okay hello everyone good evening it doesn't feel like evening does it it's so hot and sunny out
okay so i'm just trying to scroll to the top of my agenda i'm going to call to order the
special meet a special meeting of the berkeley city council today is tuesday march 17th 2026
it's 607 pm and happy st patrick's day to you all um clerk can you please take the role okay
Council member Kesser-Wani. Here. Taflin. Present. Bartlett is currently absent. Tradum. Present. O'Keeffe. Here.
Blackaby. Here. Unapara. Here. Humbert. Present. And Mayor Ishi. Here. Okay quorum is present. Okay
folks please if you're out there please take your conversations outside if you're
going to have a conversation. Thank you. Okay. So we only have one item on the
agenda because it is a special meeting this evening, which is the presentation
and discussion of community survey results and direction regarding
potential ballot measures for the November 3rd, 2026 general municipal
election. So I'm going to pass it over to our deputy city manager, David White.
Yeah, take it away. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thank
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this evening.
Just for some logistics, so alongside I have Kerry Ardondo, our assistant to the city
manager online we will have our public works director and deputy director Terence Davis
and Waheed Amiri and Scott Ferris, our director of Parks and Recreation and Waterfront will
be here very shortly and also part of our presentation will be delivered online from
and Lake Street partners, David Mermin and Emma Scotty.
So before you, you have the agenda
for this evening's presentation.
We're gonna set the context and do a little background
on how we fund our infrastructure
and the gravity of our infrastructure needs.
And we did cover some of this territory
when we spoke with you in December.
Then we are going to transition it over to David Mermin
and the team to provide the results
of the community survey that we launched
in early mid-February of this year.
And that community survey was designed
with Council's direction to accomplish two objectives.
One, we investigated the support of Berkeley voters
for a 300 million and 200 million
general obligation infrastructure bond.
And then also pursuant to Council's direction
in January of this year, we also sought input
from Berkeley voters on their support
for potential general fund sales and use tax measure
to help address the city's general fund deficit.
After we talk about the results of the survey,
we're gonna talk a little bit about
the extensive community engagement effort that is underway,
which is being spearhead and shepherded
by our Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront,
our Fire Department, as well as our Public Works Department.
We will not talk about a lot of the results
of that community engagement right now
because we are saving that until we can complete
the community engagement process,
And we come back to you in May with the results
of what that is producing for us.
And then we'll talk a little bit about next steps
and timelines about what the way ahead is
and then seeking council input and direction
on recommended actions and next steps.
So let's talk a little bit about how we fund infrastructure.
And clearly the main takeaway from this slide
is we do not devote enough resources
to address the totality of our infrastructure needs.
We are an older community and our infrastructure is clearly aging.
In terms of looking at the buckets on this slide, from the general fund,
we contribute really revenue or resources to two main areas.
About $3 million goes towards our facilities, parks,
sidewalks, transportation, as well as paying for debt service.
And then we transfer a total of about $9.9 million.
There is an inflation adjustment that occurs on that figure.
that goes towards streets.
And that's the results of Council's action a few years ago
to really help address our aging street network.
We do have one-time resources
that come into our infrastructure toolbox.
That comes from property transfer tax
as well as interest income, but that's volatile.
And over the years we have not been able
to transfer all the resources to address capital
that we may otherwise like
because the general fund has needed those resources
sustain operations. And then we have resources that are restricted by use. Those goes towards
our sewer system, our streets, storm water, streetlights, and marina. And then about why
we're here tonight. So we've been able to, been very lucky to receive voter support on
a number of initiatives over the years to address infrastructure. And the most recent
item that we've been able to bring forward is Measure T1. And we've realized with the
the sunset of Measure T1 and that all those resources
are allocated and going to be fully deployed
in the next one to two years,
we realized that there aren't the resources there
to address infrastructure in the way
that the community would expect, as well as council.
What we've also been able to do,
and this slide does a really good job of highlighting
is that we've been very aggressive
in pursuing grant opportunities when they arise.
And the one statistic I would point out on this chart
is with the $100 million of T1 funding,
we've been able to leverage that with $83 million of grants.
And that work is continuous for us.
In fact, just the other day, maybe a week ago,
we received notice from the state
that we were able to secure a grant
to help address our mental health facility on MLK.
And as we won't be talking a lot
about the project list this evening,
but one of the items we addressed in the project list
is leveraging that potential grant resource
with grant funds and just want to deliver the message
we will continue to be aggressive
in that endeavor and activity.
So this is just another slide to help really encapsulate
the depth of the need that we have
from an infrastructure perspective.
So we have an unfunded need of about $1.87 billion
and that really is an unbelievable large number
when you think about it.
And when you looked at our last five-year CIP,
we believe we calculated about an average spend
of about $39 million per year towards our infrastructure.
That is woefully inadequate
to address the totality of our need.
So again, understanding the T1 resources are fully deployed,
understanding the depth of this need.
We took a step back and wanted to think about
what would another bond based on Council's direction
to explore this.
What could it do?
What could it be?
And how would we develop a list of projects?
So we took a step back.
We gave great consideration
to how we've invested resources historically.
We thought about community use of our facilities,
how to ensure equitable access.
We thought about our public safety infrastructure
and apparatus and how to shore that up
so we can be responsive to the community.
We thought about projects that could be
leverage with grant funds.
We thought about project delivery and project readiness.
And all of that allowed us to come together
with a preliminary list of projects.
And there were a little more than 30
in that preliminary list that really defined itself
into these three main buckets.
So the first bucket was community facilities
and quality of life, which included improvements
to parks, playgrounds, restrooms, aquatic facilities,
dog parks, community and cultural centers,
and waterfront areas.
The second bucket was public safety,
which was really focused and targeted
on the modernization of fire stations,
and that really was partially derived and directed
from the city council that adopted a referral
giving us that guidance, as well as resources that are needed to address our 9-1-1 dispatch
facility. And then the third bucket was critical infrastructure and accessibility,
which was all about seismic upgrades, replacement of public facilities, ADA improvements, and programs
such as our 50-50 sidewalk program. And what was really critical in designing all of these projects
is that we also really tried to hold on to a lens of climate resiliency, understanding that we're in
in a profound period of our time
where we need to be prepared for the weather.
We're experiencing it today.
And so a lot of the projects that were developed
were also thought through that lens
to ensure that we can be efficient
and resilient as we move forward.
So now I would like to turn it over to David Merman
and his team to talk about the results of the survey.
And again, as I mentioned before,
that survey was really designed to probe
a couple of main areas, the infrastructure bond,
as well as the sales and use tax
that was given direction to us by council.
David, it's all yours.
Thanks so much.
Can you all hear and see me all right?
Yep.
Great.
So glad to be here once again.
I am traveling this week,
so I couldn't even join you in person,
although I am a Berkeley resident,
as well as having done the work on this survey
for the city of Berkeley.
And as many of you know,
we have conducted a series of these community surveys
over the years, tracking overall levels of concern
about different issues, awareness and support
for the work that the city is doing.
And then very specifically to test potential ballot measures
and in many cases, revenue measures,
some of which of course were summarized
and of course placed on the ballot in previous years.
This new survey, I'm not gonna go through,
There's a longer record, I believe it's been submitted
for everyone to look at,
but we are going to just go through the highlights here
of the key findings related to this question
of an infrastructure bond measure
that could be placed on the ballot in Berkeley,
and then one additional measure
that was mentioned in the survey as well.
So, and I want to also mention my,
our senior analyst on the team here, Emma Scotty,
who's very much engaged in producing the data you see here
the results. So I will put on the screen here our summary slides and again this is excerpted from
the longer report that many of you have and these are findings from a community survey was conducted
among likely voters in the city of Berkeley 500 sample size which gives us a margin of error plus
or minus 4.4%. So you can look at the numbers with that in mind. And then we're in the field
in the second half of February of this year. And mostly we'll be reporting here the top-line
results, but we do have lots of crosstabs and other analysis in terms of how different
groups of voters in the city break down on these various questions. So this is just a summary of
the methodology of the things I just said about when we fielded in the Marching of Error and so forth.
Just again, all of these cross tabs are available in the full report, but showing some of the
breakdown. Again, this is likely voters in the city of Berkeley. People expect to vote and turn out
in 2026 November election. And so all of those folks are represented proportionally in the
survey relative to their proportion of the electorate of likely voters.
So here's the overview of the key findings that we learned here from this survey that was in the
field last month. We tested the infrastructure measure, the GO Bond, as it's referred to here,
a couple of different funding levels. We also tested the sales tax ballot measure. They were both
with different results, but both in a good position to pass in the sense that the yes vote,
the number of voters who say they're likely to vote yes on that measure, is above the threshold
that would be needed for the bond measure, which requires two-thirds to pass. We're measuring that
currently, getting about 70 percent support from Berkeley voters on the initial ballot first time
we ask it, just laying out some ballot language to describe what the bond is and asking people if
they would vote yes or no. Also note key takeaway on the bond is that we tested two different dollar
amounts and we split the sample so people in the survey heard only one of those versions all the
way through either 200 or 300 million and I'll show you the difference map at the bottom line
is there was essentially no difference and if anything the larger amount which includes a
higher level of tax increase actually tested slightly better than the smaller amount in terms
of having more support from the voters and we'll show you those numbers. We also tested a sales
tax measure to fund ongoing budget needs and that was lower in terms of its total yes vote
in the survey but only needing a 50 threshold to pass. It is also above that threshold at 60% yes
in our initial test. We also found in some broader general questions that Berkeley voters
are fairly satisfied with the city and the direction of things in the city, believing
it's going in the right direction, and that the city in general is doing a good or excellent
job providing services. There is a wide range of opinions on this, but both of those measures
have improved in the sense that the level of satisfaction in the city is a little higher
than the last time we measured it two years ago.
And in a higher proportion also saying
that the city is doing a good or excellent job,
but I'm services.
And then we also asked about priorities
within these areas of infrastructure funding in particular,
and many of the priorities that we tested related to safety,
in particular protecting infrastructure from climate change,
as mentioned in the overall presentation,
specifically issues related to emergency services
such as 911 dispatch and fire stations,
improving earthquake and seismic protections,
and repairing streets and sidewalks in particular
for pedestrian safety,
all of which got higher levels of priority from voters
out of a list of many, many things that they prioritize,
but those were some of the highest.
So from there, let me walk you through some of the numbers
that we got in these total top lines,
and then obviously happy to take questions or thoughts
from the council or others on this.
So this is the overall direction of the city of Berkeley.
And it's just to note that this is a,
it has improved as I said,
we've been now measuring this for 14 years
in the city of Berkeley.
Some version of this question is the city
going the right or wrong direction.
And we have an uptick over the last previous measure
of this in May of 2024,
when we had 47% of the voters saying
the city's going the right direction versus 29,
saying wrong direction, now it is 56% going in the right direction and 22% in the wrong
direction, and that is a significant increase over that period of two years in the positive
response on this question.
We also asked, as noted, about the job performance of the city in providing services to its residents.
This is a four-point scale, excellent, good, just, fair, or poor, and the proportion saying
good or excellent has slightly increased over the last two years.
It's now 56 percent.
That is a steady increase from five years ago in 2021 when it was at a somewhat lower point in 51.
This has always been a majority,
but it is a slightly higher majority this year.
56 percent good or excellent versus 39 percent just fair or poor.
Before asking about the ballot measures,
we also asked about the general priorities in terms of infrastructure for the city,
And these are all basically items we didn't cover every possible thing the city can invest in that we, we covered the areas that might be considered for this infrastructure measure to see which ones were the highest priorities.
And we asked people to choose.
So these percentages add up to more than 100% because people were allowed to choose more than 1.
And then we, you know, equalized the responses so that nobody was was nobody was had more weight than anyone else.
that there are people who have voted for multiple things.
So we have percentages of 100% here.
And again, we're looking for the relative priority.
If you had to choose between these things,
which ones would be the highest priority for you?
And two of them emerged clearly at the top of this list,
which are safeguarding critical infrastructure
from the threats of climate change,
including flooding and wildfires at 35%.
And increasing Berkeley safety and accessibility
improving sidewalks, curb ramps, and pathways. Those two things, different versions of safety
and protection, both at the top of this list, followed by a second tier of things that are
also clearly important to voters, reducing pollution flowing to the bay and flood risk
by installing green infrastructure, improving parks, playgrounds, recreation, and replacing
public safety facilities that are at the end of the years to life, all of those getting more
20% picking them as one of their top priorities, and then somewhat lower the more specific
location-specific areas here of improving the waterfront and the Civic Center still have some
support, but lower relative in priority compared to those broader ones. Then we get to the actual
ballot measure. And again, we tried to ask it in a form that resembled what people would see on a
a ballot as we have done previously in measuring potential ballot measures for the city.
We find a fairly strong support in the city for passing
a general obligation bond to invest in series of infrastructure things.
We specified here investing in fire stations,
emergency response, parks and recreation,
climate change resiliency,
public buildings, and infrastructure.
We'll get to the two versions in a minute,
But overall, this is the combined split sample across the whole city.
Our total result was 70% voting yes.
And we also measured intensity of supports.
We have 39% saying strongly yes.
So some of that 70% would need to be consolidated if this measure were to pass,
but it does look like it's currently 70%, seven out of 10 voters in the city
saying I would either vote for a lean guess on voting for that measure.
Only 13% saying they would vote or lean no.
It's a wide margin in favor of yes,
but it does importantly cross that two-thirds threshold
being over 67%.
And then you have 16% say I'm undecided
and not sure which way they would lean
on that infrastructure measure.
So that's the total combined.
And obviously it does reach over the threshold.
This is the experiment we did with the size of the measure.
And this was interesting because we would expect,
given that there was a tax associated with this,
a tax level that the one with the lower amount
might be slightly more popular
because it would have a lower,
and it doesn't include a lower tax increase.
Turns out, however, that there is essentially no difference
in the total yes vote.
And if anything, the larger measure
at the $300 million threshold tests slightly better,
slightly higher vote support. Now this is well within the margin of error. As far as we know,
there's essentially no difference here, but 71% for the $300 million bond measure and 70% voting
yes for the $200 million bond measure and 12% or 14% voting no, similar amounts undecided.
So it does not appear to be particularly sensitive to the level, at least in this range
of the size of the bond. So that was the... So this was the combined at 70% yes. This was the
split sample of the two different dollar amounts. And then we asked another... We then tested some
arguments and in the full report you see that the language in these arguments but basically
the idea was to see what happened when people learned more and heard more about the infrastructure
measure and we tested a... It's a stress test essentially of the support because it's both a
argument in favor and an argument against. And we wanted to see, okay, if people hear arguments from
both sides of this issue, would their vote shift? And it does shift a little and it does shift
slightly down. So it started at 70% overall after that argument back and forth and did equal times
the yes and no arguments. The yes vote saying these are important infrastructure needs and we
need to invest and it will produce benefits for all of us in Berkeley. And the no argument
and essentially saying this costs too much.
We can, we need to find the money elsewhere.
We can't afford tax increases at this time.
And so hearing those two arguments,
here's where people ended up.
Still two thirds voting yes,
just barely over the threshold, 67%, 18% voting no,
and still 14% undecided.
So if any proportion of those undecideds
were to break toward a yes,
it would once again be well over the threshold.
But it's close, but certainly in a position to pass
with 67% voting yes after those arguments.
And that does reinforce that this is a fairly robust
finding in favor of people supporting the measure,
of Berkeley voters supporting this ballot measure.
The other measure we tested on this community survey
had to do with the sales tax.
And this was not for those infrastructure investments
more broadly to address the city's structural budget deficit
with all of the increases in cost for programs
and the fact that the revenues are not keeping up.
So the idea was to see if voters would support
increasing the sales tax by half a percent.
And in this version of it, we simply said,
here's what it would be invested in
and here's what the cost would be.
Would you vote yes or no?
And 60% would vote yes on a sales tax increase
to invest in these budget needs for the city.
That is, again, it's lower than the support
for the infrastructure bond,
but it is well above the 50% threshold
that would be needed to pass.
29% say they would vote no,
but that is a substantial 31-point margin in favor,
and you do have 11% who say they would be undecided.
This is a pattern that suggests
that this would be likely to pass,
given just the simple information
of what's on the ballot for a sales tax measure.
And again, we stress-tested this
by testing arguments in favor and opposed
about the favor and favor argument,
arguing about what the needs are for the city
and the importance of investing in these budget needs,
and the no argument, again, raising the question
of does this cost too much?
Is there other money that could be used?
And specifically suggesting that a sales tax
would be regressive.
So they heard those strong arguments in favor and opposed.
And again, overall support dips a little bit
from that initial measure of 60%,
but it's still well over a majority at 58% yes.
After hearing his arguments pro and con,
29% say they would vote no,
13% in the poll are undecided
as to whether they would vote yes or no on the sales tax.
So again, this would suggest it's in a good position to pass.
And even if the undecideds broke to vote no on this case,
it would still be, you know, over the 50% threshold.
And then finally, we tested a series
back to the infrastructure question.
We tested a series of priorities
in terms of what was most important.
We had the broader priorities up top.
Now we asked about very specific things to invest in.
With an infrastructure measure,
once voters understood, we're talking about
an actual measure that might produce revenue
that could be used for these infrastructure investments.
And in this case, rather than choose,
everyone was able to rate each item on the list.
And then they had a scale five levels
of how important it was,
extremely important being the highest level.
And we're rank ordering here the things
in terms of the percent who they'd rated
the extremely important.
And there were four things in particular
that had the highest percentages of people saying
they are extremely important to me to invest in that.
The number one was renovating the 911 dispatch center
to handle higher call volumes
than modernized critical infrastructure 29%.
See that is extremely important.
That was the number one
on this long battery of potential investments.
Second highest was making the fire station citywide safer
and more energy efficient by replacing fire stations
and no longer able to meet demands.
And notably when we send replacing fire stations
that has to a little higher than repairing fire stations.
So that was notable
and that was a high priority for Berkeley voters.
Also tied with that as the second highest priority
was improving safety and accessibility
by repairing cracked and uneven sidewalks
and upgrading curb ramps,
27% extremely important for that one.
And then also in the top tier here,
just a couple of points lower
in terms of extreme important is upgrading
the deteriorating public restrooms at Berkeley parks.
And in this case, it was upgrading and repairing
rather than building new public restrooms
that tested a little bit higher,
upgrading a little bit higher than building new ones.
This is the full list just to show the range of things
that we tested specifically that could be investments
out of the infrastructure bond.
But those four noted at the top
did have the highest overall
as well as the highest extremely important rating.
But you see several other things not too far below that,
repairing the fire stations,
earthquake protections, waterfront paths,
repairing public buildings,
which does include the Civic Center.
Remember, when we limited the buildings
just to the Civic Center, that rated lower.
When we say more broadly repaired,
how would buildings, including the Civic Center,
that did better?
So all of those are in fairly high levels,
but those top four or five stand out above the others
in terms of what voters are most focused on
in terms of investments.
And that's the summary of the findings,
but happy to take questions or other feedback
After, after this presentation, thank you, David, I feel like I'm going to have to call you both something different to serve but we're used to it.
David and I are in several generations. We've grown up a lot of data. So, okay. Very good. Do I have any questions from our council members?
Do you want to pause and focus on the survey before we finish or I'm sorry? Yes. Okay. If you want to go ahead. Okay.
So we'll be real quick.
So in addition to the community survey,
I want to give a lot of credit
to Director Ferris who's in the audience,
Director Davis, Chief Sprague, Kerry to my left.
And I don't know how many staff to thank,
but there are many in our Parks, Recreation,
Waterfront Department, Public Works, and Fire Department
that have worked really, really hard to implement
a very robust community engagement campaign.
And what this slide highlights for you
is the breadth of the work that they've engaged in.
They've been in front of six city commissions,
and I'm really encouraged by that
because I've started to see commissions develop reports
for council to provide advice on how to move forward
with the general obligation bond.
Four community focus groups.
We have one more that's going to be occurring this week.
Four, sorry, four community focus groups
and then four joint district community meetings.
And we have one more joint district community meeting
this week. And then we've developed the city webpage as well as an email to
receive input from the community. And all of this, right, all the results of all
this community engagement, the results of the community survey are gonna inform us
bringing back the list to you in May that hopefully we'll get blessing to
move forward with. And I'll talk a little bit more about that in a second. So when
you look at the timeline in next steps, so we engaged and embarked on this
journey in December of last year and that was kicked off with the work
session that we brought before you and following that we brought on Lake Street
partners to help us with the community survey and as I mentioned staff
developed a very robust community engagement campaign and that's what
brought us forward to this day here today in which we're bringing forward the
results of that first survey and undoubtedly they're very encouraging.
Subsequent to the direction we received tonight,
our goal is to come back before Council
in the May timeframe.
If we get direction to move forward with a second survey,
which is one of our recommended actions,
we would bring those results back in front of you.
In addition to that, it is our goal and our interest
in bringing forward a refined project list.
Again, reflecting the input of the community survey,
reflecting the input of the community engagement effort
that's underway.
In addition to that, we are refining the cost estimates
that are developed for those projects,
as well as considering the staffing organization
and the staffing architecture
that needs to be in place to deliver a bond
to this magnitude efficiently and successfully.
And our hope is in that May study session
we would get direction on that final project list,
which will also help inform our city attorney's office
that is an integral role in helping to develop
the ballot language that ultimately we'd like to bring
in front of you in the June timeframe of this year.
So that kind of outlines sort of where we are today
and where we're headed.
I'll now turn to the conclusion,
which is our recommended actions.
We have three actions that we would like
to bring before you this evening.
The first one is to give us direction
to actually develop the final ballot language
for the 300 million general obligation bond,
to develop the draft ballot language
for the sales and use tax.
And then to give us direction to go back out
and do a second community survey.
And I wanna point out what that second community survey
would consist of.
One, we would actually like to test the actual ballot
language that would be on the ballot itself.
It's really important for us to get that feedback.
And secondly, in taking direction from the council,
one of the things that you were interested in
was seeing the interaction of these measures
with other measures that could be on the ballot.
And so, obviously, as time has passed,
we're getting better clarity on what are some of the items
that could actually be on the ballot,
and so we would like to integrate that
into a second community survey to see where they shank out
after that.
That concludes our presentation and as David Mermin said,
he's available on his team for questions as well as myself
and other staff that are either online or in audience.
Thank you.
Very good, thank you very much.
All right, back to questions.
Does anyone have any questions?
Oh, this says one, but doesn't say who it is,
so I'm not sure, perhaps.
Okay, I'll take council member Trig up first.
I don't want to go second.
Thank you so much for the presentation.
I have three questions.
I think all of them are for David, David Mormon.
Thank you, thank you so much.
As far as after, I guess, what's called the battery
of positive and negative statements,
the measure is at 67% in your experience,
what kind of factors and what might influence
that kind of falling and how a measure does on the ballot,
whether directionally it goes up or down.
So what factors influence whether it goes up or down
and also in your experience,
how often does it go up versus down?
That's question number one, maybe I will.
Let me start with that.
So three things that we think that play a role in that.
G.B. in mind, as always,
and pollsters are always going to say this, right?
That there is, this is a snapshot in time.
We took this survey in February of 2026,
elections in November of 2026, things happened, right?
There are events, there is news.
Since we took this poll,
country started the war overseas, right?
Lots of things can change and affect the environment, right?
In which people are making their decisions.
We don't know that, you know, a war overseas
can affect how people vote on infrastructure in Berkeley,
but sometimes things like that too, right?
And other things in the environment
in terms of what people are running out of the election.
So there's that.
The second thing that can influence is exactly
what the specific language on the ballot is.
Berkeley voters are well-educated,
attentive relative to most voters in a lot of other places.
They tend to read the measure.
They tend to have very specific reactions
to the very specific things that they are presented with.
And that's one of the reasons we're recommending
a second survey where we have actual language to test
that would read exactly as the voters would see it.
And sometimes there's an element in there
that either boosts or undercuts the level of support.
And then in the third, there's the question
of the specific, the ballot environment.
So it's a broader environment of the world and politics,
but there's the specific environment
of what else people are voting on on the ballot,
which is another reason to have the second survey
to what, now we have a better, clearer sense
of exactly what voters will be looking at on that ballot
in Alameda County in Berkeley,
which further revenue measures in particular,
they might be asked to vote on that kind of,
you can get an effect where people feel like,
wow, I voted for three or four taxes already,
am I ready to vote for another one?
So we do want to see how that might play out
relative to support.
And since of course the support here is slightly above,
but just slightly above the threshold it would need to pass,
it's important, right?
Whether it goes up or down as your question indicates.
In the past, the last thing I would say is that in the past,
in the city of Berkeley,
we have more often than not seen the level increase
From when we pulled in the early in the year and in the winter and spring to the fall ballot, but there are been a couple of years where that wasn't the case where there were either shifts in the environment or a lot of other revenue measures.
And, for instance, in 2022, as many of you know, there was a ballot net. There were a couple of revenue measures in the city.
Those were measured ahead of time. They went ended up getting about the level of vote that was expected in the poll, but they did not increase.
And as a result, actually fell a couple of points short of passage. So, so it's it has really gone. I haven't seen this type of measure, which is generally investments in the city go down, particularly in Berkeley.
But we have seen it kind of hold steady or the road within a couple of points and that would matter in this case. So, so those are a couple of things to look at.
Thank you. And then I have 2, I think, related questions.
In the slide deck, you first ask about top priorities,
and then later on, you have a more granular slide.
And there seems to be a bit of a mismatch, specifically,
I think you call this out,
the buildings adjacent to Civic Center Park,
Paul, while we're in the more high level survey,
but they are formally within the top tier range.
And maybe you answer for this by saying,
in the latter case, all buildings
or seismic for all buildings is included,
including those adjacent to Civic Center Park.
But I was hoping you could speak to that more
because I did see some other mismatches there,
specifically around, you know, parks or dog parks.
Yeah, what do the aspects mean in the second bar chart?
Right, so these were slightly different questions
to one thing, right?
But the first question was,
here are six or seven broad areas
for infrastructure investment, you please choose
and tell us which one or two of these
is most important to you, right?
So people couldn't, even if they cared about
civic center buildings or dog parks or whatever,
they couldn't say, but they cared more about fire stations
and sidewalk safety, they couldn't choose both.
They had to pick, right?
And when they were forced to pick,
they picked what we identified
as the sort of safety-related items, emergency services,
as well as the sidewalks.
And so that's one difference.
And then a second difference,
and I think this was,
we deliberately designed this in
because we were curious about the,
we know there's been back and forth
about the Civic Center investment in the past.
When we just said fix these buildings in the Civic Center
and it was in that set of choices,
it just, you know,
people might be happy to do that,
but they clearly didn't think it was as high a priority,
right, as those other items.
Then in the longer list, they were able to rate each of those.
And for each one say, how important is it to you?
Now, keep in mind that infrastructure,
that piece of repairing the buildings,
but not at the time, but it wasn't at the bottom.
There was right, it was sort of in the middle.
And it was framed, the description was different.
The description said,
we're going to invest in public buildings around the city
that are used for various kinds of services,
including the Civic Center.
And I mentioned three, but two or three other things.
So those were the two differences
and I think account for that one.
And I think you can see in the areas like parts,
some of those differences as well.
Like when we got very narrow as to we're gonna fix,
we're gonna provide dog parks.
People are like, fine,
but that is not my highest priority, right?
It's fine, right?
So it wound up lower on that relative list.
But when we said more broadly,
we want to invest in parks
it was something people care about.
So, and then we had when we said specifically bathrooms
fix those, it's actually one of the highest, right? So by having that granular breakdown,
we're able to see a little more what people mean. Let me say yes, I want to approve the parks,
but focus on these areas as compared to those. So that's just useful. And again, that doesn't mean
you can only do the three things that voters care most about, but it does suggest that in
describing and listing the priorities and talking about what the city's
priorities are for this investment that you might want to note the things that the voters care most
about. Thank you. And then what do the asterisks mean? Yeah, so in that, let me go down here,
those we whenever we split sample, so remember we did the split sample in the bottom measure,
we had two different dollar amounts. And that literally means people randomly get either one
version or the other version of the question and we can then, that allows us to basically get two
questions for the price of one and people, and we can also compare. And so in that list of projects,
partly for time, but also to do some experiments with language, we split some of those questions.
So for instance, we had replace fire station, one item there that was replace, you know,
address the fire stations that are outdated by replacing them, versus address the fire stations
that are outdated by repairing them. So we split sample, people heard only one or the other, so
they didn't know that they were hearing two versions, they just heard one. But by testing it that way,
we could then measure on both. And it turns out if you've heard replace fire stations, you're
five points higher and saying extremely important than if you heard repair fire stations. So that
produces that recommendation than to say replacing is better language when you're talking about
what needs to be done with the fire stations. And likewise, on park restrooms,
that's also got an asterisk because we split sample. We had a version that said upgrade them
and fix them. And another one that said add new ones. And add new ones was kind of the lower half
Of the priorities for the upgrade and fix the existing park restrooms was quite high. So that was another interesting experiment that we did with the split sample.
Thank you so much. Thank you. So, I'm going to go council member O'Keeffe council member. And then go to council member Humbert.
So, go ahead council member O'Keeffe. Thank you. I was wondering, I guess this is for the deputy manager. Whoever wants to answer.
If you could stay a little bit about how each of these,
the bond measure and also the sales tax measure
could address our structural deficit.
I think it's more straightforward with the sales tax,
but if you could comment on that.
And then I'm also curious
how the bond measure might change things.
I can start and then pass it off.
So the sales and use tax increase of a half cent
is estimated to bring in around $9 million a year.
And currently our structural deficit
is somewhere in the neighborhood of $27 to $30 million
for 27 and again for 28.
And so we're in the process now
of putting together budget reduction scenarios
that include a lot of,
the reduction of a lot of staff positions,
some filled, some vacant,
and spread throughout the whole city,
including public safety.
And so where this measure,
where the half cent sales tax increased to pass,
we would be able to mitigate some of the reductions
to our public safety units, both in police and in fire.
On the $300 million general obligation bond
for infrastructure, that's not so much focused
on like a budget reduction, although of course,
we would be hiring engineers and a lot of staff
to do the work because it is a lot of work
and part of our budget deficit challenge in public works
includes shifting a lot of people off of general fund
and into special funds.
And so if we add more special fund dollars
through this measure to address the infrastructure needs
that we have, we would be able to offset
some of those staff challenges, I would say.
I don't know if we're gonna add a little bit to that.
And I would just add,
particularly around the infrastructure bond,
one of the things that we're very attuned to is that
because of the age of our facilities,
if we cannot invest in them,
we're gonna be subject to facility closure,
service disruptions, and so I can give
just some really tangible examples.
Like right now, we don't have a hot water heater
at South Berkeley Senior Center, right?
It's completely embarrassing and inappropriate,
but these are the things that we're falling behind on,
and this bond will allow us to invest,
not in all of our infrastructure,
but will allow us to adjust certain facilities
and get us on the pathway of being proactive
in certain regards.
So that's just a really poignant example in my mind.
And as the city manager said,
as we're looking at these budget reductions,
which is about 10% of our general funds,
so it's a very heavy burden.
This sales tax measure gives us the capacity
to think about what can be preserved
in order to keep the city operating
at a level that this council and the community expects.
Great, thank you.
That's really helpful.
I was also wondering if you could,
anyone could comment on how both,
once again for both the bond and sales tax measures,
how should these both pass?
How would the tax burden on our citizens
compare with that of neighboring cities?
So we haven't completed analysis of,
so we can look at it from the perspective
of this fiscal year.
We don't necessarily have profile on what other jurisdictions
are thinking about for their ballot
for this upcoming election.
So we know we're about in line right next to Oakland
and Albany in terms of what our total property tax bill
looks like and we can sort of do some hypothetical modeling
of what a bond would look like.
The $300 million bond is about $22 per $100,000
of assessed value.
And so for the median assessed value home of $550,000,
that's about $100 a year on the property tax bill.
I can add just a little bit more on the sales and use tax.
I can't remember if you said that,
but so we're at 10 and a quarter percent
and this would put us kind of in line
with cities that are around us.
So Oakland's at 10.75,
the city of Albany's at 10.75,
San Leandro, Hayward 10.75.
So it kind of puts us in that range.
It would make us equal to those places.
Yeah, that's great, thank you.
questions? I'll just, I'll limit myself to three. Oh yeah, kind of a fun one. Given that
the support didn't really change or even arguably went up when we went from 200 to 300 million,
I was wondering if a higher number was considered or will be considered. Just, you know, what's
the, how far can we take this?
Also I can address that from a public opinion point of view, which is we don't know, and
that is generally, historically,
when we have tested higher dollar amounts
for the higher tax increase,
that has tended to be somewhat reduced to support gradually,
depending on how high you go.
We don't know whether that would be the case here,
but it's probable that it would.
And of course, since this is just a few points
about the threshold,
even though there does appear to be an appetite
for this higher level, 300 million over 200 million,
There's certainly clear recommendation here.
The 300 million would be fine.
But the answer is we don't know.
We wanted to test versions
that we thought were realistic.
And that was just a joint decision
as we were working together with the city staff
as to what were the likely levels to test.
Because unfortunately with one survey instrument,
you can't test the whole range.
It gets very, very complicated
and messes up the accuracy of the sample
if you do that too much.
Can I ask if, I mean it sounds like we're gonna poll again,
so is there any interest or are we just like,
I mean, how did we come up with a 300 million?
Maybe that's a bigger question,
I don't need an extensive answer.
I mean, if you all want us to test at a higher rate,
we certainly could.
We felt like $300 million was, felt like a lot.
And also, you know, when you think about $22 million,
dollars per 100,000 of assessed value. That seems kind of a reasonable amount. It's not like a science.
Okay, I'm not suggesting we should. I was just kind of curious what the process was and if that's being contemplated still.
I'm actually sorry I have one more question. It's for David M. In the results
I'm curious if there were any demographics or parts of town or any
sort of human patterns that show the difference in support levels like a
particular part town or renters or anything like that that showed a
the significance of the statistical difference, and that's why that's important.
I will not give you the very long answer to that question,
which is mostly provided in the report with some full tables and breakdowns of that.
We'll try to get back here.
The short version is that the variation,
I think, was less than we normally see,
in the sense that the levels of support were fairly
consistent across the major regions of the city.
With a sample besides, you can't break down individual council districts,
or that level of granularity,
but we did broadly do a sort of Berkeley Hills
as central and south together.
And then the West Berkeley has kind of three broad areas.
And notably there were not huge differences
in the levels of support.
And actually even though the Hills
does to have more homeowners, higher property values,
they were not particularly more resistant to the increase.
In fact, there's more supportive of certain aspects of the increase compared to the rest of the city, but they were, it was pretty solid across the board.
And then other demographics, it is often the case that younger voters and renters are a little more supportive of property taxes because they don't pay them as directly.
There was a little bit of that pattern, but it was not a particularly big difference in that.
And then modest differences by gender, race, and some of the other measures, but nothing that was like jumped out as being, wow, here's a group that is super, super, super excited to do this work that was particularly opposed.
There's a very small group of Republicans in Berkeley who are too small to break out on their own, but they generally tend to be against.
That's not surprising. Thanks. Yeah. And I appreciate you saying that.
renters don't pay property taxes directly,
because it's a common misunderstanding
that they don't pay property taxes,
and it is factored into the rent.
So I appreciate you being clear about that.
Those are all my questions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Okay, moving on to Council Member Blackaby
and then Council Member Humbert.
Great, thank you, Madam Mayor.
In some ways, I might pick up a little bit
from where Council Member O'Keefe, excuse me,
left off to ask the Deputy City Manager.
We've had a, I think, had a similar kind of back and forth
in the budget committee.
Big picture, looking at the fact, like on slide three,
that we've got this $1.87 billion kind of overall backlog
on the infrastructure.
And you sort of identified how much
we're investing in any given fiscal year
through available funding, through FF funds,
through the T1 spend down.
I was just sort of doing back of the envelope,
which is a little dangerous.
somewhere on the order of 60 to 70 million each year we're kind of
investing in infrastructure investment and the capital backlog continues to
grow even with that level of investment is that fair to say yeah you know I went
I want to credit Ray Yap he shared with me a report that was presented to the
council a couple years ago looking at asset management and how we're
the city of Davis. And I think
the city of Davis is a lot of
the things that we're
maintaining our assets and I,
you know, don't have the
statistics in the front of my
mind. But it was interesting
that when you really drill down
and look at specific categories
like parks and public
facilities, you know, these
numbers in terms of what we're
spending on those buildings is
even lower than this aggregate,
2% amount, which is really what's
driving the increase in the, you
know, the different and unfunded
you know, go for more.
But I'm also thinking about what should we be thinking
as the ideal target?
Like 20 years from now, like if we're a $1.87 billion
backlog now, what are we trying to get?
Like what's a healthy, so I almost think of this
as like in the national debt perspective,
we always are gonna carry some amount of national debt
just to question how big it is.
I guess as a city, we're always gonna cover
some sort of infrastructure, carry some sort
of infrastructure backlog, but $1.8 billion seems like a lot.
So I guess my question is, it's more like putting this
in the context of like, are we trying to drive
this number down?
Is this bond part of the solution to driving it down?
And if so, how much do we need to be investing
on an annual basis to be driving that number down?
That's, and so it's just like I said,
it looked like we're investing somewhere like
50 to 60 billion dollars, sorry,
50 to 60 million dollars on an annual basis.
We're not quite keeping pace, like we're falling
a little bit farther behind each time.
So if we invest, if we have this bond online,
which I think is about 20 million a year,
something like that.
If it's 100 million of bonds over five years, 20 million.
So I just at least want us to try and square this,
like is this number gonna help us at least
flatten the curve if not start drying that down?
And I don't know if we have a good read on that, but.
So I don't have a direct answer.
I don't think this number is going to
flatten the curve to the point at which we will,
we could consider the amount that we're investing
in our facilities is adequate.
This is a start, this is getting us on the right path.
I think when you think about the city,
five, 10, 15, 20, 25 years down the road,
I think about one of the referrals
that council brought forward to us,
which is needing to develop a long-term vision
for how are we going to not just go after this bond,
but how are we gonna regularly build
into our financial model a proactive strategic approach
that allows us to continually go out to voters
and have a plan of how we're gonna address our facilities.
I think when we have that plan well-defined for you,
we'll have a better answer to that question
because it's a very complex question.
What I can honestly say though
is that investing in our facilities
really addresses a number of different important boxes.
One is obviously with aging infrastructure,
there's liability and there's costs with that.
There's an incredible amount of staff time
that goes into addressing emergencies as they arise.
Because we're addressing emergencies as they arise,
we're spending more money than we should be spending
by having a more efficient, up-to-date effective facility.
So I want to have a specific answer for you.
I don't have the number for you
but I can tell you that this is the beginning
and that there's a continual path
that we have to come up with in terms of what we need to do
over a longer period of time to get our arms
around this unfunded liability.
I'm eager to, yeah, I love seeing this in context.
So I'm eager to continue that conversation in future meetings
just to kind of anchor this.
And like, in the big picture, we add this brick to the wall.
How are we doing in terms of making progress on this?
One other quick thing to add, and this
is probably an obvious point, but just to make it
is that the longer we defer the maintenance on all
these projects, the more expensive they become.
And so there is a cost efficiency and a benefit
to addressing them earlier rather than later.
And as Deputy City Manager Mike said,
We haven't come up with exactly what all that looks like,
but starting right now is important.
It's no regrets move to say we've got to get after it.
This is a question of how much more
do we have to get after it over time.
OK, thank you.
And back to David Murman.
So we tested the sales tax and the bond measure
together in this poll.
When we were asking people questions about it,
were they thinking about them together
or are they really thinking about them independently?
And I guess maybe we'll get to this in the second survey
if we ask you to do it.
But is there a chance that when we pulled this
and did the research on this,
people were thinking about one or the other
and weren't necessarily thinking that,
hey, the city's gonna come ask for both a bond
and a sales tax increase,
and how might that affect the response over time?
So we were asking about them independently, right?
We were asking,
do we just consider this measure on its own?
And then we framed the question that way.
Having said that, we also had to choose an order here.
And the order we chose was to do the infrastructure measure
first, because it was more complicated
and had more items related to it that we wanted to test.
So because of that, that came first,
and that was sort of the centerpiece.
Therefore, when people were responding on the sales tax,
they did in fact have in their head the infrastructure,
even though we said, all right,
now just consider this separately.
We know that they had heard the infrastructure measure first,
And it's possible that effective there,
that there are ordering effects are common as knowing
in pending research.
What we will do in a follow-up survey,
what we recommend doing is that we would take the things
that we know to be on the ballot
or very likely to be on the ballot in the fall
that are revenue-related and ask them in the order
that they are expected to appear on the actual ballot.
So that we're simulating whatever it is.
as they go through their ballot, people say, okay, I've seen the state measure and I've
seen the housing bond. I've seen the transportation, you know, the Bay Area transportation rescue
and the, you know, in the Alameda County, whatever they're doing, and now I get to
Berkeley and then they'll have, they will have seen those other things in November when they
come to vote. So we want to test it in that context. And likewise, if we, if the city is
had with both of these in whatever order, we can, you know, talk about how we would
test that appropriately in this follow-up survey, but that's how we did it this time.
So, in this incident, maybe there might have, the drag was there for the sales tax,
like they will, but...
If there was any drag from like, oh, I'm hearing more taxes, it would have brought the sales tax
down potentially that, you know, that has a couple of points of fact. We don't, we don't,
we didn't do an experiment to test, so we don't know, but it's plausible that there was an old
track on that. Okay. Um, and then, um, just to follow up on Councilmember
Tragoob's, uh, questions, uh, about the city center buildings. Again, I, I'm
supportive of, um, uh, investment there to, again, for the retrofit, for the
rebuilding of that infrastructure, for the maintenance of that infrastructure
and kind of bringing those buildings back into, into use over time. Um, and I
know there was some commentary in the, in the more extended poll research about
how to frame it. Could you just kind of characterize, you know, what's our strongest
kind of argument around that just as we're thinking about it in terms of how people,
you know, view that infrastructure? Strongest argument for infrastructure?
For that piece of civic center pieces, like, because again.
Yeah, I think for civic center, it is, if you say, we're going to rebuild the buildings in the civic
center, that is not, that does not appear to be the most exciting part of this for voters. It's not
that they're against it, it's just that they don't rate it as hot, right? Relatively speaking.
When you say, we have a lot of buildings that need repairs in the city to be able to provide
services that people need, and these include, you know, senior centers, community centers,
and the civic center buildings in the downtown core, and for both, you know, for quality of life
And for safety, we need to make those improvements
that does that.
And so that looks like the way to describe
what could be invested in.
And we're not offering any opinion here
about how you would actually allocate
or what the specific mix that's obviously for the experts
on the actual infrastructure to do,
but in terms of how it would be framed
or described to the voters, it does appear
That sort of envelope around the civic center is a better way to say it, but just, hey, we're going to fix these, this, this particular set of buildings. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Madam Mayor.
Thank you. Is it any cooler outside than is inside?
Does anyone know? Because I'd love to be able to open the doors so we don't pass out. It's very hot in here. Okay. So going on to council member Humbert. Thank you for your patience.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I've really appreciated the questions that my fellow council members have have posed so far. I just have a couple and this is for Dave W. and Paul B.
and Paul B as opposed to Dave M.
As we write the bond measure language,
do we have a fair degree of latitude
to determine how locked in the city is
on the amount of bond money
that goes to each category of project
and or what specific projects are funded?
What level of flexibility do we have in that regard?
It's an important question and I may ask for a little help from our city attorney here, too
But one of the things we've definitely talked about as staff is the need to have some level of flexibility built into this measure
We wanted we do want to have these projects identified
But if for example one of the projects the two that we were just talking about a little City Hall and the veterans building
we've got a 16 million dollar grant into
FEMA to do those projects if we got that grant and we needed less money for this project
We would want to have the flexibility to transfer it over to another project
so we do need to figure out a way to build in some flexibility so that we're not locked into projects in a way that can
Strain us from actually doing good work for the city
And obviously we work closely with our city attorney colleagues to come up with what that
Ooh, moonlight
Look like and maybe maybe assistant city attorney Harvey could help with that
Sure. So, as a general matter the bond measures are required to describe the purpose to which the funds will be used in practice. The city will describe the types of projects that that will go to.
So, you know, there was some flexibility provided the ultimate use of the funds matches the description in the ballot language.
Yeah, thank you. I had a second question, but you've answered that as well. I appreciate it. That's all I have.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Bartlett.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And thank you, David and David, for your work, once again.
One question.
This goes to, I guess, David Berman, the pollster.
So I, and you're a pro, I assume, I'm just wondering,
I assume you controlled for the timing of the election,
it's not a presidential year,
So it obviously is but more conservative audience, right?
I'm sure you control it for that, right?
Yes, this is good.
So the student question council member
shows you've lifted some polls in the past
and you're correct that we want to simulate
the likely electorate for this election year.
So that is why this is not a survey of all adults
or all citizens or even all voters in the city of Berkeley.
It is a survey of those we expect to turn out and vote
In a mid term general election 2026 based on their history, their vote history on the on the voter file.
Okay, and that's why it explains some of the topics, right? The sidewalks challenges faced by seniors, right?
Sidewalks it does skew a little older compared to the overall population of the city. Yes. And whenever you do a.
A likely better survey, particularly that somewhat lower turnout than they are going to have more seniors relatively in the.
Give me your sample.
Fire, right, OK.
And then the other thing is, oh, yeah, this regarding us
is probably for everyone.
You know, many times they challenge us
about how we are going to spend these things, right?
And so our reputation is really good.
The soda tax really got it going.
I see some soybean people here.
And you know, people didn't believe us
that we would spend the money the way we said we would.
And because the threshold for the general fund
is somewhat lower than specialized spending.
And so we form committees and we actually follow through
on what we promise in these measures.
So it's really important that as we design the language
and we form the committee afterwards,
we honor our commitment because that's our brand here.
Our neighbors respect that and they expect it.
Thank you.
I'm gonna go back to Council Member Traga.
Is that your button?
Thank you so much.
I do have a couple more questions.
One of them was a follow up to something Council Member
Blackaby asked and sorry, this is for,
I don't know who it's for actually.
So if I understood correctly,
the second survey is going to model the ballot
more precisely to assess drag.
But how can the ballot be modeled in that way
if it's not going to be clear at that time,
what all is going to be on the ballot and in which order?
Well, I'll take all that from a survey design perspective
and then Chris definitely have other comments.
I believe it's true.
We won't know exactly everything that we'll be on,
but we will be much closer to knowing.
we're talking about fielding I believe in the later part of April and as these things
come online and the different governmental agencies go through their process of getting
these measures placed on the ballot, I think we will assess it as closely as we can, what
is anticipated likely to be on it.
We, you know, to the extent that there are things that could happen before the actual
deadlines that, you know, it's possible we can't anticipate everything. At the same time,
you knew there's a timeline, of course, for the city to place your measures on,
and you need to get your data before making those final decisions. So that's the window
we're shooting for, and we will endeavor to get the best estimate from those in the know as to
what is likely to appear on that November ballot so we can simulate it as closely as we can.
Okay, thank you. And then in terms of the order, would there be A-B testing to, you know?
We could A-B test again. We should decide, you know, the drawback there is that your sample is
cut in half, and if it turns out one version is passing, the other is not. You have a little less
confidence because the version that's passing, it's only half your sample. So, you know, your
your margin of error is a little higher.
So that's the trade-off with what we tried to do
was that kind of experiment on this first survey
to figure out things like language
and what to prioritize and what level of bond.
So I think we would generally not do as much of that
a second time around, but it is something,
it is a tool we still have and we could decide to do so.
Okay, thank you, and my last question is,
at least at this time, is for that second survey,
is there an opportunity to dig in more deeply
into arguments that talk about the opportunity costs
of not passing a ballot measure?
for instance, the opportunity cost
of not restoring the Madel Shirek City Hall building
and continuing to pay 300 to 400k to be USD, I think, per year.
And again, this might be too granular.
But will there be some consideration
to what we might be losing or if we don't pass it
and potential benefits on the flip side
of approving this matter.
I will say that in the current version of the survey
where we tested and I didn't go through all the language
that was in these arguments head to head,
but it's in the report.
We did in fact in the positive argument,
the argument in favor of voting yes,
test. It was a sentence or half a sentence that basically said if we don't, you know, not investing
in these fixes now means greater costs in the future because they continue to deteriorate.
So that is a capsule version of that argument. We could test a longer version of it.
There's going to be some, but we're going to have, the time is going to be tight on that second
survey, assuming we go forward with it, given that we have to test multiple measures
to simulate the balance. So we'll have to decide in terms of priority if we want to
take another bite of the arguments and perhaps, you know, further language, as you suggest,
but that, again, is an option and we'll have to decide on that within the limitations of the
length and budget for the SONER. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I have two questions.
And then I think everyone else has asked their questions
already.
Can you speak more to the strategy
around refining the list?
I'm concerned about losing some projects that
would be important for equity, like South Berkeley Green
Space, or in terms of long-term need,
like the projects of the marina that
will cost us much more if we don't address them,
or even what has been mentioned earlier about Civic Center
buildings, where we could be utilizing a match?
So I think naturally we want the input and feedback
from Council, and there's not gonna be,
this will be part art, part science, right?
So we are digesting the input we got from the survey.
It's an important piece of data for us.
As I mentioned, we're doing all this community engagement
and staff are taking in all that input and feedback.
We're seeing the reports come from various commissions.
And really importantly, we're going to be updating
the costs associated with the projects
that have been identified and thinking about
what we need from a staffing perspective.
So we're gonna take all this in totality
and try to develop the most robust list
that we possibly can that ensures
we're addressing climate resiliency,
that we're centered on equity,
and thinking about how we respond
from a public safety perspective.
So there are gonna be hard choices.
There's no doubt about it.
But we're gonna do our best to be as balanced
as we possibly can in the list
we ultimately bring forward to the council.
Thank you, I really appreciate that.
I think this is something that,
I struggle with politics in general,
is that we use polling results
from people who are most likely voters,
which means they're more likely to be more affluent,
you know, have more resources generally.
And so that also determines the projects
that we do inherently.
So I just wanna bring that up as we're talking about this.
And Ken, also, I would love if we can also share
with the public the relationship between measure T1
and this bond when it comes to our residents' bills,
because my understanding is that T1 is sunsetting,
so what will that look like?
So I can, when we come back to it,
I can bring forward a chart that was prepared
by our financial advisor that helped to show
sort of the perspective of everything
that we've issued in the past
and sort of what's been paid off
and then what it looks like going forward
with what this new measure would be
with what's still authorized to issue
or what's already existing.
So the number we gave you about $22.14 per $100,000
of assessed value, that represents the new bond.
When we look in totality
and include existing authorizations,
don't quote me specifically,
but the total assessment rate would be on average
about $44 per 100,000, and I can be more precise
when we come back to the council,
but that was about the number.
Okay, that's great.
I think we just wanna make sure folks understand
what at the end of the day their bills will look like.
I think that'll be important to our residents.
So, although it's great to see so much support, so.
Okay, yeah.
And I would just add, what was just to kind of amplify,
what was important about those numbers
is that when we looked over a longer period of time,
going back to about 1993,
We were well below the peak assessment value
of when we've issued bonds in the past
and well within the average.
So it was nice to see that because of the growth
in our assessed value,
we're able to work within a responsible threshold.
We're not reaching the peak,
we're certainly not at the lowest point,
but we're within a decent range.
Totally, and I remember looking at those graphs as well,
and I still know that folks are really sensitive
to affordability right now, it's an important issue
for a lot of people that I'm speaking with.
So just want us to be conscious of it.
Okay, very good.
Well, let's move on to the public comment then please.
Is there any public comment for this item?
And please just come up to the podium up here.
I see some hands raised.
Any order is fine.
Yeah.
Good evening. I'm Dr. Stephen Alpert, resident of District 5.
The citizens of the city doing these surveys to test the waters of the voters.
But 500 is 1% of the 50,000 collective votes for mayor in 2024.
It's an adequate sample size to generate any meaningful data.
The entire survey should be discarded.
Thank you.
I'm Dr. Celeste Marks back again, and I'm going to say exactly the same thing.
Your sample is way too small to draw meaningful conclusions.
We want results that reflect the attitudes and the demographics balance, maybe a randomized
study, you know, so that added a little character, but mostly increases sample size.
Thank you.
I'm Gordon Wozniak. I was formerly in the council. I want to thank staff. I think it was an excellent report.
I want to maybe amplify a couple of things.
There's a context I think you have to be a little worried about is
taxes have been going up mainly because of parcel tax, not due to the debt service tax. In fact, as
David said, over the last 30 years the debt service tax has gone down by 50 percent.
And so it's not what's really driving people's taxes.
The other thing I think you have to have in a context,
which I don't know if you can deal with this
in all survey, or it says campaign literature,
is Berkeley only gets about a third of the ad valorem taxes,
and it only gets about 40% of the parcel taxes.
There are a lot of other entities
that cause your taxes to go up.
And yet, because it's listed as Berkeley property taxes,
everybody thinks the city gets it all, which is nonsense.
It's just not cracked.
And the other thing that I think is a powerful selling point,
which is measuring T1, is leverage.
If you can get grant leverage on existing money,
you want to make that big selling point.
We're gonna, you know, if there's someone giving you a minute,
so you can finish your point if you want.
The last thing I think is what's really unique
about the T1 bond measures is that the city's been very good
at leveraging that tax dollars.
You want to hammer on that because that's even
conservative Republican should appreciate that.
So I think there's a lot of good things
and there are a lot of good stories
and you should tell them not just focus on the dry stuff
of what buildings are gonna build and stuff like that.
Thank you and thank you to the Vice Mayor.
Hello, I'm Linda Alberti, I live,
feel free to adjust your mic so we can hear you better.
Is that better?
I live by Nilsson and Gilman Streets
And I was concerned about the end sampling of the survey.
I thought it was too small.
And then another thing I'm concerned about
is like sidewalk safety and things like that.
My neighbors got together.
We ended up just doing our sidewalks
and having to pay for all of it ourselves
because the wait list to get something through the city
was ridiculously long.
I don't know if we can do a adaptive sidewalk program.
We have elders going up and down the streets
and they're just not safe.
I worry about falls.
And also I worry about mindfulness
with spending our money, like the Hopkins corridor.
I don't know how much money was wasted on that,
down by Monterey Market and all that with the bike lanes.
I'm hoping that they can be more mindful
with how the money gets spent for future projects.
That's it.
Thank you, and I do appreciate you.
It's none of the positive change under your leadership.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
So I believe that Carol will give me another minute, thank you, am I close
enough to the mic? It's okay, am I close enough? Yeah, I would prefer if someone could...
Yeah that would be great, even that I think. Better? Yeah, thanks. Alright, good
evening mayor and council members, I'm speaking on behalf of the Commission on
on disability and to the city's request for feedback
on priorities and gaps in the bond measure.
It's clear that Berkeley's infrastructure needs
are significantly underfunded.
I'm gonna skip.
Right now, our central concern is the structure,
the structure of the proposed bond.
Accessibility is at risk of being fully acknowledged
in principle, but underfunded in practice.
In the proposed funding structure,
accessibility appears inside the broad category
that addresses critical infrastructure and accessibility.
That $100 million pot of money, the red pot,
includes proposed major seismic upgrades
to the three civic center buildings.
You put a shovel near a foundation
and you really don't know what the cost of the project is.
In addition, that same pot of money includes modernization
of the three civic buildings.
Again, very, very costly projects,
capital improvements at the sidewalks
and the list of accessibility projects,
which includes removing trip hazards,
improving the sidewalks, funding the 50-50 program,
fixing crosswalks have to compete against.
At the same time, that priority was in a statistical tie
with funding fire safety.
It's what people all across the city want.
So don't have it compete
with these intensely expensive structural projects,
have a set aside pot of money within the $100 million,
a percentage that guarantees addressing
these critical improvements.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
I love the enthusiasm from the audience too.
Thank you.
Hi, I just wanted to thank the city council
for making hard decisions in order to provide the services
that Berkeley needs.
But I wanted to specifically highlight the fact
that the 0.5% sales tax is very aggressive.
I'm sure you all know this,
and it's 0.5% seems like a small amount,
and it seems like it's just gonna bring us in line
with the near cities,
but that has a real impact on people living in the city.
And I was encouraged to hear talk earlier
of potentially looking at an increase
in the value of the bond measure.
I hope you will consider in the future using methods
that are less aggressive in order to raise funds.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, I'm Lani Hancock, like Gordon.
I was a council member once.
I know the choices are hard.
I do wanna speak very strongly tonight though,
in favor of the whole city project,
which is the downtown and the Civic Center.
These buildings, especially the buildings in the Civic Center,
are important historic owned infrastructure by the city.
They have history and they have architectural merit.
They anchor that whole part of the community.
We have the educational testing building,
we have 2180 Millville,
we have the beautiful beautifully refurbished high school.
We need to have this at all put together.
We can bring back city offices, as was explained.
Thank you.
Does anyone want to give her a minute?
Oh, you're being given a minute.
Yes, if you want to continue.
We have to get the seismic upgrade done.
And I really thank the city manager and staff
for the FEMA application.
And there may be other things we could go after as well.
But we would save money if we bought the city buildings back.
And many of us really love
what the Berkeley Historical Society has done
and would love to see a permanent place for that.
Other cities have done this.
San Francisco, when its City Hall was upgraded,
Pasadena, even Jerry Brown and his first administration
upgraded the vacant state capital,
which was unusable because of seismic issues.
So we, I think, can do this
and would be very proud of it for generations.
It's, somebody said to me today there,
One of the few things a society produces that survive
from generation to generation is art.
Thank you.
We have all of the, it feels like all the previous mayors
here, almost.
It's tough following the former mayor.
She was the first woman elected mayor of Berkeley.
So anyway, yes, that's how I know.
So anyway, you guys, I want to say, first of all,
I'm very impressed with the process you're going through.
I'm really the staff, you know, and what they're doing
and how you're analyzing this and how you're looking at this.
I think it's absolutely right, the right direction,
and I really want to encourage you.
One of the things that worries me a little bit
is the fact that you're gonna do a second poll,
and I really, really want to see you do a second poll,
but I don't know if it's gonna be enough.
I think you might even consider,
believe it or not, doing two more polls.
You know, one more to try to figure out exactly
what you think you would shape it into it,
and you know, what should be in that 300 million.
And then I think you need to focus on the arguments,
because I think how you present your arguments
is gonna be essential.
Now if you can do it in one poll, great.
Then I'm gonna say I don't want you to spend money,
just be spending money, but I think it's very important
the messaging and how we present it,
because this community is so, so wonderful and so rich
and will reach out and fund things and do things
if they believe it's in the right interest.
So.
Thank you.
You're very welcome.
Thank you very much.
Hi, I'm Anne Harlow,
President of the Berkeley Historical Society and Museum,
currently occupying part of the Veterans Building
and slated to occupy part of the Old City Hall.
What else, Shurik Building?
We, the museum, have made a lot of progress
in becoming more recognized and appreciated in the community,
partly with the help of some of you.
But it's rather embarrassing when someone actually
visits and sees the condition the building's in,
and if they notice that it's got a sign that says,
this building is seismically unsafe.
It falls under both the community facility
quality of life category and the critical infrastructure and safety. Let's
see so I I'd really like to see you allocate enough money so that the City
Hall project can be completed. Thank you. Oh someone is giving you a minute okay.
Yes, so I suggest 325 million. It's exactly half of the 650 that failed a few years ago
and there's been inflation. Also in April 2028 will be the 100, Berkeley's 150th birthday
and if you could somehow make it happen that there's at least, you know, enough progress
that there could be some sort of ceremonial, this is going to be, what this building is
is going to be in another few years,
including the council will be meeting back here again.
There will be all these other meeting spaces
for other groups.
And I'm hoping the so-called council chambers
could be a multi-use room.
I'm thinking, well, maybe if you need your dais,
there could be a partition of some sort.
I think I'm out of time.
I like the idea.
Thank you.
Good evening, city council.
David Flora is here, district two resident
and Executive Director of Berkeley Community Media.
I just wanna say great job with the survey
that the staff did.
I went to two of the events and they provide a lot of time
for folks to ask questions and get information.
But I just wanna echo what some of the stuff
I've been hearing here too of just,
if we could just get at least the seismic retrofit
on some of these old buildings
just because the longer we leave it,
the more expensive it's gonna get.
And the price of that compared to some of the other projects
I saw in there is significantly less so in my opinion would be a little more
doable but honestly I get that it's gonna be in conflict with some of these
other stuff so it's a big decision you guys have to make I appreciate you all
taking the time and listening to all of us and taking community input and I
really do believe in the vision of a revitalized Civic Center I could see a
really beautiful you know spending the whole afternoon in the downtown area for
community engagement.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Is there any public comments online for our item?
I think there's lots.
Yes, currently have 11 hands raised.
The first commenter is Chad.
Chad, you should be able to speak.
Hello, hello, hello.
Excuse me.
You're, you're echoing Chad. Yeah, so I was just.
There's someone nearby that has the meeting open.
Is that any better, much better. Great.
So what I wanted to talk about was, um,
I am totally against all this polling. I think there's too much of it.
it's going to in depth.
I used to go down, I liked the public.
And I would go down to the harbor and I would,
I would just watch the sea lions. And, um,
I remember one time there was a unhoused group of but, but, uh,
and, um, it wasn't a good situation at all.
I think they're, beach going.
Chad, you're you're cutting in and out very badly. If you want to
call back later, we can try to let you comment then.
Or with a different device or something.
Next is,
Wandi. Wandi, you should be able to speak.
I see you're unmuted. Wandi, you should be able to
provide comments. I won't leave that connection. So sorry for some reason our second public
commenter also was we couldn't understand what they were saying. I'm hoping this is not a tech
issue and maybe they're together in the same room or something. Possibly. Let's try David
year? Hi, I was very pleasantly surprised to see the right track, wrong track numbers on the survey.
There can be a lot of negativity in our public discourse, and so often the most negative voices
are the loudest voices. The public comments that we usually get are overwhelmingly
not tenants, not students, not young parents. So this survey, which is a scientific survey,
they do the whole country, they do 1,500 people. I hope that this shows where the voters in the
city actually are. And I hope that you keep this in mind when you're getting yelled at about corridor
up zoning or street safety or any of the many other things that people like to yell at you about.
The loudest voices in the community are not the same thing as the community. They don't represent
the community. You guys and the people who put you into office represent the community.
That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you David. Next is Hyrum. Yes, go ahead. How are you? Yes,
I was just wanting to say that I agree with the gentleman in the green shirt who commented earlier
that we should have more polls. I'm a big proponent of putting on as many polls as we possibly can.
Thank you. Everyone's laughing because it's St. Patrick's Day. So a lot of us are wearing green shirts right now. Thank you. I think you meant former mayor Bates. Right.
Okay, next is a caller with a phone number ending in four zero five.
two questions, who's going to perform an audit on a billion dollar event, certainly an opportunity
for sicky hands. The second is the polling question. Was the question asked, how do you
feel about incurring a debt of $20,000 per household or more than $5,000 a debt per man,
woman and child. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Next is Charlie. Charlie
should be able to unmute. Okay. All right. We are getting some interesting public comment
today. Next is Corey. Corey, you should be able to speak. Yes. Can you hear me?
Yes, yes, we can great. Thanks very much for the work done so far very much. Appreciate it. I noticed that the survey was only looking at tax on assessed value and not on square footage of parcels as a resident who just bought a house in Berkeley.
a few years ago, several of my neighbors have property tax bills that are 20 percent of
what I pay. And so from an equity perspective, it would be ideal to consider looking at taxes
from a square footage as opposed to an assessed value perspective so that we can make sure
that every homeowner in Berkeley pays their fair share for this tax. Thanks for your consideration.
Okay, thank you. Next is Kelly hammer green.
Hey, um, so looking at this survey result, can you hear me? Okay.
Yep, we can hear you. Okay. I'd say the city benefits from short memories and not paying attention.
I've been looking over my property tax bill and much of the stuff in the list. We already paying for through special taxes.
on the Berkeley has a higher ratio of employees
to residents than any other city I checked in the Bay Area
and up and down the state.
And we still pay drop a considerable amount of money
on consultants.
I'd like to know how the sidewalk funding
in this bond measure proposed bond measure
is supposed to line up with measure FF for streets.
there should be around 14 million available for sidewalks.
And please note that the oversight committee for FF
has only met twice and the last meeting was canceled
and on the 24th is 11th.
Thank you, Kelly.
Thank you.
Thanks for your public comment.
Next is Arlene.
Arlene, you should be able to unmute.
Arlene.
I'm speaking to urge you to include the money
for the bond measure for the retrofit
of Old City Hall and the Veterans Building.
Our city hall was built in 1909 and our city,
the city then spent some money on the same architects
that built San Francisco City Hall,
which is beautifully restored.
And not only could we save money
by not having to rent the school district property,
but we could use it for events.
And the Old City Hall is as much a symbol of Berkeley
as the Camp Anelias for the university.
The Downtown Berkeley Association has been working
on this for six years now to restore the civic centers.
Thank you.
Thank you, Eileen.
I do want us to take like a very brief
like 10 minute stretch break.
Okay.
So we will, folks who are online, please hold.
We will be back in 10.
Thank you.
Recording stopped.
Hello.
Oh, here we are.
Okay.
Recording in progress.
All right, thank you so much, everyone, for your patience.
That was a very long 10 minutes, I know.
But we are coming back to our online public comments.
So thank you so much for everyone who has spoken so far.
And I will have our city clerk help me out with this.
Next up is Carolyn.
Carolyn, you should be able to unmute.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you.
I am a resident of Councilmember Blackopy's district.
I agree 100% with Lonnie and Harlow and Arlene Silk.
Those buildings should be preserved.
Second, any further survey should be defensible
based on a statistical sample
blessed by a qualified statistician
whose name and qualifications are made public.
Doing anything less than that makes this whole process
lack legitimacy.
I note there's no margin for error that's been reported
and any decisions made based on a sample
that was not statistically valid is indefensible.
Thirdly, a city manager unprepared to explain
much less defend the amount of a bond measure
is simply astonishing.
We need much better from our public servants.
I mean, you should be asking for economic modeling
for the various bond measure amounts.
Thank you.
Thanks Carolyn.
Next up is Christine.
Hi, so my name is Christine Uren.
I live really near Civic Center Park
so I walk by it quite often.
And I just wanna say that I think that the veterans building
and the old city hall are just beautiful buildings
to look at.
enjoy seeing them and walking by them so I hope that they can be restored and
made seismically safe and used and I also think the Berkeley Historical
Society does some really great important work for us learning about our past and
fighting white supremacy really I mean I found out a lot about the history of
different groups in Berkeley and just in the Bay Area that I didn't know and also
just you know small but important stories about our history and I hope we
We can keep that going and preserve these buildings and help the society.
Thank you, Chris.
Thanks.
Next is Isaac.
Good evening, Council. My name is Isaac Borschauer.
I'm a resident of District 8,
and I'm on the board of directors for the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.
I'm also a parent of a 3-year-old Brooklyn,
and a Berkeley unexpected in about two months.
And I just wanted to speak about the value
of restoring a civic center and retrofitting
the old city hall,
model Shirek building and veterans memorial building.
Now is an opportunity to continue with the planning
and the implementation of these projects.
And if we wait too long, it may become too late
and it'll only be more expensive.
And we should do this for the coming generations.
These buildings are irreplaceable.
The Civic Center itself is the beating heart of Berkeley
and an irreplaceable place.
And we should do the best to make sure it remains there
for my children and for the children
of everyone else in Berkeley.
Thank you.
Thank you, Isaac.
And congratulations to your family.
Next is Tony.
Davis, who is our current director of public works, is leaving us on Friday, which gives
us no permanent director of public works as leadership for an infrastructure bond.
This is a terrible thing.
We have burned through five public works directors in the last 15 years.
We have to look hard at why we're doing this and what we expect of these folks.
We need a chief engineer very badly.
We have a drainage plan and nobody is talking about funding the drainage plan.
A flood is a terrible thing.
It can wipe out floods in the future, can wipe out private property all the way up to
Sacramento Street in one fell swoop.
And so we can no longer depend on gravity to drain the city of Berkeley.
We are going to have to build pumps.
Drainage pumps, one on the potter drain
and one on the caregiver drain.
Next is Jeff Lomax.
To the city council class of 2024,
between new parcel taxes most of you endorsed that year,
between the 6.4% 2025 parcel tax increase,
you unanimously approved on consent
with no compelling explanation.
Between the new 2026 parcel taxes,
some of you have endorsed,
and between this 700 million in total borrowing
you are proposing now,
you are on track for a 25% increase in property taxes
for the average home in Berkeley over your four-year term.
Congratulations, you are on record-setting territory
for unaffordability.
next is mark you should be able to unmute jay can you hear me you have a
comment ballot measure polling i just wanted to say this meeting has been
going on too long man you got you guys think you're gonna like shut it down
soon i got to go to bed man my kids are bothering me
thank you for your comments next is layla
You were on track for a 25% increase in property taxes for the average home in Berkeley over your
four-year home. I'm glad you congratulate. Hello. Oh, okay. She's listening to the streaming that's
behind. Leila, turn off your your web stream and. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh,
I'm going to turn off the volume on your stream that you're watching please because it's echoing.
you. Next is Layla. Okay you're asking me to do what? To mute the stream that you're
listening to because we can't hear you. Okay Layla we're going to come back to you. Hello?
Um... okay.
Uh, let's go to Greg. Greg, you should be able to unmute.
Hey, how are you? Um, I just wanted to touch on...
Alright, let's go to the caller with a number ending in 2-1-1.
You should be able to unmute.
Hi, as a six-year resident of the city of Berkeley, I met all of the movie theaters, all of them gone.
When actor artists on Shatak,
California theater in Keteridge,
block theater in Solano,
we need to get them back.
We need to get some movie theater back.
People get addicted to TV.
Second, with the heat going through as a physicist,
we're in for really, really bad time.
I think human civilization would last much longer
than the end of the century, even if that.
The last thing I'd like to mention,
that monstrosity in the White House,
we have to, who may not even have election.
This man have done everything possible
against the law of the country,
against international laws and we need to stand up.
Okay, just cannot hear you.
Okay, thanks, thanks for your comment.
Just reminder for folks who are online,
we're taking comments right now on the report
that we had for our special meeting,
which is the item, it was only one item,
which is the presentation discussion
of community survey results.
Okay, next speaker is Yaro.
Public comment is not usually like this
for those of you who have not been to a meeting,
it's never like this, so I don't know what's happening.
Next is Morton.
Yes, hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Next we'll go back to Layla.
Okay. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Good evening. I'm Lila Moncharch. I'm the president of Baja,
and Baja has told you so much about the architecture that I'm going to tell you something
a little different for tonight. I want you to know that I grew up in Berkeley. I came here in 1951,
right after the war. You know, I want you to really understand that our parents and our teachers
took us into city hall and they did it often and part of the reason was they wanted us to understand
how important government was and how important democracy was and it was it was always very
impressive because the building was so impressive. We learned a lot about what government means in
those days. It doesn't mean meeting in a cafeteria. It doesn't mean meeting some place that's
going to change or be different from time to time. It means being in a place that's in the center of
a city and is really impressive and that building was built to be very impressive. So, you know,
there's some messaging here. I urge you and Baha urge you to speak. Thank you. Thank you so much.
okay that's all the speakers we could do what happened okay okay great thank you so much okay
thanks everyone um can we go to uh comment now from council my council colleagues do you have
any comments um okay go ahead yeah council member kester one thank you very much madam mayor and
thank you mr white for the presentation and mr merman for your presentation as well um did
somebody with actually is Mr. Merman still with us or no? He's here. Yeah. Oh, he is on the zoom.
Okay. Mr. Merman, you just given some of the comments that we heard, can you just explain
why the poll of sampling 500 people is representative and how that works statistically?
Yeah, that's a valid question, and it's counterintuitive to think that 500 people
can represent many thousands of people, but that is in fact how sampling works and statistics
works. And in fact, all of the survey research that's done in the country, most of them
are done with samples of several hundred, occasionally a thousand or two thousand
for large national projects, but for a city the size of Berkeley, a very typical survey
sample size would be 500 because that provides statistically, assuming you do it accurately,
and that's a very important point, is that it does require expertise to sample
representatively and accurately, but if we do so with a random sample of the likely voter universe,
it is statistically true that with a 95% certainty that the true result if you interviewed every
voter in Berkeley is within 4.4% of the result we got on the survey. Now there are other sources
of error besides the sample size and we work very hard to control that so it is never a certainty
but this is the most efficient, cost-effective way to obtain a representative universe of
likely voters to assess the level of support across the entire universe of likely voters
in the city of Berkeley. And that is a very reasonable sample size. And everyone who does
this work in this in this field of survey research would recognize this is a legitimate sample size.
Okay thank you very much and then Mr. Budenhagen to the point that was raised by former Mayor Bates
about an additional survey. I think you already spoke to this during the Q&A and I actually
didn't intend to ask this many questions because I know this is the comment time but I think it helps
to further the discussion. I just wanted to ask, I know that we're going to do additional polling.
Will you be able to, can you speak to what we will pull on further at this point?
Sure, thank you for the question Councilmember. So the follow-up poll, one of the things we
want to do, we did not test against potential other ballot measures that people would be seeing on
on their ballots.
And I think David Mirman talked a little bit about this,
but we do want to try to get a sense of how people would view
these two issues in light of seeing a regional sales tax
measure or whatever the measures we think
might be likely to be on the ballot.
So that's one big reason why we want to do it.
And then also to refine the language
and understand better what people really care about
so that we can come back to you with these second poll
results and then really hone in on what we want to come for, with both from the
perspective about language and projects. Okay. Okay, my mic is still on. So, and it
sounds like it would be too much to get into arguments, right, because it's hard
to do that if we don't exactly know what projects we would be pursuing. So, I
but I think we'll have to see how things progress on that.
So I just wanted to voice my position on this.
In terms of the bond measure,
given the polling that 200 million
polls the same as 300 million,
I think we should pursue the higher number.
And I want to appreciate, Mr. White,
your comments about how the amount
per $100,000 of assessed value
is roughly in line with where we have been in the past,
that chart, we probably have seen it in the past,
but I don't know that when you reference going back to 1993,
that's not in the material for tonight, right?
Okay, but I think it's something we've looked at before,
and maybe as I just wanna suggest
as we continue this conversation,
might be good to bring that table back
so that we can continue to remind ourselves
in the community where we are with costs,
because I do hear,
I think the mayor spoke to the affordability concerns
and people, you know, making the very valid
and reasonable point that if you did buy your home
more recently, your assessed value is much higher
than people who bought a long time ago.
So I think we do want to be cognizant of those costs.
And I also think that if we have bonding capacity
that is underutilized that we are doing a disservice to the city because as we know we have over a
billion dollars of deferred maintenance on infrastructure and so what I see us hopefully
being able to do if this 300 million bond measure passes is being able to take a bite out of some
of that aging infrastructure and so to that point of which projects to pursue I do think we need to
be because you know some of us have a memory of prior bond measures that didn't
meet the two-thirds threshold so I think we do have to keep in mind that we're
just right at the cusp there this could it seems like the polling selling is it
could go either way depending on the nature of the campaign the nature of the
projects that are chosen and nature of the arguments that are made but for and
against and so I do think we should pay close attention to which projects are
are polling strongly because our need is so great.
So I think we should focus on those projects
and it seems like we'll be honing in on that even more.
It seems like we have some of that info already.
And I did want to speak to,
because we did hear in public comment,
folks talking about the importance of the Civic Center area.
I think that's something we can poll on, right,
in our next round to get a better sense of that.
But I do want to say from the polling that we got,
it seems like public buildings is a better approach
than focusing solely on the Civic Center buildings.
And then, you know, if we do get the FEMA loan
or we do get other funding for those Civic Center buildings,
hopefully we will have to figure that out
in the ballot language, right,
of how we can be flexible in uses.
I also think, you know, given the measure T1
infrastructure bond experience of construction cost escalation.
I don't know if we're going to have a situation where certain projects
have a greater cost escalation than others.
I don't know if that's something that happens.
But I think we also need to think about a little bit of flexibility in that case
as well for cost overruns.
So OK, that's the bond measure.
And then on the sales tax, I had done the item earlier this year
to ask us to poll on this when it became clear
that our budget deficit is roughly 30 million
and what that means in terms of the types of cuts
we'll have to make.
So I am in support of putting that on the ballot,
and I was very pleased to see that it's,
looks like it would pass all things.
Oh, I didn't realize I was on a timer.
Oh, okay, I'm basically wrapped up.
So it looks like that one is in a good position to pass,
And I think that would just give us,
we're still gonna have very hard decisions to make.
This measure wouldn't even go on the ballot till November.
We have to pass a budget by June 30th.
So, but it may give us some flexibility moving forward
to protect some of our vital services and staff.
So that's all I have.
Thank you again for the presentation.
I'm glad we're having this conversation early
so that we can be in a good position come the summer
to draft ballot language.
Thanks, and since we're already talking about this,
I would like to make the motion
to approve the recommendation.
Second.
Thank you.
Okay, so we have a number of comments.
I saw Council Member Humber's hand go up
and then Council Member Blackaby.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I wanna thank everybody who was involved
with this whole process.
This is a whole lot of work, Paul Boudenhaig and Dave White,
Scott Ferris, finance department,
others who helped develop these lists of projects
and cost estimates.
I wanna thank Dave Mermin, like research partners
and our fire chief and police chief
and their departments for contributing to this.
I wanna say this report and proposal
offer a lot of positive news for the city.
I'm happy to hear that perceptions of the city's direction
and service levels are moving in the right direction.
That's heartening and at least modestly positive.
Overall, of course, we wanna get these numbers higher,
but it seems like we're on a good trajectory,
notwithstanding a very chaotic national and global situation.
The numbers for a potential bond measure
likewise seem very good.
I'd be in favor of the 300 rather than the 200
since there's not a statistical significance
as between them.
I wanna say, I'd like to strongly favor
keeping the exact funding amounts open
so that we have room to maneuver
in terms of just how much goes
to various categories of project.
Flexibility seems really a cardinal thing.
I also wanna make sure we're leaving room to maneuver
when it comes to geographic equity.
I know that my district, district eight,
is a high resource area within the city
that has historically benefited from public investment,
but I do think it's important that as we work to ensure
that we have a bond measure
that residents can support citywide,
that we at least have some project specific funds
going to every district.
I'd like to make sure we have a high degree
of flexibility for that in that regard.
There are no specific projects, I don't think,
listed in district eight or seven,
And I'd want to make sure those can be in the mix.
I think improvements to fire station three on Russell
right in the Elmwood,
modest improvements to Monkey Island Park.
And I think council member Luna Parr
may address this a new pocket park at Dwight and Warring.
It would be modest investment, I think.
I also want to say we absolutely need to be more specific
in the bond measure about where the funding would go.
If we have to be, then we simply set percentage floors
for key categories, if that's possible,
that the public has indicated are its highest priorities.
Then we can assure people that there will be a floor
on the amount, but we'll go to those things.
But if the highest priorities turn out to be more expensive,
we still have some wiggle room.
So flexibility, I think, is critical within limits.
Sales tax measure, totally in favor of that,
prepared to move forward with that.
And since it's a simpler measure,
I think there's even less need for additional polling.
So thanks a lot everybody for all the good work on this.
Thank you council member, Council member Bakabe.
Thanks, Madam Mayor.
I'll be really brief.
I just wanted to thank staff for all your work
on this and the great report.
Thanks to David Mermin who I've worked with
in a previous life and it's good to see you here
and see the work here and really respect
the end product here.
I agree with my colleagues.
I'm pleasantly surprised by the results.
I know we still have room to go to sort of earn that trust
and sort of make sure that we can get this
over the finish line because I think it is important
to make these investments.
To that end, you know, I think a common thread
as we're moving forward with the budget
and moving forward with this is just continued transparency,
continue to be very clear on goals and progress
and just kind of earning that trust from people
who know that they can trust us to be good stewards
with their money, we're making smart investments
and we're getting the returns that we set out.
So I just think that ongoing discipline
of being clear, setting goals, reporting back,
and showing that progress is really important.
The conversation we had earlier about the overall context
of the total infrastructure deficit,
the total liability that we owe,
and just making sure that we're thinking about
how this is tracking towards bringing that down measurably.
I am interested in continuing that conversation
because it concerning if we continue to invest,
but that number keeps getting bigger.
Like what, you know, how can we kind of curb that?
And I wanna make sure that we're making an impact on that.
And lastly, I'll just say, you know,
I do not love the fact that we need to consider
increasing the sales tax.
I agree with other public commenters.
I mean, it is among the more regressive things
that we can do.
I also realize kind of the need of where we are at.
And I understand that there is room
to move there relative to other jurisdictions.
I'll say that's just the least favorite of the options.
I think investing in infrastructure and a bond,
obviously, that is widespread and is
borne proportionally by people who can afford to bear that,
I think, is important.
But again, I recognize the need, and I will certainly
support the sales tax.
but just wanted to comment on that piece.
But again, thanks to staff
and thank you for bringing this forward.
I'm eager to move this ahead.
It's really important that we get this right
as we head into November.
So thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council Member Traika.
Thank you so much for this presentation.
It's just really also appreciate all the community members
that have come out.
I really appreciated the opportunity last week
to join Vice Mayor Luna Parra
during our joint D4 and 7 listening session in D8
at the beautiful Wheeler Community Center.
So this is all very helpful as we consider
which projects to include in a potential bond measure.
And I appreciate having a clear and consistent understanding
of how priorities are being evaluated across categories
so that we can confidently make decisions
about what rises to the top.
As my colleague, Council Member Keith, pointed out,
it's important we look at this bond measure
holistically, especially as multiple measures
may be coming forward and others will be evaluating them
together.
I see a real opportunity here to communicate
the full value of these investments,
including the opportunity costs of not investing in them.
Investing in our city facilities can and I think
will reduce ongoing expenses like external rentals
and create long-term community and revenue benefits.
I also want to highlight that voters clearly
care about protecting the bay, including
reducing pollution flowing into it
and addressing flood risks to storm drain upgrades
and green infrastructure.
Alongside safeguarding critical infrastructure
from climate risks like flooding and wildfires.
As we shape the bond, it's important that these priorities
are reflected in a visible and meaningful way
in our project selection.
I strongly support going for the higher bond amount,
especially given inflation and broader global uncertainty,
especially if we could ensure that we are well positioned
for matching grants, which is critical to maximizing
these investments.
And like my colleagues, I am a reluctant yes,
but still very much a yes in support of putting a half cent
sales tax measure because the the costs of frankly not doing so will be
devastating to the city. Um, and finally, uh, you know, as the district for
representatives, of course, um, I would be remiss not to say this. I want to
underscore the importance of investing in our civic center institutions, which have
long been a pillar of our democracy and civic life.
I know that we will not be able to reopen them overnight, but the costs of continuing
to neglect them will accumulate.
And we cannot afford to have demolition by neglect
of these storied institutions.
We should also ensure that key community priorities,
such as green infrastructure and parks,
are clearly reflected in the project mix we are considering.
From a strategic standpoint, we need
to be mindful that voter support can shift between polling
and the ballot, and that clarity, trust,
strong communication will be critical.
I was taking copious mental notes when Tom, former Mayor Bates, was speaking because he
knows how to get ballot measures passed.
I don't know if we have just the resources and the time available to do multiple additional
of those surveys, and that's why what goes on this survey
will be crucial.
But I have trust in the work of this bolster,
so it does a great job, and overall,
this is a strong foundation, and I appreciate the work
as we move towards shaping a responsible
and compelling bond measure, as well as a potential
of the house and sales tax measure increase.
Thank you.
Vice Mayor Leno Barra.
Thank you.
I want to thank staff for all of their work on this
and the polling team.
This is really incredible and valuable work, so thank you.
I've, similarly to my colleagues,
I've heard from community members about the concerns
about the regressive nature of a sales tax
and a property tax on assessed value,
I really hear that and I worry even more about the even more regressive nature of the effects of the long-term budget cuts that we're facing. So I'll be supporting the staff recommendation. I also wanted to add on to Council member hubbert's comments. I don't want to get too much into the specific projects given the scope of this meeting. But I heard from some constituents, both at our neighborhood group meeting and separately the goal of.
building a pocket park or any kind of more permanent infrastructure at the closed slip lane on Dwight and Piedmont.
This is a park's poor, very dense neighborhood, and I'd love to see that being added to the list of potential projects funded by the measure. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilmember Taplin.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, and thanks to the team and to my colleagues and the people who spoke tonight.
I don't have that much to say. I just want to say thank you for the presentation and all the work that's gotten to this so far.
And I think that's an important
thing to remember.
I would just add as one of the
west Berkeley council members
it's really important to me to
keep a sharp focus on the
equity priorities, parks, storm
water projects and the
waterfront.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councilmember O'Keeffe.
Just a couple of things.
Regarding the sales tax measure,
I just want to say I'm kind of a psychotic penny pitcher and I had no idea that our sales tax rate
was less than the surrounding cities until this came up. And I appreciate the argument that it's
regressive but at the same time I unless I'm just really out of touch I don't think many people
know that and therefore I think we're kind of have been leaving money on the table literally
by not having done this sooner.
And so given that it could potentially plug a third
of our structural deficit,
I could not be more in favor of the sales tax measure.
I just really wanna say that as emphatically as I can.
And I appreciate Vice Mayor Lunapara's point
that not funding city services is extremely aggressive.
Those are really, really excellent thing to point out.
So very excited about that.
Regarding the bond measure, I don't
have anything more to say except just
that it's a huge amount of work.
And thank you so much to city staff for everything
that's gone into this and will continue to go into this.
You guys are doing a great job.
Really good.
It's a huge amount of money.
So the fact that the process is so carefully thought out
and so much time is being spent on it is really appropriate.
And you guys are doing a great job.
And I just want to say it was nice to see
that at least more majority of people think that the city is going in the right direction.
That felt really good. I think that is also indicated in the high level of support. I
think people seem really willing to invest their money in the city and it showed they
have a lot of pride in the city and they should because the city is amazing. This is the best
place to live in the whole planet earth and everybody knows it and I think these poll
results really really show that and I just wanted to highlight that and just
feel good about that and I really this is very exciting good job everyone thank
you kept thank you councilmember councilmember Bartlett thank you
madam mayor I do want to just join myself to all the previous comments and
regarding the district equity you know the T1 formula was really good the way
that was rolled out I think would be could do that again I think to make sure
that the resource are rolled out evenly and fairly and equitably. And I want to
do a good plug for downtown because it is necessary. I realize that the real
price tag for downtown development is much higher than the money we would get
from this, but at least gets us on the way. And we do need we do need a really
real vibrant civic center square like other cities with a water fountain to
like a water based fountain. I see this every time. And and then finally I'm
gonna say it's really nice to get the vote of confidence in people. They like
the work we're doing. They're supporting us and they have faith in what we're
doing and it's really wonderful to see. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you.
Councilmember Taplin, did you want to add something? Yes, thank you very much. I
also wanted to put in a plug for Francis Alberier, which is really the heart of
this Nutella Park neighborhood. Not only is it a wonderful community center, it's
also meant to serve as an evacuation center in the event of an emergency. I
think for our city buildings it's important that we prioritize those that
that fulfill a range of needs for the community and for the city and it was a
one of our flagship projects that had to be shelved from T1 and it's very
important to me to demonstrate the city's ability to finish projects that
promised to undergo. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks so much for your
comments. I really want to thank the city manager's office, so Paul, David, also
Kerry, who's our silent partner up here with David. Would love to hear you
present next time. I know you did a lot of work on this, so thank you very much.
And I also know that a lot of grants have been applied for by you. So when we
talk about leveraging grant funding for grants, I just want everyone to
know that Cary does a lot of that work. So big shout out there. Thank you all for
putting this presentation together and just for the heavy lifting of working
with the Lake team to put this poll together. I really want to acknowledge
how challenging it is to balance all these different priorities, districts and
needs. There's a lot of thought that goes into this and so thank you and thank
you also to everyone from the city staff who worked on organizing this and
facilitating the conversation. So Scott, Faris, I know you're here but other folks
folks have been involved in those conversations as well around the city, around the GO Bond.
And I also want to thank the community for participating in the community meetings and
the survey.
I don't know who you are out there who took the survey, but thank you for taking it and
thanks for your confidence.
And really big shout out to our Realized Vision 2050 Task Force in the past year.
We had many conversations with folks in our city throughout a variety of different specialties
gave thoughts and inputs and I really wanted to let you know that that was
very helpful. In terms of projects, I know folks have pet projects that they
really care about and I just also want to encourage all of us my council
colleagues to remember that these projects benefit everybody in the city.
So, you know, when we're supporting something in downtown or Francis Allbrier
like we go, our residents go to places throughout the city. So just want to
keep us united in our thinking about how this supports Berkeley as a whole and also just
a second what some folks have also mentioned about making sure we really want to have strong
accountability in here. I love that's something I know we're already talking about. So in my office
we really value community engagement also and encouraging folks to engage with local government.
infrastructure is really the backbone of our city.
If we have, like I like to say,
a hundred year old infrastructure, basically,
and with over $1.5 billion of deferred needs,
you can see the need versus what we have.
There's a big difference.
So this bond is really needed to ensure
that our infrastructure is maintained
and also that we're prepared for the future.
We talk a lot about climate change here in this city,
and this is our way that we're really preparing for it.
So we really need our community to come together
to help fund these projects.
For every year that we don't adequately invest
in our infrastructure,
the deferred costs increase exponentially.
And I think that's an important part.
I want folks to know about that.
This $300 million will allow us
to leverage additional grant opportunities,
as I mentioned.
And also, I wanna mention a couple of things
that I wanted to pull out.
So given that Berkeley is the birthplace
of the disability rights movement,
I'd like to make sure that accessibility
is incorporated throughout our projects
and just generally wanna second what Berkeley residents
are saying about accessibility being important.
I was pleased to see that over 70% of the folks polled
understand the need to support infrastructure generally.
One of my favorite things about being mayor
is getting to learn about all of the different projects
that are happening in the city.
I've gotten many tours from Public Works and our Parks Department and also done ride-alongs
with Police and Fire and I sit along with Dispatch and that's really allowed me to see
the amazing things that are happening throughout our city and so I really want to make sure
folks understand how much work is happening all around us that you may not notice day
to day as you're going about your business but I get a chance to see that specifically
and it's an incredible honor.
There's always room for improvement,
but I'm very glad to see that the confidence
from the community is strong in us and our direction.
56% of folks polled, so they think that Berkeley
is heading in the right direction.
And I really wanna thank my council colleagues
because I think that us working together
through really challenging situations
in a civil and respectful way
is really reflected by these numbers.
So thank you all so much for the work that you're doing
to show our residents what a highly functioning
progressive city can look like.
So thank you very much and thank you so much
for the presentation this evening.
So I know we have a motion on the floor.
I will ask that we please take the roll.
Okay, on the motion to approve the recommendation
to direct the city manager to prepare draft ballot language
and authorize a second community survey.
Council Member Kester-Wine?
Yes.
Yes.
I yes.
Yes.
And Mary.
Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Okay.
Thank you all so much.
Really grateful.
Okay.
So we have.
Finished our one item on the meeting.
So I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
So moved.
And do we need to take the roll again?
Yeah, because we have someone online.
Can we take the roll again on this, please?
Okay, to adjourn, council member Kesser-Wani.
Yes.
Tapplin. Yes.
Bartlett. Yes.
Traga. Aye.
O'Keeffe. Yes.
Blackaby. Yes.
Lunapara. Yes.
Humbert. Yes.
And Maryishi. Yes.
Okay, we're... All right, meeting is adjourned.
Thanks, everyone.