As Residents Reel from Record Property Tax Hikes, Some Councilmembers Advocate Pushing Them Even Higher

Berkeley businesses and residents are still reeling from the largest property-tax assessment jump in city history—10–25%.

Rather than exercise restraint in the wake of a historic cost-of-living increase, Councilmembers Bartlett, Tregub, O’Keefe, and Blackaby are endorsing a 12-year parcel tax on every home and business in Berkeley. The ordinance, titled the 2026 Berkeley Arts and Creative Economy Rescue and Sustainability Ballot Measure, amounts to a duplicative public subsidy of performing arts organizations.

Berkeley's Existing $1M+ Arts Budget

We already finance a $700,000 Civic Arts Grant Program and $300,000 for capital projects.

Funding Program	Funding Amounts
Capital Projects Grants	$300,000 (2x $150,000) in 2026 to Berkeley-based nonprofit arts and cultural organizations (2025-2026 budget p. 227)
Civic Arts Grants	$500,000 - 700,000 per year FY20-24 ($698,782 in 2024) (2025-2026 budget p. 226) and $780,000 FY25-26 (Civic Arts Program Webpage)

Further, in past years, individual Berkeley-based arts and cultural organizations have received direct capital through budget referrals. Since FY 2016, Berkeley has made $150,000 awards to the following organizations: the Aurora Theatre, UC Theatre, Capoeira Arts Foundation, Luna Kids Dance, the La Pena Cultural Center, and a $100,000 award to the Kala Art Institute. Some of these organizations are now financing the ballot measure campaign.

Prioritizing Private Deficits Over Berkeley’s Financial Crisis

The ordinance would cost residents $5.5 million a year, nearly one-quarter of Berkeley’s existing structural budget deficit where the city spends more every year than it takes in—even in normal economic conditions. Fixing the deficit is supposed to be the City Council’s top fiscal priority.

Apparently, Councilmembers Bartlett, Tregub, O’Keefe and Blackaby place a higher priority on the deficits of private organizations over the one for which elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility.

The Groups Funding the Measure Could Capture 85% of the Money

Established organizations financing this campaign have written the measure to ensure they capture the majority of funding.

• 75% of the new tax revenue is reserved for “established performing arts organizations” operating for at least three years.

• Those organizations are also eligible for another 10% for capital projects.

• Four such organizations have already committed $49,000 to finance the ballot campaign.

In other words, the groups financing this initiative could legally receive up to 85% of the tax revenue they’re asking you to approve.

Incentivizing Warped Budgeting: Spend More, Get More

One of the most perverse provisions in the ordinance is the formula that allows the organizations financing the ordinance to receive grant funding based on a percentage of their annual operating expenses. The higher your expenses, the higher your award amount.

For Performing Arts Organizations with Annual Operating Expenses greater than or equal to one million dollars ($1,000,000) per fiscal year, the grant request may be up to ten percent (10.00%) of its Annual Operating Expenses.

This provision creates a perverse incentive to increase operating expenses (particularly salaries) so the applicant can then apply for larger grant amounts. Directors’ salaries at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre already range from $350,000 - 423,000 per year. If this ordinance were to pass, expect that salary increase on Day One.

For reference (and by contrast), grants are normally issued through a tiered model with fixed award amounts:

• Tier 1 – Small-scale projects: $X fixed award

• Tier 2 – Moderate projects: $Y fixed award

• Tier 3 – Large or complex projects: $Z fixed award

Applicants are select the tier that best reflects the size, complexity, and resources required for their proposed scope of work.

A Dystopian Vision: Subsidize Us, Or Else

One of the most bizarre and evidence free assertions from the ordinance lobby is a warning that, if we don’t approve this subsidy: we risk returning to an empty downtown and pandemic-era crime rates. While we are not aware of any evidence supporting an association between theater operations and rising crime, we welcome the ordinance’s sponsors to substantiate this claim in the comments section.

Take Action & Stay Tuned

We encourage you to contact Councilmembers Bartlett, Tregub, O’Keefe, and Blackaby:

bbartlett@berkeleyca.gov

ITregub@berkeleyca.gov

sokeefe@berkeleyca.gov

bblackaby@berkeleyca.gov

We will be closely following this proposed measure in the months ahead and will share any new updates with you

City Council’s 6.4% Rate Hike and New Parcel Taxes Drive Big Bills

Berkeley homeowners are opening their new property assessment — and many are surprised to see historically high increases.

One Nextdoor thread details 10% to 25%. increases and resulting questions about what’s behind these big jumps. Why are some people’s increases so much higher than others? Over the next few weeks, WOM Berkeley will break down the reasons for these differences. For now, here’s what we know.

---

What’s Causing the Increase?

The main reason is parcel taxes — charges based on the size (square footage) of your home.

Here’s what’s new:

• New taxes: Measure FF (Street Repair) and Measure X (Library), and an increase in Parks rate (Measure Y).

• City Council increase: They voted to raise many existing parcel taxes by 6.4%.

• School funding: Berkeley Schools also raised their rate.

Together, these changes created one of the biggest overall tax increases in years. The graphic below illustrates the unprecedented nature of the 2025 increase.

This graph illustrates how parcel taxes and assessments cost are the driver of this year's increase.

---

Could the Increase Have Been Smaller?

Yes.

When drafting parcel tax measures, Council gives itself the discretion to increase the rate every year based on economic indicators. We've been in touch with the Finance Department and they have explained the 6.4% is based on choosing to use personal income growth (PIG) in Berkeley as opposed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) — the standard inflation measure.

Using the CPI would have meant about a 2.5% increase, closer to what’s been done in past years. See for yourself, according to additional data provided by the Finance Department, 2025’s increase is among the highest on record. We have compiled historic data here.*

Still, it shouldn’t take this much effort to understand your tax bill. The City should create a public dashboard showing every tax assessment and annual rate change — so residents can see exactly where their money goes.

---

Why Did Council Approve a 6.4% Increase?

That’s unclear.

The decision was made without public input, in June on the Consent Calendar — a procedure meant for routine, non-controversial items like meeting minutes or small contract renewals.

But this City Council often uses the Consent Calendar to pass major, multi-million-dollar changes with no debate. That’s a troubling trend that should be stopped.

---

Did Council Recognize the Magnitude of the Increase?

It was not discussed.

When we asked, one City Council office said the increase was “ministerial,” meaning it was automatic — something voters had already approved.

That’s only partly true.

Voters approved one specific increase — Measure Y (Parks and Landscaping) — but all other parcel tax increases were up to the Council’s discretion. Each recently passed parcel tax lets Council decide whether or not to raise the rate every year.

This confusion suggests that Council may not fully understand its own tax policy. WOM Berkeley believes there should be a public hearing every year to review all tax increases and the financial implications for residents.

Our Recommendations:

• Create a dashboard that includes current and historic assessments for each measure (We have discussed the importance of information transparency).

• Review the cumulative impact of all assessment changes at public hearing of City Council.

• By extension, Council should vote on the package of changes as an “action item” with public input. 

• Stop using the  Consent Calendar to pass major, multi-million-dollar changes.

---

* Note, WOM Berkeley obtained this information from the City of Berkeley.  We identified some incorrect figures in the original data which we have corrected. We believe this information is now accurate; however, we have been unable to verify some outlier figures. 

WOM Berkeley spends an inordinate amount of time trying to access and verify public information that is not readily available through the city’s website. Fundamentally, we believe the City of Berkeley should maintain a dashboard for all tax assessments with current and historical rates available to all in a manner comparable to what we are providing here.

Counting the Cost: A Berkeley Business Owner on the 2025 Property Tax Hike

The property tax on my business (808 Gilman St. LLC) will go up 13.1% in just this year, largely due to three property tax measures which all concurrently passed.  Measure FF (a new tax which is 0.25/sf for businesses, crafted as a voter initiative requiring only a simple majority) was especially impactful on my business - an old 10,000sf warehouse converted into class C office and lab space.  Along with the 0.09/sf increase from Measure X, and 0.043/sf increase from Measure Y, these will collectively result in an aggregate property tax rate of 4% of my property's assessed valuation (the building was purchased in 2012). 

The "needs" behind the measures all appear worthy, but instead of constantly seeking new taxes at every election, the City really needs to reduce unnecessary projects elsewhere, execute projects far more efficiently, better contain overtime usage, and negotiate increased employee pension contribution portions for new hires (see 2023 compensation data.  A city of only 124,000 should not require a morbidly obese budget of $750MM per year ( see summary on Page 10).

One truly worries about Berkeley's future when it seems to have an increasing number of empty storefronts

One truly worries about Berkeley's future when it seems to have an increasing number of empty storefronts, especially in the western portion, and when the two largest West Berkeley R&D campuses are mostly empty, and put on hold, respectively.  I, and other small business people I talk to, believe  that as a developer or business evaluates purchasing a site or building in Berkeley, they come to realize that the aggregate annual property tax and other business taxes are collectively higher than anywhere nearby, and will be a significant drain on their operations.  They further see that they will lose at least 3.5% of the equity when they eventually sell it, due to Berkeley's unusually high RETT (increased to 3.5% by Measure W of this past election).  The city's other numerous and heavy  business taxes (e.g. large gross receipts taxes regardless of whether the business is even profitable, and  a 7.5% Berkeley utility tax - even on clean electricity) will further burden their business.

Business owners come to realize that the aggregate annual property tax and other business taxes are collectively higher than anywhere nearby

With a history of multiple new heavy taxes on every single Berkeley ballot, and virtually no sunsetting ever, and with many taxes (like FF) auto-increasing with inflation, savvy developers and business owners will do the fairly simple math and simply steer clear of Berkeley, as appears to be happening, at least from where I sit here in West Berkeley.

Berkeley has great potential, thanks to its progressive and intellectual culture and what is one of the  best universities in the world, but at some point the viability of a location goes beyond ideologies, and is brutally governed by basic economics.

Is there something we can collectively do, well before the next election, to stem this unrelenting and damaging trend?   

Best regards,

Joel Libove

P.S. Despite measure FF (Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax) having passed, I received a letter from the City of Berkeley demanding that I fix the City sidewalk near my building that was damaged by a city tree root.

WOMBerkely welcomes your experience either in our comments or through correspondence at WOMBerk22@gmail.com

Property Taxes Jump 10 to 14% – Newsom Vetoes Transparency Rollback Bill

 

Property Tax Bills Bring Sticker Shock

If you haven’t opened your property tax bill yet, prepare for a surprise.

Readers are reporting their residential assessments are up 10 to 12%, while local businesses are faced with increases as high as 14%. This difference reflects City Council's tendency to up charge commercial properties in parcel tax measures as they did for the recently passed Measure FF.

You can view your property tax bill online.

Part of the increase reflects new parcel taxes approved by voters in 2024 — including the Library Tax (Measure X), Sidewalk and Street Repairs Tax (Measure FF), and an additional 16% hike in the Parks, Trees, and Landscaping tax (Measure Y). On top of that, the City Council quietly passed three parcel tax increases exceeding 6% each, all appearing on the Consent Calendar at City Council on June 24th with no discussion.

The Consent Calendar is meant for routine, non-controversial items that can be approved with a single vote and little or no discussion — such as approving meeting minutes, accepting standard reports, confirming committee appointments, or renewing ordinary contracts.

It is deeply troubling and, frankly, disrespectful to the public process when actions with such far-reaching consequences — in this example parcel tax increases involving tens of millions of dollars — are bundled into the Consent Calendar and approved without any discussion or deliberation.

We are currently speaking with both business owners and residents on fixed incomes to understand how these increases are impacting them. Stay tuned for further assessment and recommendations in our upcoming posts.

---

A Victory for Ballot Transparency: Governor Newsom Vetoes AB 699

In August, we reported on Assembly Bill 699, which would have removed key financial details—including the estimated tax rate, duration, and annual revenue—from the ballot labels of local bond and parcel tax measures.

Despite widespread public concern (see comments in previous report), Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and Senator Jesse Arreguín voted in favor of the bill.

Fortunately, on October 1, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed AB 699, citing that it would “reduce transparency for local tax and bond measures.”

His veto preserves voters’ ability to see essential financial information directly on the ballot — a critical safeguard for fiscal transparency and informed decision-making. We commend the Governor for this veto.