there on rainy days, you'll see our some of our cork floating away.

Um, and uh and the and the walnuts don't float like that, but there's you know, in the industry now, there's some there's some problems with you know uh with youth and adults with nut allergies, and so we would do the research so we needed to do to have the most uh up-to-date um product that would be the most environmentally friendly product uh that we would install in Berkeley.

Great, thank you.

Um and my last question, and this might be for uh perhaps David.

Um and uh questions have, well, let's say the the combined uh levy of approximately forty-four dollars for a hundred thousand dollars of assessed value.

Um, over 41 years, uh, could you speak to approximately what that might mean to the median homeowner?

So the median assessed value that we um uh observed when we brought for the December report was five hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Um, so applying that and forty-four dollars would be two hundred and forty-two dollars a year.

Thank you.

Uh yes, and council member Blackbee.

Great, thanks, Madam Mayor.

Um, just to pick up on that point, because I actually had a question about that also on on that chart about the overall the bond analysis and the addedness.

Um, and I appreciate the look at it just by bond.

What might be helpful moving forward before we kind of do the final implementation, I think most residents don't think of just the city bond part of this separate, they think about the total tax bill, they think about all the parcel taxes, the stuff that comes from the school district, the things that come from the county.

Um, so I I think the right context for this is not just the city's bond indebtedness and what's this is costing the residents from just that portion, but the overall tax bill.

I know that's hard, and we've talked about that in the past, but yeah, so um in December we did a fiscal year twenty-six model of the property tax bill, and I think for Berkeley is about ten thousand nine hundred and twenty-four dollars for a five hundred and fifty thousand dollar median home and nineteen hundred square feet.

Um in looking, this is a 100 million dollar bond every five years, uh, based on analysis.

If we did 100 million dollars in 2027, that would add an additional sixteen dollars per 100,000.

So you could add that to the 10,900 to get the total tax bill based on fiscal year 26.

Um, looking at fiscal year 27 is obviously unknown to us.

There are a number of parcel taxes on the ballot, so we could model something out depending upon which ones you think may pass.

But looking at fiscal year 26, that would be the impact.

Right.

So I guess, yeah, so you're saying again, and the 242 is in the context of the median bill, which is already what you say, the median total.

Uh the median assessed value is 550,000, and that's over the course of that's the average over 40 years, uh, and just when we look at the mediate 100 million dollars, it's obviously a lot less.

Got it.

But that portion of the overall tax bill is also again thinking of it in those terms with for the median average person, their average annual property tax bill with all of the other bills and whistles comes out to something like that.

It was uh 10,924 your total tax bill fiscal year 26.

So you're talking about 242 on top of 10,000, again, which puts that in perspective.

You know, again, no one wants to pay more taxes, but there are already there's already a $10,000 nut between the property tax and everything else that we're talking about.

So this is a incrementally is not it's it's it's something, but it's not the biggest driver of that number.

Uh yes, but to be really clear, because we'd only do 100 million dollars in 2027, we'd actually only add $16 per 100,000.

Um we wouldn't add the 240.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Um question for the city manager, um, I know we've talked about in this past, but just to confirm, um, if we do embark on this infrastructure infrastructure measure and it passes, and we then have sort of these these projects on our plate, uh, knowing that we've got a super talented management team, but they're also managing a lot of day-to-day work.

How do you foresee how do we staff this, execute this, make sure that we do all the oversight um and all of the work on these infrastructure projects at the level of quality we expect?

How would you staff it and organize it?

Yeah, it's a good question.

As the staff mentioned, we did build into this um into the measure of costs to add staffing.

Obviously, we'd have to have more staff to run a 300 million dollar bond project over these years.

And so we, you know, we haven't come up with exactly what the staffing model would look like, but we built in this the additional costs to add staff to run the measure, whether that is done sort of like T1, where part of it was done in parks and part of it was done in public works, or whether we created a separate standalone capital projects division to run it all.

We haven't just made that decision yet, but you know, those are the things we're talking about.

Okay.

And there are other cities we can also borrow from in terms of best practices and look at.

There are, and we have also for previous books.

Great.

Thank you.

Um when do we need to finalize the list of projects?

Does that have to happen before we go to the ballot or uh this list that we're kind of negotiating between and what's on and what's off?

Yeah, we want to we want to finalize a list before we go to the ballot, but I also want to be clear that we what we're not we're not saying that this is that there can be no flexibility on this list for moving spending around because we know that there will be you know things will happen.

We'll get grants that like fully fund a project and we'll want to move that money into another project.

And so just to be clear that yes, we would like to finalize the project before we before we at the time when we get the ballot measure when you adopt the the language for the the measure, but also we we will we will have flexibility built in so that we can move things around, okay.

Thanks.

Um question for um Chief Sprague on the fire training center.

Um that replacement project, is that do you have a location?

Is that envisioned to be at the Gilman Street location or somewhere else?

Uh we don't have a location nailed down, that's one potential location, but where the city would have to um acquire the property and make sure we can fit everything there.

Okay first.

Got it.

And then um uh he we talked a little bit about the um investment in 2100 MLK, the public safety building.

Obviously, so fire has shifted a lot of their operations out to the new location.

Um so that work at the public safety building is mostly 911 dispatch and police, is that right?

Confirm.

It is okay.

Um, and what are we what are we doing with the rest of the space by the way in that building with BFD moving up?

Well, police is expanding into it.

Okay.

Is the short answer to that?

Great.

Council member.

Also, just to clarify, the dispatch center does still serve uh fire and DMS.

Joint right, it's joint.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, uh, I think oh last thing, um specifically on the projects.

We you mentioned that we'd reduced the allocation for the Civic Center restoration, uh, basically enough to secure grant matches.

Um my only question is whether or not if that's there's sort of a too hot too cold just right.

I I would be supportive of something that's a little bit more than that.

It feels like, you know, we're kind of bringing it way back to a very small amount that's we're we still have a lot a lot of runway to go to actually get those projects done.

So uh I know we've listened to a lot of the community feedback, and so I I want to honor and respect that and and as you guys have thought about this process, but at least would be curious about moving that back a little bit higher.

Maybe it's not the full level that it was before.

But I just don't wanna I just don't want to drag that out and then have a super long runway.

Like if we're gonna do it, I would like to you know make a solid step forward towards it.

So that would that's my own personal feedback.

I don't know what other people think.

Uh thank you.

That's it.

Thank you very much.

Um, I have a few questions as well.

Um in the last conversation that we had about the sales tax and infrastructure bond, we talked about um allocating funding for auditing.

Could you speak to if we've made any changes around that?

That's where the 40.5 uh million um that's baked into that cost.

And could you speak to a little more to what that exactly would be used for?

So it would probably be very similar to T1.

So we audit self-audit, uh, we actually outside audit T1 every two years.

So I think we're in the middle of our fourth audit right now.

Um, and so it would be very similar, and the audit is to make sure that the the funds are being spent as um per the measure and per the um the language in the measure.

Um, and it's pretty comprehensive, and so it happens every two years.

We probably do something similar for this bond measure.

Thank you.

And I just want to understand, because I think for measure FF, we had our city auditor do that auditing.

Is there a reason we we chose to do external audits for that?

I can only venture to that.

That's because that's it was a citizen initiative from a city practice perspective.

We typically do audit our tax measures, and I think what we've what we're proposing is fairly standard for um how we proceed.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure we um have a clear understanding of that since um we, of course, accountability is very important to us.

We want to make sure folks know that we have these measures in place when we're asking them to support them.

Um and what happens if we don't secure grant funding for the projects that we hope to.

I know that was touched on a little bit, but there are a number of projects that we talked about getting grant funds for.

So obviously grant funding is never a hundred percent.

Um what you see in in these proposals are really the in the only tough spot, the only spots where we that we kind of mentioned that there was a potential user leverage are ones where we were pretty confident that we could secure funding for.

There's probably another half dozen projects on this list that we think they're possible for grant funding sources that we didn't do that with.

So we will either be able to leverage that funds to add more to the project and more folk more scope to, um, but we only really included the ones we were pretty confident on and the grants that we know that are out there have talked to funders about and either have applied for or um received similar grants before.

Yeah, I just want to make sure we're clear with the public that if we don't receive that funding, we probably won't be able to do those projects.

And one thing I'll say, you know, our city manager had alluded to the fact that we're um wanting to build in flexibility, and I think where the um scoring methodology comes into play for the items that were scored very high for leveraging external funding, that could potentially help just the phasing of it, just because the bond is issued at 100 million dollars every five years.

Um so I think that's something in terms of strategy, thinking about uh phasing out certain or not phasing out, but how we phase in certain projects related to grant timelines as well.

That makes sense, thank you.

And then um one more thing I wanted to make sure I understood.

Um can you speak a little bit to how we've prepared for any increases in costs, both the labor materials.

I think um I'm a little cautious of that, knowing that um these costs can go up really drastically, right?

This is something we did didn't proceed a little closer, didn't do in T1.

Um, but it's something we've done with these projects.

So we've added um additional funding, knowing that, you know, depending on how these bonds are sold, whether it's in two or three phases, we've added um the appropriate amount of money to some of these projects that we know are gonna be um later, they're gonna happen later in the bond measure.

And we didn't do that in T1.

It was one of the reasons why we along with increases from COVID and all the related um concrete and metal increases that we saw during that time that we had to restructure, restructure the projects.

I think over the life of T1, we restructured maybe five or six times, which included council approval on that.

We go to our our our public works and and parks for creation and waterfront commission, then bring those changes to council.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Um, I'd like to move us over to public comment.

If there is any public comment on this item, which its official title is presentation and discussion of second community survey results and direction regarding potential ballot measures for the November 3rd, 2026 general municipal election item.

Please raise your hand if you're online, or come up to the front if you've if you'd like to make a comment in person.

Hi, I'm Judy Zaika.

I'm one of the co-presidents of the Berkeley Historical Society and Museum, and I'm particularly interested in the veterans building and the old city hall.

There seems to be this misconception that these are vacant buildings.

In fact, in the Part D of the uh Civic Center Improvements, um the uh the survey results, there's a statement that says these are closed buildings that are not currently serving the public.

And I think that that perception is really misleading because, in fact, both of these buildings are used every day, and the Berkeley Historical Society has been there since 1992.

That's 34 years.

Uh, these buildings are seismically unsound.

Uh we have we host events, we host exhibits, we host.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

In any case, I think that that's important to keep in the year.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, uh, to the commission and this or the council and the staff.

My name's Alison Labonte.

I'm a resident in District 2, and I especially appreciate hearing how the focus groups and uh meetings with the commissions has uh been incorporated in some of the changes recommended here by staff.

There was just uh two things um in conversations that I continue to have with the community.

Um to the uh I wanted to point out one, I'm uncertain about how we can say that the bathrooms are user-friendly.

One thing that's going around on the West Um Berkeley what WhatsApp chat is like these are requiring a phone to scan a QR code, some of the smart bathrooms, and I'm not sure that that's really that um easy user-friendly, especially for elderly.

And um, the other thing is uh in a February 2026 document with the costs of projects, the king pool uh with a locker room decking piping roof uh was five million.

Uh so if there's no locker room, why is it still listed?

Five million recommendations.

Thanks, Allison.

Um, just to address just some, I know you already answered this, but just some changes were made because of the increase in costs along the way and some staffing as well.

So that might address some of that, but go ahead.

Hi, uh John Kane or Downtown Berkeley Association Community for Cultural Civic Center.

Um so we appreciate the challenge that you're all facing in that um John.

Can you talk in the mic?

Oh, I'm sorry.

How do we get funding uh for the civic center?

It didn't poll as well as other items.

Um, I think the the idea of having a match for the FEMA grant is a good idea.

Um, I think was it about five million dollars the match um for both buildings.

The question I have is if we don't get the FEMA grant, God knows with this administration, um, could we repurpose that?

When I talked to Liam Garland a couple years ago, uh prior head of public works, he said we needed about two million dollars to make us shovel ready for um with CEQA and NICWA.

So, what my request is that five million dollars we wish it was more, but that there's some flexibility in that and how it's um the ballot measures written, um, and how that money can be deployed to get ready for shovel ready.

Thanks, John.

When the economy turns around.

Thank you.

Anyone else in person?

Okay, go for it.

Okay.

Um, what is born in Berkeley bursts out and buzzes around the world?

Uh right now we have a great historic um uh museum, and we do great things, but we need we are underrepresented, and we are an underfunded gem.

And what I'm asking is I respectfully ask the city council to approve this bond, reconsider the puny allocation given to old city Hall, and dedicate enough financial resources for our mission at the Historical Society to build a great museum, and I ask your help to make that happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was Karen Chapman from the uh Berkeley Historical Society and Museum.

I'm Ann Harlow from the same institution.

But I want to mention that it's not just our museum that is occupying space in one of those two buildings.

There's also the Dorothy Day House, which is visited by many people every day.

And you know, it could collapse in an earthquake.

And who's going to be responsible?

City of Berkeley for not taking care of a building it owns.

And then there's options recovery services, also is very active in the Model Sheric building.

Berkeley Community Media is active in the Old City Hall, which you do need to always, I think say Old City Hall, not just Model Shirick building for the for the public.

Um I'm glad that the numbers got revised about the seismic work, but um it didn't sound to me like you were budgeting an adequate match for the total amount for the veterans building uh grant if we get that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in person?

Folks online.

Yes, there's currently 10 hands raised.

Um, first is Aaron Dean.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you for taking my comment.

This is Erin Dean.

I want to speak in support of projects number 30 and 31, the Maldon Sherwick and Veterans Memorial Building.

I strongly support the work and vision for these important community spaces.

And I really want to highlight projects number 22 and 23.

And this is transforming the medians from weedy lots that can be a visibility risk and require ongoing mowing to beautiful, climate resilient, green, low water, low maintenance, California native plantings.

I'm sure it would garner a lot of strong community support.

I'm actually in the parks one to two days a week helping maintain the native plant gardens there that I help spearhead on the commission.

And I can honestly, every time I'm in the park, one, two, three, four, five people stop, and they say they love the native plants.

They even know the names, they surprise me.

Hummingbird Sage or the C and Nose.

People know it's a movement.

And so supporting this would be a wonderful idea and a great addition to our city.

Thank you.

Next is Mary Carlton.

Ah, sorry for the time to thank you very much.

I'm sorry I was not able to attend in person, and I really appreciate your work.

Regarding line 22 and 23, um, I'd like to suggest adding the words as needed after soil replacement and new irrigation, because there are, you know, in my personal experience and experience of other native gardeners, while water is vital for getting the plants started, it's remarkably little water and can go from daily down to weekly quite quickly and um to monthly, and certainly far less if the planting is done when the rains are starting.

Um 20 gallon water carts with bicycle wheels and a spigot on the median would allow volunteers to provide sufficient watering very easily.

So the cost and the then plastic in the ground of irrigation could be.

Yes.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, your time is up.

Thank you for your comment.

Next is Ted Steen.

Hi everyone.

Thank you, Council members.

My name is Ted Steen, and I represent Eshore Alliance FC, where we serve over a thousand children right here on the East Bay.

I'm here tonight to talk about supporting two things.

One, it's vital to include the turfing of gay catoffle fields at Harrison Park and the bathroom improvements in this bond measure.

The city's own assessment calls these failing fields, which our kids play on every week.

That's a health and safety issue, and our community deserves better.

We have a petition with over with hundreds of signatures on it.

Second, taking a look at the proposed 40 to 60% increase in youth sports, especially with the expansion of Harrison Park when it comes to turfing.

That kind of jump puts soccer out of reach for a lot of families.

Before I step down, have to recognize two Berkeley staff members, Cesar, who does a great job keeping up the grass fields, and Twin, who's always out here on the field and in the parking lot, making sure there are kids are safe and supported.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next is Lisa Bullwinkle.

Hi, good evening, everyone.

I'm Lisa Bolinkle.

I'm on the Art Commission, but I'm speaking as a resident tonight.

First of all, I'd like to see us fix existing things that we have instead of coming up with a whole bunch of new projects.

But I'd also want to talk about Old City Hall and the veterans building.

I understand the match for Old City Hall.

If it's a 50-50 match, it kind of works.

But the amount for the veterans building is nowhere near what we would need in order to provide an art center for our community.

And the idea of fixing these two buildings, besides that they're beautiful, is to also activate our civic center and keep it safe and a wonderful place for everyone to come and enjoy.

And that's a lot of foot traffic.

By fixing these two buildings, we will have the facilities to encourage people to come downtown, enjoy the park, enjoy the Berkeley Museum, and take some art classes.

So I hope we can find some more money for the veterans.

Next is Bay Area Adult Soccer League.

Hi everyone, my name is Irene.

I'm the owner of the Bay Area Adult Soccer League.

And we have actually been playing at Tom Bates Sports Complex for about 13 years.

We serve primarily the Berkeley community, the adult soccer community.

So I'm here to make a big, big push for the artificial turf conversion for the Gabe Cotaffo Harrison Park field project.

We have been waiting for this for a really long time.

The fields are totally congested.

I can tell you pre-COVID, we had maybe 12 sports groups vying for those slots at Tom Bates pre-COVID and then post-COVID.

Now we have quadruple the amount of groups.

So it's completely congested and it would eliminate a lot of pressure on the Tom Bates competition for us to be able to have that artificial turf, which is Scott Ferris was saying, we could it's not being used right now because it's grass and it needs to be maintained like six months out of the year, which is a whole lot of time, and this is really a quality of life issue.

It's a public health issue, it's a mental health issue for our adults.

Thank you so much.

Next is uh Taj.

Yes, um, I'm sorry, I'm under the weather, so unfortunately I can't be there in person tonight.

Um, but I wanted to address, um, I I'd like to urge the council tonight to take a step back and look at this issue microscopically.

Um, honorable mayor and council members, my name is Tasha Baptist.

I do serve as a council uh as a commissioner on the adoption for our safety commission and on the community health commission, but I'm speaking tonight in my individual capacity as a Berkeley resident.

And the views below are not my own and do not represent a position of either commission.

I urge the council to reject the staff recommendation, and item one is currently framed and to direct staff to return with ballot language for a general obligation, go bond infrastructure resilience bond in a range that's higher than the currently proposed 300 million dollars.

Because the city's own report contains the answer.

The staff confirms that the Berkeley's identified infrastructure needs exceed 1.5 billion dollars.

The proposed bond would address less than 20% of that backlog.

We are being asked to commit to 30 years of debt service for a program that by the city's own admission cannot solve the problem.

It was created to solve.

Thank you.

Next is Jean Hammond.

Hi, um, I am Jeannie Hammond.

I live on Sacramento Street, and I'm speaking for myself and on behalf of my dad who lives next door.

And we're here to support line items 22 and 23 for the general bond measure.

Greening the medians.

Converting medians to native plant gardens supports biodiversity, native pollinators, which you know are in severe decline globally.

One way we can help is to provide more habitat in our cities.

And this is a really beautiful and creative way to use underutilized land to create very visible pollinator habitat.

And also replace areas that are currently requiring mowing and that provide no habitat value.

So I hope you include those projects in the bond measure.

Thank you.

Next is Amy.

Hello.

Thank you.

First of all, thank you for all the work that's gone into this process.

It's obviously takes a lot of time and effort.

My name's Amy Woodward.

I'm a resident in District 3.

I'm also here to support the line items 22 and 23, the native plant gardens and mediums on Sacramento and University.

I happen to be in a part of Berkeley that has a lot of oak trees and uh the backyards of a good quarter block.

And the number of birds and other native um animals that come through here is really quite astounding.

Um providing more habitat for native plants and animals.

Uh both helps the local environment and creates a lot of enjoyment for countless Berkeley residents.

Also reduces water needs and is just the right um thing for this particular climate because well, they're natives.

Um I also wanted to just quickly speak out for Francis Albrier Community Center as well.

It's long past time that uh San Jose Park or San Pablo Park had a proper facility, so thank you.

Thank you.

Next is David Flores.

Hi, Council, can you all hear me?

Yes.

All right, cool.

Thank you.

Um sorry I couldn't be there in person.

I'm on baby care, but uh David Flores.

I'm with Berkeley Community Media, but I'm here speaking as a resident of District 2, and I just want to put my full endorsement behind the uh investment in the civic center.

Um, I think it is a beautiful vision to have a place where the community can come in and be together, and not only that, but just preserving these beautiful historic buildings that are there because um they're just a thing to behold from the outside, but also their beautiful on the inside.

So thank y'all and keep up the good work.

Thanks, David.

Next is Lonnie Hancock, former mayor and state senator.

Hi.

Sorry, I hope I'm unmuted.

Just to add to what people have said, this is a great opportunity for a legacy for the generations that come after us to save our old buildings, to put them to reuse.

I was mayor over 30 years ago when we set up the historical society in the veterans building.

They have grown to an extraordinary institution, all on volunteer organization and work.

They have incredible archives, would be a great addition to the art district that's adjacent, and to life in the civic center for our city.

Just to point out again, in during the Great Depression, some pioneering people set up the East Bay Regional Park District.

Aren't we glad they did it?

This is about the soul of Berkeley.

People need a sense of place in this time.

Thank you so much for all your work.

Thank you very much.

Uh, last speaker, um, the username is just iPhone.

Um, you should be able to unmute.

IPhone, you have your hand raised.

You should be able to unmute.

There you go.

Hi, thank you so much for letting me give me the opportunity.

My name is Harry Dowert.

I am actually the commissioner for the Bay Area Adult Soccer League.

I am speaking to support Ted as well as my boss Irene, you know, in regard to expansion of the soccer field and um converting those grass fields to um to tall fields as well.

Uh it's a very healthy thing to do for both the adult and youth community in our society.

And uh in the interest of time, I would like to say very quickly a shout out to Bran and his group.

No, for being able to coordinate the field allocation process and particularly also to twin, a young man that keeps the fields together and order in the parking area since he's been around.

We have had very few break-ins in the parking area, particularly at uh at some beats.

It keeps those fields tidy.

He actually looks at it as if it's no private.

Thank you so much.

I'm sorry.

Your minute is up, but thank you so much for your comment.

Okay, that's uh that's all the speakers.

Okay, thank you very much.

I know we just had a lot of people walk in.

For those of you who have just walked in, I know it's six o'clock, but we're still finishing our special meeting, which happened before.

So it's gonna be a little while because we haven't actually done deliberations yet.

So um if you have something that's a little bit later, if you want to take a stretch, feel free.

Um, and then also can someone open the doors maybe because I think that will help with the cross breeze.

Thank you.

It's quite hot in here.

Um, all right, so moving on to council uh comments.

I'm gonna start over with Councilmember Taplin.

Thank you very much, and thanks to staff and to all the speakers this evening.

Um, I first like to move that the council affirm the direction to prepare about language for a $300 million general obligation bond and a 0.5% increase in the city's hill and use tax.

Second.

Thank you very much.

And I'm supporting these amounts because one thing that I learned from Measure L was that after doing engagement and increasing the amount twice after that engagement had a huge detrimental effect on public trust and made it impossible to message against on the trail.

So that's why I'm supporting what we've done tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to Vice Mayor Traegub.

Thank you so much.

I also support this direction, and I would like to thank staff for their immense amount of work to help uh get um both proposed measures to this point today.

Um, and I also wish to thank members of the public who have been um uh just uh in incredibly generous of their uh time uh coming to the meetings and providing their input.

Um and I think this list has evolved um very much uh in accordance with the feedback that we heard.

Uh so my only comment uh around asking staff to look at a further adjustment, um, it is uh going to echo um council member Blackaby's comments somewhat on uh investing in, or at least trying to prevent the demolition, the potential demolition by neglect of two historic buildings uh in the downtown, uh the Madel Shirak uh City Hall building and the Veterans Memorial Building.

Uh I completely agree with the comments that uh even in the state that they're in today, they're still uh teeming with public life.

I was just there actually for um a um memorial service on Sunday.

Um, and you know, I've been to the Berkeley Historical Society offices.

Um, imagine what it could be if it was uh seismically safe, and all the spaces could be open for use.

Um I was just looking, and I I understand that this is a balancing act.

Um, there's only so much that can be squeezed into 300 million dollars, but I went through and I'm just noting that uh the adjustment to the Madel Shirec building uh restoration uh from uh the February slash March numbers constitutes uh 1.86 fold reduction, and to the veterans memorial building constitutes a 7.7-fold reduction.

Um, if there was a way uh because as much as I would love to see FEMA uh provide matching grants under this Trump administration, I am just not confident in anything.

Um I want to urge staff to look at if we might be able to move the line up a little bit for both of these buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Humbert.

Yes, thank you, madam mayor.

Uh, and in the interest of brevity, I had a whole list of thank yous to individuals, but I would just want to, you know, one ball of wax, thank you for everyone who's who worked on this.

Um, compiling this list of projects and estimating costs was a huge lift, and something I know stood on the shoulders of past work and past bond efforts.

So I want to express my deep gratitude for everyone who's brought us to this place.

The polling, who's done really good work for us this time and in the past.

I think the project list is in very good shape.

So I don't have um other than one substantive comment about that at this time.

I'm really happy about fully the proposal to fully fund the 5050 sidewalk program.

I think it's critical in terms of public safety.

It was one of the first uh referrals that I um that I brought when I joined councils to fully fund it, got lost in the budget process, and I'm glad it's it's reappearing here.

Um, I do understand that people may feel a little uncertain, given that we've seen some um decreases um in the second set of polling, but I think we're still at a decent level.

Um so all told I feel we're ready to move forward, both the sales tax measure and the general obligation bond as proposed.

Thanks again, and I'm gonna support the pending motion.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Uh thank you again, Director Ferris, Acting Director Miriam and Chief Sprague for the information you provided.

Thank you, Mr.

White.

Thank you, Carrie.

Um, I I Ms.

Aradondo, am I pronouncing your last name correctly?

Okay, I just want to make sure I I do that.

So um and I like uh Councilmember Hubbard, I want to thank everyone for all the work.

Um there was a lot of community input that went into the project list that we have before us today.

So I I want to express gratitude for those meetings that occurred and the public members of the public that provided input.

I did want to just highlight um some particular projects that were really important to me as uh the one of the two representatives of West Berkeley.

So one the Francis Albrier community center.

I think that's very important uh for that uh center to have to be seismically retrofitted and to be a modern facility for West Berkeley and San Pablo Park.

I also want to note all of the restroom improvements happen to be in District One.

Um I'm calling it the North Waterfront Park now at the marina.

Um that's really a citywide amenity, and we hear all the time.

People are appreciating the throne bathroom that is there, but you know, our goal is to have a permanent bathroom there.

So I I'm really pleased to see that.

Of course, really pleased to see all of the important marina infrastructure improvements that are here, the um the seawall.

You know, there's a climate resilience element to this that I think is very important.

And um, I must do a nod to the um the soccer players, the the advocates for the soccer players.

Uh, Harrison Field is also in District One, and um I would love to see that get upgraded with the artificial turf.

Um also West the West Berkeley family Family Wellness Center is in district one as well, and that is in need of improvement.

We've we've been able to address the North Berkeley Senior Center, the South Berkeley Senior Center.

This is another center that we have that um we would like to improve, and then like Councilmember Humbert, the 50-50 sidewalk program is very important.

We have so many bumpy sidewalks that are a hazard for people of all ages and abilities, and they're you know, as the birthplace of the disability rights movement, we we really mean need to make sure all of our sidewalks are accessible for for people who may use mobility assistance devices.

Um I also, you know, we had those three fire um infrastructure improvements.

I I do and I'm not trying to single out station four, I know a lot has been said about station four.

I know we're gonna talk about it a lot at the budget.

Just because it it was a very significant dollar amount, Chief, it would be helpful to get a breakdown.

I don't know if you can speak to it now.

I know you said you talked about you know the carcinogenic apparatus, um, and maybe that's a conversation we conversation we can continue to have.

I I just like to understand better, you know, how we arrive at the $54 million.

Yeah, you bet we have um detailed analysis in the fire facilities master plan that was conducted by um fire station architects and then priced out by contractors and then escalated to 2020, 2030, I believe.

Yeah, I'm sorry, it escalated.

And then the cost was escalated from 2023 to 2030.

Okay, so I can go back to that document and understand better the breakdown.

I'll send you the relevant section to dig.

Thank you.

That sounds like a long document.

So it'd be helpful to have that, and and so for the public too.

Um, if we get questions, I'd like to have that information.

So, and I I did want to just speak briefly to the concern.

I I think you know, maybe some of my colleagues are feeling.

I know members of the public may be feeling the number of revenue measures that voters are potentially going to see on the ballot.

I I do just want to state that it's actually very inspiring that we have citizens gathering signatures to put measures on the ballot for various causes that they believe are important.

Um, so that effort is not under the council's control, right?

So there's the arts tax, the public bank, uh, the the public transit measure.

You know, these are other entities, other people who were doing that.

Um, but of course, we do have to think about how that may impact what we are trying to do.

I think ultimately, given where the polling results were this time, um, that you know, I think we should still proceed.

I I didn't see any reason not to proceed with our plans, uh, but to go into it with the awareness that there is going to be fatigue.

Uh I think this is a tough economy for people, so there needs to be a positive message around both measures.

Um, and I think there's a lot of really important, critical projects to emphasize for the infrastructure bond.

I think some of this, you know, the costs will escalate.

You know, the the chief just spoke about escalating 2023 costs to 2026 dollars.

So the longer we wait, the larger the bill is going to be.

And so, and that's true for most of our infrastructure.

So, I I think we need to emphasize those points.

Okay.

Oh, okay, I just I just almost done.

I I did want to just address, you know, that the costs, I and I want to, I think Councilmember Tregoop asked about the cost.

I just want to note the bond measure is 22.14 cents per 100,000 of home value.

You know, and I know those new homeowners that, you know, we're trying to create new home ownership opportunities for you.

If you bought a home this year for 1.5 million, if you do that math, 22.14 cents by 15, 1500,000, that's 332.10 cents per year.

And and people who bought earlier who bought at a lower price are going to be less than that.

So we are aware of that number, and I you know, want the public to be aware of that number.

It's it's not a it's not nothing, but relative to the entire tax bill, you know, we we have to think about it that way.

And and the some of the bonds that are going to be expiring, I think you talked about so um, and then finally on the sales tax measure.

Um, I I did want to say, I know we're not finalizing the ballot language tonight, but I think that final language should reflect our budget plan.

Um, and I think maybe we're gonna finalize the language in June.

So maybe we'll be have a better exact sense of our budget because we've been talking about restoring public safety positions, critical programs operated by the recreation and parks department.

Um, so I I think those are the programs that we should highlight and and not talk about other things that are not in our plan.

Uh, because I you know, I want the public to know what the plan is, how those funds would be used.

Um, so that's all.

Thank you so much for indulging me and ready and very eager to support the motion.

Thank you.

And yeah, again, apologies for folks who've just walked in.

We're still finishing our special meeting from before.

Um, so we will go over to Council Member Lunapara.

Thank you.

I just have some um some brief comments.

I really want to thank everyone who has put in the time and effort into this.

Um, I support uh both as written, I support the amount that has been allocated.

I really appreciate the addition of the um Dwight Triangle project in this.

I it is that's very exciting, has been in the works for a long time.

Um, you know, with the goal of uh car-free telegraph in the future, it'll be a perfect end node to it.

So thank you very much.

Um yeah, that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you, Madam Marum.

Uh, I too wanna want to thank you all for your work.

Uh, this is quite an quite uh an expansive list, uh, very complicated, and uh put together in two different buckets of finance that are each um also somewhat complex.

And according to the poll, and I know Animus Berman's work is fantastic.

According to the poll, it looks somewhat promising.

Um, and so we will across the freeze and support this going forward.

Um, and I do support the motion.

Thank you.

Uh, a couple things I want to call out.

I'm really excited about and a couple of notes.

Uh, the the airline open space, very exciting.

Uh, this, of course, is uh part of the part of the reparative framework we've undertaken the last number of years and uh with regarding these public finance tools and the districts.

Uh, you know, when the underground at Bart, this people don't know this.

When the underground at BART, uh they're they're supposed to make a park to go all the way across the city.

So they made they made a loaney park in North Berkeley, but they made asphalt uh in South Berkeley.

So uh this is a great effort to restore that and give us a beautiful park greenway.

Um I'm excited about that.

The um the senior center, wonderful the HVAC um upgrade.

I'm wondering um if there's a possibility of shoehorning a bit more uh work into that project um as it was rehabilitated under T1, uh, as was North Berkeley Senior Center, but North Berkeley Senior Center happening in a really beautiful cosmetic upgrade.

And uh whereas South, so we did not in South Berkeley.

So it'd be great if we could maybe shoe in a little bit more in there to give it a similar um someone look.

We've got North Berkeley, that'd be wonderful.

Um, and of course, very happy for the the the the saga of the African American Listic Resource Center to be coming uh to a funding closed.

Now we're excited about this, very supportive.

Uh and this way, thanks so much.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Blackabi.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

Um, everyone has said so many things, I'll be extremely brief.

Um, again, thanks to city staff uh for their heavy lifting and all the community engagement that's gone into this process.

Uh thanks also to David Merman for his uh research support to help inform some of these decisions.

Just three kind of sets of projects I wanted to call out.

One, again, I agree with Councilmember Tregu that um to the extent we can find a way to augment some of the funding, the Civic Center's safety improvements around Old City Hall and the Veterans Building.

I would love to figure out a way to do that within the overall portfolio.

Um second, um, as the dad of two young soccer players, I'm really glad to see the upgrades at Harrison Field.

And and Scott, I'll say the other thing about the uh the core is that really gets in your shoes.

Uh, and so I don't know if there's a better material, if the walnut's better, but it's a really painful.

Um, but anyway, uh upgrading Harrison's Fields so it's more um accessible more of the years, fantastic.

And third, um, certainly from a district six perspective, um, the 50 50 sidewalk program, extremely important.

We have so many uh deteriorating, if not non-existent sidewalks in the hills.

Um, the more we can do around safety and infrastructure for folks who are walking, biking, not on the sidewalk, but next to the sidewalk, and um just using the street infrastructure up there.

Um, is really important.

So I appreciate seeing that.

The last overall comment, um, I think in this whole process, we've been uh, and I again appreciate the transparency um through all of this and public engagement, and I think it's really incumbent on all of us as a council and as uh city team to demonstrate continued transparency and accountability, both in order to get these revenue measures passed and then to ensure their successful delivery.

I think that's something we've all heard time and again that again, ensuring we have trust of the public that they have confidence in these plans and in what we're delivering is really really important to me.

Um I authored an item earlier this year with support of colleagues to again set clear goals and metrics around the goals that we're trying to implement as a as a city.

So again, heading into fall.

I think the more we can do heading into November and then beyond to show that kind of discipline, setting really clear goals, measuring those goals, and and being accountable uh to what we said we're gonna do and then delivering it.

Um, again, it's good for uh showing voters that they can trust us with their hard and earned dollars, and then it's really important to actually delivering the work.

So I thank staff for this, and I also support the motion and look forward to these moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Keefe.

I think I'm last.

Um, oh the mayor's last.

Uh thank you very much.

Um, you know, I was um I want to say something.

I, you know, I second almost everything that was said.

I think everything that was said, uh especially thanking all of the work that went into this.

Um I I do have kind of a uh just something I want to name, which is that we're looking we're talking about two different revenue measures here, and you know, I'm happy to support the motion.

I think we should move forward with both of them, but the um the sales tax measure for me, like if I had to choose between them, the sales tax measure would be the one I would choose.

I feel like if we didn't pass it, the results would be catastrophic to what we have now, whereas the bond is a lot of really important stuff that would be really wonderful to have.

But I if I felt like the two were in up were sort of in um contention with each other, I think I might have a little more reluctance to support this.

However, I I'm saying that because I want to say that I I'm really um heartened by the results of the survey, and you know, learning that the numbers that we saw were actually uh in the context of all the other measures, and even when the two these two measures specifically were side by side, it actually arguably helped rather than um didn't make a difference.

That makes me feel a lot better about supporting both, which feels a little scary and risky to me.

But um, I think I think it's okay.

Let's go for it.

That's it.

Thanks so much.

Thank you very much.

I I want to start by just thanking all of you for the presentation this evening.

Um, I want to, I there's so many city staff out here.

So I also just want to thank all of you, because I know so much of your work and your feedback and your number crunching and your experiences um go into these presentations and and also all the work that was done in the community outreach.

So thank you all very much.

Um I also want to thank uh the Realized 2050 task force that was meeting in this last year to work on updating Vision 2050 and um working also with Councilmember Taplin and Trey Gub and myself um to make sure that we were really focused on bringing this bond measure forward in the first place.

I think that's incredibly essential.

Um both are really, I'm glad you highlighted that, Councilmember O'Keefe, because it is important to acknowledge that there are two different things that we're talking about here, and I also see the real serious opportunity for success with both of them uh moving forward together, and so that is very exciting to me.

Um, I want to acknowledge some of the comments that were made, specifically from the folks who were talking about the Veterans Building and Old City Hall, to just say uh yes, of course, we know those buildings are being used, and um I'm very aware of the programs that are going on there and how important they are in our community, both uh the history, but also of course Berkeley Community Media, which is responsible for streaming our meetings that we have here.

Um that is their home and um Dorothy Day House options, etc.

And um, I want to say that, yeah.

I mean, I was very excited for the results of the first poll.

So I do have to say I was a bit disappointed to see the numbers going down there, but that hasn't uh that hasn't made me feel that it's not possible.

Um, and so you know I will be working hard to make sure that these pass to help continue the support that we need for our city.

Um I wanna also mention um second what council member Blackaby was saying about accountability and oversight, that is incredibly important.

Many of you know that my background is with the League of Women Voters, and a lot of my work has been around um, you know, making sure that we are transparent and accountable, um, that we have transparent and accountable government, and so as Mayor, that's also very important to me.

Uh wanna mention also that the tax burden that folks were talking about, um, it's folks like me that are lucky enough to have a newer home that are gonna pay a lot more of this tax burden and um and I am still very supportive of it because I know how much benefit that brings to people around the city.

Um it's incredibly challenging for those of you who were not involved to take a look at all these districts across the city looking at equity and safety and climate change to think about all these different projects.

Just I know that there was so much work that went into it, so I just want to make sure you've you know that I really see that work and how hard and challenging it was.

I had an intern or staff or both at all of the community meetings, and I know that you all continue to improve that process and make sure you were getting really strong community engagement.

So thank you very much again to the staff.

Um, I am supportive of both items, and I'd like to move us forward for the vote.

So can we take the role in that, please?

Okay, to uh approve the staff recommendation to prepare the ballot language for the 300 million dollar general obligation bond, and also the ballot language for the uh 0.5% increase in the sales and use tax for the um November 3rd, 2026 ballot on the motion.

Councilmember Kesserwani.

Yes, Taplin, yes, Bartlett, yes, Trago.

Hi, O'Keefe, yes, Lackaby, yes.

Yes, Humber, yes, and Mary Ishii.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Very good.

Um, so I would like to see if there's a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, is there any opposition to adjournment?

Okay, we are adjourned by unanimous consent.

Don't leave yet