Slide 1 of 14
Show Your Work
Before Berkeley asks for more money, show the work.
Before Council asks residents for a tax, bond, fee, or assessment, it should show why the need cannot reasonably be met with the resources the City already controls.
The proposal is not cut first. It is compare first.
Slide 2 of 14
First ask whether it earns a place in the portfolio. Then ask how to pay for it.
These are two different decisions, and they belong in this order.
EARNS A PLACE?
→
HOW DO WE PAY?
1 · Portfolio
Does the undertaking deserve City money, staff capacity, Council attention, and public trust? That is the job of the broader decision framework — municipal role, resident benefit, institutional fit, evidence, lifecycle cost, capacity, partners, metrics, decision gates, and exit criteria.
2 · Financing
Once the undertaking has earned a place, what is the best way to pay for it? This deck is mostly about Question 2.
Slide 3 of 14
Once the project earns a place, Berkeley still has more than one way to pay for it.
Berkeley’s own fiscal policy already recognizes two branches: new expenditure → additional revenue OR expenditure reductions. The arithmetic is sound. What is missing is a decision rule requiring Council to examine the choices seriously before selecting new revenue.
Ways to collect more
taxes · bonds · assessments · fees · grants · other outside funding
Ways to spend differently
efficiency · reprioritization · alternatives
Worn down — the four Berkeley usesStill sharp — the three it does not
Those choices are not politically equivalent.
Slide 4 of 14
Our norms give the revenue crayons an easier path.
New funding is additive. It can finance a new priority without requiring a direct comparison with other ways of achieving the same goal.
A stronger process gives Council reason to explore the full palette.
Efficiency
Can we produce the same outcome with fewer resources?
Reprioritization
Does the new objective matter more than something already being funded?
Alternatives
Can the outcome be delivered differently — through redesign, partnerships, regional cooperation, contracting, nonprofit delivery, or cost sharing?
Good decision rules give every option a fair hearing.
Slide 5 of 14
Other cities ask “what can we change?” before “how can we raise more?”
Berkeley already looks to other cities for practices worth borrowing. Fiscal decision-making need not be exempt.
San José · FY2024–25
Find savings and efficiencies without service impacts;
remove unnecessary capacity where service can still be maintained;
confront lower-priority services;
then identify revenue that could offset reductions.
Palo Alto · FY2023 guidelines
Redesign and reallocation;
alternative service delivery;
savings opportunities;
expanded or new revenue;
offsets for new spending whenever possible.
Neither city removes the revenue option. They require a broader comparison before using it.
Slide 6 of 14
Borrowing capacity tells us what we can borrow — not what we should buy.
Knowing Berkeley’s prudent debt capacity is useful financial management. But capacity is a financing fact, not a policy objective.
A household with a $50,000 credit-card limit is not “underspent” because some of the limit remains unused. The same logic applies to municipal debt.
Before borrowing, Council should have established
The problem
→
City responsibility
→
Justified intervention
→
Priority
→
Alternatives
→
Remaining gap
Only then does the financing tool belong in the discussion.
A high credit limit is not a shopping list.
Slide 7 of 14
Show the efficiencies, alternatives, and tradeoffs — then show the gap that remains.
Before seeking new voter-approved revenue, Council should publish the reasoning. The public should be able to see:
Efficiency
Can the same outcome be achieved at lower cost without materially degrading service?
Alternatives
Is there a materially different and better delivery method?
Reprioritization
What existing discretionary spending could be reduced, deferred, redesigned, transferred, or discontinued — and why should the new priority outrank it?
Restricted funds
Which resources are truly unavailable, and which discretionary subsidies, transfers, or commitments could change?
Remaining gap
After those choices are quantified, how much additional revenue is actually required?
This is not a mandatory cut cascade. The point is comparison and explanation, not predetermined reductions.
Slide 8 of 14
If the analysis still says “raise revenue,” then make that case to voters.
Suppose Council identifies a $20 million need. A serious review may find $2 million in reasonable efficiencies or reprioritization, alternatives that do not solve the remaining problem, and existing programs Council can publicly justify preserving.
$20M
→ analysis →
$18M GAP
$20M
→ analysis →
$20M GAP
Show voters the gap. Explain why the alternatives fail, why the existing expenditures should remain, and why the proposed tax, bond, fee, or assessment is the appropriate financing tool. If the serious review leaves the full $20 million, show that instead.
The non-revenue crayons do not have to win. Council just has to show that it honestly and carefully considered them.
Slide 9 of 14
The public should see the choices before the decision hardens — not afterward.
A long justification published after Council has already selected the project, financing mechanism, or ballot measure is disclosure. It is not deliberation.
Define
→
Compare
→
Public challenge
→
Decide
Not: decide → justify
Residents need a meaningful opportunity to say: that is not the problem; that is not Berkeley’s job; that intervention does not follow from the evidence; you missed an alternative; this existing expenditure is less important; your claimed savings would destroy the service — or you have made the case, put the measure on the ballot.
Slide 10 of 14
The proposal
Use every crayon in the box. Just show us that you considered them.
This proposal does not prohibit taxes.
It does not prohibit bonds.
It does not require layoffs.
It does not require privatization.
It does not require the cheapest possible service.
It gives Council a way to show the reasoning behind a request for more money.
Portfolio first. Financing second. Show why this choice beats the alternatives.
Slide 11 of 14
What about free money?
Slide 12 of 14
Available money does not make a project a priority.
Money that shows up answers how we would pay. It never answers whether we should do it.
Answers this
A state grant, a one-time capital award, a philanthropic gift, matching funds, unused bond capacity, a newly identified revenue source. Any of these can change the price Berkeley pays.
Not this
Is this Berkeley’s job? Does it beat what we would give up to do it? Can we operate it in year five? None of those answers change because the money appeared.
A funding deadline can create real urgency. Urgency is not the same as priority, and a deadline cannot stand in for the decision about whether the undertaking belongs in Berkeley’s portfolio at all.
“There is a state grant” is not an answer to “Should Berkeley do this?”
Slide 13 of 14
Even a 4-to-1 match is not a free pass.
Suppose Berkeley can spend $5 million to unlock $20 million from another source. That may be an excellent bargain.
$5M LOCAL
+
$20M OUTSIDE
≠
AUTOMATIC YES
Not the question
Would you like $25 million for $5 million?
The question
Is this the best use of Berkeley’s $5 million, staff capacity, land, management attention, and future operating commitments?
The match changes the price. It does not establish the priority.
One-time outside money can also create long-lived obligations for staffing, maintenance, security, insurance, compliance, replacement, and operations.
Slide 14 of 14
A bargain on something that should not enter the portfolio is not a bargain.
Read the full essay →
Eric Friedman · August 2026 · Prepared for civic discussion