Berkeley council directs staff to draft $300 million bond language and a sales‑tax measure after poll shows likely voter support

The Berkeley City Council on Tuesday directed staff to prepare draft ballot language for a $300 million general obligation bond and for a 0.5% sales and use tax after a city‑commissioned survey showed broad initial support among likely voters.

Deputy City Manager David White framed the issue, telling the council that the city faces roughly $1.87 billion in unfunded capital needs and that the sunset of Measure T1 left a funding gap. “We do not devote enough resources to address the totality of our infrastructure needs,” he said, summarizing city revenue constraints and the kinds of projects under consideration, including parks and restrooms, seismic upgrades, 911/dispatch modernization and fire‑station work.

Lake Street Partners pollster David Mermin told the council the firm surveyed 500 likely voters in February (margin of error ±4.4%) and used a split‑sample to test two bond amounts. “Our total result was 70% voting yes,” Mermin said of the combined sample; he added that the $300 million and $200 million variants tested at about 71% and 70% respectively, a difference within sampling error. After hearing balanced pro and con arguments in the survey, support fell modestly to roughly 67% yes—still at or above the two‑thirds threshold required for a general‑obligation bond.

Mermin described the sales and use tax test separately: the half‑cent measure initially drew about 60% yes and remained above a simple majority after argument testing (about 58% yes). He also reported top priorities that voters rated “extremely important,” including renovating the 911 dispatch center (29%), replacing aging fire stations and repairing sidewalks/curb ramps (about 27%), and upgrading park restrooms.

Councilmembers pressed the presenters on methodology, ballot‑order effects and the degree to which a second, more targeted survey should simulate the likely November ballot. Mermin said the follow‑up survey would test actual ballot language and the likely ballot environment (other measures and their order), but cautioned AB testing reduces sample size and raises margins of error. He also said the survey used a likely‑voter frame to approximate turnout in the November election.

Public commenters were split: several urged greater safeguards for the survey design and a larger or randomized sample, while preservation advocates and neighborhood groups urged funding for Civic Center buildings (Old City Hall, the Veterans Building) and prioritized seismic work. Dr. Steven Alpert said the 500‑person sample was “an adequate sample size to generate any meaningful data” and argued the results should be discarded; Lake Street Partners and staff responded in public Q&A explaining standard survey practice for municipal polling.

Following discussion, the council voted to direct the city manager to prepare draft ballot language for a $300,000,000 general obligation bond, draft proposed sales/use tax language, and to authorize a second community survey to test final ballot wording and ballot‑environment interactions. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote.

The council’s next formal step, staff said, will be returning in May with refined project lists, updated cost estimates and recommendations for ballot language; the city also plans additional community engagement to shape the final project mix and to test messaging before the June/July ballot‑placement deadlines.

The council adjourned after taking the vote.