Berkeley council moves ahead with polling on up to $300 million bond to address infrastructure backlog

Mayor Ishii called a Dec. 2 special meeting of the Berkeley City Council to focus on the city’s infrastructure needs and to introduce an eight‑page update from the Vision 2050 task force staff are calling “Realize Vision 2050.” The mayor said Berkeley faces major deferred maintenance, noting "Berkeley still has more than $2,000,000,000 in unfunded infrastructure needs." (Mayor Ishii)

Deputy City Manager David White told the council staff’s work indicates a similarly large backlog and asked whether the council wants staff to evaluate the feasibility of a general obligation bond in 2026 to raise up to $300 million. "We would be discussing a variety of projects to apply to a general obligation bond in an amount up to $300,000,000," White said. He outlined a draft engagement schedule and polling plan that would sample likely November 2026 voters and return results to council in March–May 2026.

White and staff walked the council through the proposed project list, grouped into three $100 million buckets: community facilities and quality of life, public safety, and critical infrastructure and accessibility. Parks projects highlighted include upgrades to King Pool, turf replacement at Harrison Field and expanded park restroom and dog‑park improvements. Fire Chief David Sprague described four priority projects the bond would seed: a complete rebuild of Station 4 (1900 Marin), a larger training center (997 Cedar St.), upgrades to the 911 emergency communications center (2100 MLK) and Station 6 (999 Cedar St.).

Public Works Director Terrence Davis asked the council to consider seismic and modernization work at civic facilities including the Madel Shirek Building, the Veterans Memorial Building and the MLK Civic Center Annex. He told council the city’s ADA and accessibility deferred‑maintenance list totals about $48,000,000. "That deferred list totals about $48,000,000 of improvements that need to be made in our right of way and also in our facilities to bring those facilities to ADA code," he said.

Staff explained the tax implications of a bond and the constraints of a general obligation financing tool: "Importantly, in order to pass a general obligation bond, it requires two‑thirds of voter approval, and they’re typically repaid over about a 30‑year time frame," Deputy City Manager White said. Using a draft issuance model that would sell $100 million every five years, staff estimated a combined average tax rate of 0.0441 percent — about $44 per $100,000 of assessed value — which translates to roughly $242 per year for a home with a $550,000 assessed value under the assumptions presented.

Councilmembers raised questions about how to structure polling and what to test. Several asked staff to test a range of amounts (lower and higher than $300 million), to disaggregate an immediate‑safety package (for example, fire projects) for separate testing, and to model total tax bills rather than only the debt‑service portion. Council members also sought benchmarking against peer cities and greater clarity on what Measure FF and other recent parcel taxes would cover versus any new bond funding.

Staff said the community engagement and polling work could begin in January 2026 if the council authorizes the consultant contract; the legal deadline to submit ballot language to the county is Aug. 7, 2026. Council members from across the chamber expressed broad support for moving forward with the survey and for designing questions that test priorities, price points and oversight mechanisms. Deputy Director Lehi Amir told council the 50/50 sidewalk repair program backlog includes about 1,100 logged locations that would be addressed by the proposed funding for that program.

Public comment urged council to incorporate prior asset‑management and program‑planning work done in 2022, to prioritize life‑cycle maintenance and leveraging external grants (including FEMA grant matching for seismic work at downtown civic facilities), and to include labor partners and commissions in outreach.

The council did not take a vote on a bond authorization at the special meeting. Instead, members directed staff to begin community engagement and polling work to test public support and priorities and to return with survey results and model scenarios before making a formal decision on placing a bond measure on the ballot.