Measure L–Scale Borrowing Is Back: Councilmember Taplin’s “Bonds Forever” Proposed Policy

Last August, we warned Berkeley residents about Councilmember Terry Taplin’s proposed Bonds Forever policy. Tomorrow at 5:00 PM, City Council will vote on whether to make this policy a top staff priority (Item #4). Bonds Forever would institutionalize a cycle of issuing $250–$300 million in general obligation bonds every six years—locking Berkeley into permanent, rolling debt.

For a typical 30-year municipal bond, taxpayers pay $1.60–$2.00 for every $1.00 borrowed once interest is included. At that rate, Taplin’s proposal could obligate Berkeley taxpayers  up to $1.2 billion in total repayment within just six years—a figure strikingly similar to the spending proposed in the failed Measure L, 2022.

This is not fiscal reform. It is deficit financing on autopilot that will overburden existing taxpayers and put middle-class housing opportunities further out of reach  Berkeleyans deserve better.

---

Call to Action: Contact Your Councilmember Today

council@berkeleyca.gov

Subject: Reject Item #4 – Taplin’s “Bonds Forever” Policy

Dear Councilmember,

I urge you to reject Item #4 (DMND0004232), Taplin’s “Bonds Forever” policy, from the list of prioritized staff referrals.

Institutionalizing massive, recurring debt is not a solution to Berkeley’s structural budget deficit. The City should first bring ongoing expenditures in line with recurring revenues before taking on new long-term obligations.

Normalizing deficit financing through permanent bond issuance is fiscally irresponsible and putting middle class housing further out of reach. Please vote no on referring this policy to staff.

Sincerely,

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

5:00 PM

Action Calendar – New Business

1.-2026 City Council Referral Prioritization Results Using Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV)

Financial Implications: None

WOM 2026 Issue Focus: Berkeley's Fiscal Crisis and Reckoning

Our country is experiencing an indescribable period in its almost 250-year history.  But despite these profoundly difficult times, WOM Berkeley’s work continues.  We strongly believe our mission helps strengthen the bonds in our community by providing important and timely information on the City’s financial outlook that you can trust.

Another year has passed without meaningful action to address the city’s structural budget deficit. Instead, City Council continues to mischaracterize the situation as a “revenue problem” rather than an "expenditure problem."

After approving a record tax increase in 2025, Councilmembers and their allies are already lining up a new round of sales, parcel taxes and bond measures. This approach ignores a well-documented reality: Berkeley operates one of the largest and most expensive city governments in California.

Rather than confront this structural imbalance, City Council’s default response has been to impose ever-higher costs on residents—without reform, prioritization, or accountability. This path is unsustainable. The structural deficit for this fiscal year is approximately $30 million in direct costs and millions more in unfunded liabilities. 

Given this reality, in 2026 we will focus on three core areas:

1. Protect affordability for Berkeley residents by stabilizing property taxes. Parcel taxes in Berkeley have been rising at an alarming rate that threatens housing stability for all but the wealthiest homeowners. In 2024 alone, Council championed two new parcel taxes and substantial increases in two existing assessments, resulting in a tax increase of as much as 25-30% for some residents. These increases present a challenge for residents’ housing budgets that are already strained due to inflation and increases in costs for utilities, trash collection, etc. The City should live within its means, just as residents have to. Therefore, WOM Berkeley will advocate for:

1. Avoiding new taxes or fees for expansive programs and focus on essential services that are typically under the purview of local government. City council members have already endorsed new parcel taxes to extend public subsidies to private organizations. Others have suggested a sales tax increase and new borrowing.

2. Limit total cumulative annual increases to changes in the Consumer Price Index.

3. Document, with public input and comment, any annual percentage increases on existing taxes. 

4. Showing appreciation to Council members when they do something we support.

2. Increase the cost effectiveness and productivity of city programs and services. Berkeley spends more per resident on government services than other cities in the East Bay and is among the highest in the state.  Yet, Berkeley’s government performance, to the extend it can be evaluated, appears to be lagging given the excessive costs. This imbalance is especially evident in the long-term degradation of streets, vital infrastructure and failing homeless services. Furthermore, Berkeley has duplicative services e.g. the public health department duplicates the services provided by the county. WOM Berkeley will advocate for:

1. Performance metrics for city services and benchmarking against peer cities. 

2. Prioritizing services and identifying cuts to address the structural budget deficit. 

3. Reducing redundancy across city departments and also in contracts with non-profit organizations. 

4. Financial transparency and accountability of programs and services (see next item).

3. Increase transparency and public engagement on taxes and spending. For example, tax increases and other fees should never be passed on the Consent Calendar. Such increases should be considered as action items with the financial rationale for any increase provided. WOM Berkeley will advocate for:

1. New taxes or fees to be action items with the supporting rational and public input.

2. Publicly accessible dashboard and quarterly or semi-annual reporting of performance metrics for city services.

Call to Action & Our Promise to You:

• We will provide more frequent email calls to action on agenda items that impact the issues above.

• WOM will reach out to other like-minded community groups in Berkeley to develop relationships and collaborate on these issues.  

• We will invite more guest contributions to support our outreach and education efforts especially on important topics outside our core areas.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge the recent contributions of Councilmember Brent Blackaby (District 6) and City Auditor, Jenny Wong.  In December 2025, Councilmember Blackaby introduced an item entitled “Setting Measurable Goals and Metrics for Key City Priorities” and last week, Jenny Wong released an audit report on “Measuring Performance in the City of Berkeley.”  Such efforts are a step in the right direction for increasing transparency and enabling informed public engagement.

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.