Measure UCity of BerkeleyGeneral obligation bondBond⅔ to pass

Measure U: Measure U - City Of Berkeley - Bond Measure

City of Berkeley · Alameda County · November 3, 2026

The question on your ballot

Shall the measure authorizing issuance of $300,000,000 in general obligation bonds to fund acquisition and improvement of fire stations, emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and other public infrastructure and facilities, and increase climate resiliency, subject to independent oversight and audits, be adopted? Financial Implications: Average annual taxpayer costs over projected 40 years bonds are outstanding are approximately $22.14 per $100,000 assessed property value; generating approximately $15,200,000/year.

In plain language

Measure U would let the City of Berkeley borrow money. It would do this by selling bonds for public facilities. A YES vote approves $300,000,000 in bonds. The money would buy and improve fire stations and emergency response facilities. It would also improve parks and recreation facilities. It would help the city handle climate change better. The measure requires independent oversight and audits. A NO vote means the city cannot sell these bonds.

Fiscal impact

The city would issue $300,000,000 in bonds. Over the projected 40 years the bonds are outstanding, the average annual cost is about $22.14 per $100,000 of assessed property value, raising about $15,200,000 a year.

Impartial analysis

This measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council of the City of Berkeley. If the measure is approved by a two-thirds majority, the City would be authorized to issue $300 million of general obligation bonds to finance the acquisition and improvement of real property for public infrastructure and facilities (“Improvements”). The bonds would be issued to finance the infrastructure and facilities projects documented in the City’s Capital Improvement Programs and the City’s Vision 2050 Framework as part of the City’s comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing the City’s infrastructure and facilities needs. Improvements include but are not limited to emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities and infrastructure, accessibility improvements, seismic and climate resiliency upgrades, facility modernization and reliability improvements, and construction or improvement to other City infrastructure, including renovation, replacement, or reconstruction for public benefit. The Improvements would be required to incorporate all-electric new construction and replacement of existing natural gas infrastructure with electric systems, consistent with the City’s All-Electric Standards for Municipal Projects, except in limited circumstances where the City Council may grant exceptions due to infeasibility. Proceeds of the bonds may be used to reimburse the City for expenditures on the Improvements that are paid before the date of execution, delivery or issuance of the bonds. The City may also have the opportunity to leverage federal, state, regional and county funds allocated for these needs if it issues the bonds. Funds may be used for public art integrated into the Improvements, consistent with existing City law permitting 1.75% of certain capital improvement project budgets to be used for this purpose. All expenditures would be subject to an audit by the City Auditor at least once every three years to confirm that bond expenditures are consistent with the intent of the measure. Additionally, the City manager would be required to provide the City Council a comprehensive annual report of funds received from any bonded indebtedness authorized by the measure, funds expended, and the status of the Improvements. The City’s Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission would provide oversight on any Improvements related to parks, open space, greenery, pools, recreation centers, the Waterfront, and the City’s camps. The City’s Transportation and Infrastructure Commission would provide oversight on Improvements related to transportation and other public infrastructure. Financial Implications: The bonds would be payable from ad valorem taxes levied on real property in the City of Berkeley. The City estimates that the average annual taxpayer costs over the projected 40 years that the bonds would be outstanding are approximately $22.14 per $100,000 of assessed property value; generating approximately $15,200,000 per year. The City estimates that the highest tax rate that would be required to be levied is approximately $35 per $100,000 of assessed value, which the City projects would begin to apply in 2040-41. /s/ Farimah Faiz Brown Berkeley City Attorney

Official ballot arguments

Filed for the official voter guide by each side, printed as submitted.

The official arguments will appear here once both sides’ arguments are on file.

What supporters and opponents say — outside sources (not official ballot arguments)

Statements by campaigns, officials and news coverage, quoted with attribution and linked to the original. VoterDecoder did not write them and does not endorse either side.

Supporters say

  • “This $300 million bond measure is a step in a healthy direction for the City to meet its capital needs and move towards developing a long-term multi-year plan the public understands.”
    — League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville (2026) · Vote with the League November 2026 - Measure U
    Read the source →
  • “All of this infrastructure will be a lot more expensive the longer we wait to fund it”
    — Rebecca Mirvish, campaign manager, Safe & Vibrant Berkeley (Yes on U & V), Berkeleyside (2026) · Measure U: Will voters back $300M Berkeley infrastructure bond?
    Read the source →
  • “More than ever, our lives literally depend on our local firefighting capacity, our 911 response system, and our preparation for extreme weather emergencies.”
    — Matt Nichols, former City of Berkeley principal transportation planner, Berkeleyside (2026) · Opinion: Vote Yes on Measure U to invest in Berkeley's infrastructure
    Read the source →

Opponents say

  • “Measure U authorizes $300 million in borrowing for infrastructure with no comprehensive capital plan, no binding commitment to specific projects, and no budget for maintaining new facilities.”
    — Affordable Berkeley, Affordable Berkeley (FPPC ID 1496744) (2026) · Berkeley Measure U (Bonds) - Vote NO
    Read the source →
  • “Contrast this approach with Measure U which, at face value, has no dedicated purpose.”
    — James McGrath (former Berkeley Parks, Recreation and Waterfront and Public Works commissioner) and Geoffrey Lomax (treasurer, Affordable Berkeley), Berkeleyside (2026) · Opinion: Vote No on Berkeley's Measure U - bonds should have a clear purpose
    Read the source →
The issue, explainedPublic Safety →Environment & Climate →
See everything on your ballot — enter your address →

Official text from the elections office; outside statements are quoted with attribution. Confirm your official ballot with your county elections office. We never tell you how to vote.