Berkeley City Council
July 12, 2022

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 1

AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, July 12, 2022
6:00 PM

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency, this meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference. The COVID -19 state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person and presents immine nt risks to the health of attendees. Therefore, no physical meeting location will be available.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at
http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81476464690. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 814 7646 4690. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

Please be mindful that the teleconference will be recorded as any Council meeting is recorded, and all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Council meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.

To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record, email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981- 6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Ceremonial Matters: In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.

City Manager Comments: The City Manager may make announcements or provide information to the City Council in the form of an oral report. The Council will not take action on such items but may request the City Manager place a report on a future agenda for discussion.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons wish to speak, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons wish to speak, up to ten persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda and each person selected will be allotted one minute each. The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar for it to move to Action. Items that remain on the “Consent Calendar” are voted on in one motion as a group. “Information” items are not discussed or acted upon at the Council meeting unless they are moved to “Action” or “Consent”.

No additional items can be moved onto the Consent Calendar once public comment has commenced. At any time during, or immediately after, public comment on Information and Consent items, any Councilmember may move any Information or Consent item to “Action.” Following this, the Council will vote on the items remaining on the Consent Calendar in one motion.

For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. Speakers will be entitled to two minutes each to speak in opposition to or support of Consent Calendar and Information Items. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

Additional information regarding public comment by City of Berkeley employees and interns: Employees and interns of the City of Berkeley, although not required, are encouraged to identify themselves as such, the department in which they work and state whether they are speaking as an individual or in their official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 3
Consent Calendar

1. FY 2023 Annual Appropriations Ordinance
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. adopting the FY 2023 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO) in the amount of $754,176,624 (gross appropriations) and $625,939,999 (net appropriations).

First Reading Vote: Ayes - Kesarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Arreguin; Noes - None; Abstain - None; Absent - Harrison, Droste.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

2. goBerkeley SmartSpace Pilot Program Implementation Recommendations From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. repealing and reenacting Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.52 Parking Meters to enable demand-responsive paid parking for non-RPP permit holders in the 2700 blocks of Durant Avenue, Channing Way, and Haste Street and the 2300-2400 blocks of Piedmont Avenue (a portion of Residential Preferential Parking Program Area I) for the duration of the grant-funded goBerkeley SmartSpace pilot program, and allow payment via license plate entry pay stations (“pay-by-plate”) to improve convenience and enforcement.

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

3. Voting Delegates – League of California Cities Annual Conference From: City Manager
Recommendation: Designate, by motion, a voting delegate and alternate for the business meeting of the Annual League of California Cities conference to be held on Friday, September 9, 2022, in Long Beach.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

4. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on July 12, 2022
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $3,620,000
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 4

5. Contract No. 32000243 Amendment: Waters Moving & Storage for Facility Moves
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000243 with Waters Moving & Storage for moving office furniture between various Health, Housing, & Community Services Department (HHCS) facilities, as part of HHCS program relocations. These facility sites include, but are not limited to, the North Berkeley Senior Center, West Berkeley Service Center, 830 University Avenue, and 1947 Center Street. The contract is being amended to add to the scope and increase the original contract by $10,000 to the original contract amount of $50,000 to move Aging Services back into the newly rehabilitated North Berkeley Senior Center. The total amended amount will not exceed $60,000 for the period June 1, 2020 through December 30, 2022.

Financial Implications: General Fund - $10,000
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

6. Contract No. 8958F Amendment: Bartel Associates, LLC for Actuarial Consulting Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 8958F increasing contract amount by $110,000 with Bartel Associates, LLC for Actuarial Consulting Services, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $380,000 through December 31, 2023.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $110,000
Contact: Donald E. Ellison, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

7. Contract No. 31900045-3 Amendment: Vestra Resources, Inc. for Additional Geographic Information System (GIS) Projects
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 31900045-3 with Vestra Resources, Inc. for Geographic Information System (GIS) professional services, for a total not to exceed $28,679 and for a total contract value of $64,990 from September 15, 2018 to June 30, 2024.

Financial Implications: IT Cost Allocation Fund - $28,679 Contact: Michael Sinor, Information Technology, (510) 981-6500

8. Contract No. 31900193 Amendment: Hamilton Tree Service, Inc. for As-Needed Tree Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 31900193 with Hamilton Tree Service, Inc, for as-needed tree services, increasing the amount by $300,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $500,000.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $300,000
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 5

9. Contract No. 31900218 Amendment: West Coast Arborists, Inc. for As-Needed Tree Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend contract No. 31900218 with West Coast Arborists Inc., for as-needed tree services, increasing the amount by $200,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $700,000.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $200,000
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

10. Contract No. 32200076 Amendment: OBS Engineering, Inc. for John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200076 with OBS Engineering, Inc. for the John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project, increasing the amount by $26,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $1,145,580.

Financial Implications: Parks Tax Fund - $26,000
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

11. Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 – FY 2021): Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention
From: Auditor
Recommendation: We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by November 2022, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the City Manager and Finance Department. They have agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response. This audit report has been updated with new information regarding the City’s Section 115 Trust.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jenny Wong, Auditor, (510) 981-6750

Council Consent

12. Contract No. 32000196 Amendment: Szabo & Associates for Communications Consulting Services
From: Mayor Arreguin (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 32000196 with Szabo & Associates for communications consulting services for the Mayor’s Office, increasing the contract amount by $78,000 for a new total not to exceed $227,500, and extending the contract term to June 30, 2023.

Financial Implications: Mayor's Office Budget - $78,000 Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

Council Consent Items
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 6

13. Joining the House America Initiative
From: Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Robinson (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution joining House America, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to form partnerships with state, tribal and local governments to rehouse people experiencing homelessness.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

14. Support for Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author)
Recommendation: Send a letter of support for ACA-3 to members of the state legislature including Senator Kamlager (D-Los Angeles), Senator Skinner (D- Berkeley), and Assemblymembers Kalra and Wicks.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120

15. Support for AB-1816: Reentry Housing and Workforce Development Program.

From: Councilmember Taplin (Author)
Recommendation: Send a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1816 to Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) and state legislators representing the City of Berkeley (Skinner/Wicks).

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120

16. Support for SB 1063: Flexibility for Energy Innovation From: Councilmember Robinson (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Send a letter to Senator Nancy Skinner and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in support of Senate Bill 1063, which would authorize the California Energy Commission (CEC) to make new technology standards effective sooner, enabling the Commission to expedite the rollout of new green technologies and be more responsive to climate emergencies.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Rigel Robinson, Councilmember, District 7, (510) 981-7170

Action Calendar
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 7
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak use the "raise hand" function to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings

Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. This is followed by five -minute presentations each by the appellant and applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak use the "raise hand" function to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker.

The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sid es of an issue allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

17. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Making Technical Edits and Corrections to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 23
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt first reading of an Ordinance containing technical edits, corrections and other non- substantive amendments to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:

BMC Section 23.202.140 (R-SMU Zoning District)
BMC Section 23.204.020 (Commercial Districts -- Allowed Land Uses) BMC Section 23.204.030 (Additional Permit Requirements) BMC Section 23.204.060 (C-U Zoning District)
BMC Section 23.204.130 (C-DMU District)
BMC Section 23.206.202 (Manufacturing Districts – Allowed Land Uses) BMC Section 23.302.030 (Temporary Uses and Structures)
BMC Section 23.302.070 (Use-Specific Regulations)
BMC Section 23.404.040 (Public Notice)
BMC Section 23.502.020 (Glossary)
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Action Calendar – Old Business
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 8

18. Revisions to Section 311.6 Warrantless Searches of Individuals on Supervised Release Search Conditions of the Berkeley Police Department Law Enforcement Services Manual (Continued from May 24, 2022) (Item contains revised material) (Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee) From: Councilmember Droste (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Author) Recommendation: Revise Section 311.6 Warrantless Searches of Individuals on Supervised Release Search Conditions of the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) Law Enforcement Services Manual to enable officers of the Berkeley Police Department to conduct detentions and warrantless searches individuals on parole/probation consistent with and supportive of the provisions in the probationer’s/parolee’s release conditions.

Policy Committee Recommendation: Send the item to the City Council with a qualified positive recommendation, as revised by the committee and subject to legal review.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, (510) 981-7180

Action Calendar – Old Business
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 9

19. Restoring and Improving Access to City of Berkeley Website and Archival Materials (Continued from June 14, 2022)
From: Councilmember Hahn (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to:

1. Restore at previous URLs all PDF documents previously hosted on the City of Berkeley website.

2. Create a publicly accessible archival copy of the City’s previous website, CityofBerkeley.info, that can be accessed without logins and via internet search engines. Include a prominent disclaimer noting the date the website, page, or document was archived, with links redirecting to the active website or other responsive resource.

3. On the new website, update Commission pages to include a minimum of 2 years of historic agendas and other materials and update City Council and Council Committee pages to include at least 3 years of complete materials.

4. By July 15, 2022 develop and make available to all City staff and to the public training at beginner to expert levels on use of the City’s Records Online search function and create more extensive and less technical self-help resources covering basic and expert use.

5. In recognition of increased public traffic, update the Records Online homepage to explain how the portal works and link to more robust self-help resources and alternative search functions.

6. Coordinate with agency staff to include all relevant records (agendas, minutes, etc.) from Rent Board and Housing Authority in Records Online Portal.

7. Update any remaining 404 pages to explain that the City’s website has been moved/updated, and provide links to helpful pages, search functions and/or pathways to access responsive materials. As quickly as possible, consider implementing redirects with wildcards to direct as many old links to relevant new website pages in lieu of the standard 404 page. E.g. cityofberkeley.info/planning* to the Planning Department site map/homepage, or Department Specific 404 page explaining new navigation.

Refer to the City Manager the following additional improvements to Records Online:

1. Within Records Online, provide unique archival/search categories for each City Commission, Board, Committee and Rent Board, and consider other useful categories, to assist users in narrowing results and identifying responsive materials.

2. Allow Records Online search results to be sorted by date and by other searchable factors. Consider means to integrate records online into default site search bar.

3. Explore and report back to Council options for improving the scope of Records Online, improving search options and sorting, and making all materials – or materials from January 1, 2000 (or an earlier recommended date) forward, searchable using internet search engines.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150

Action Calendar – New Business
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 10

20. Placing a Measure on the November 8, 2022 Ballot Amending the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (B.M.C. 13.76) From: 4 x 4 Joint Committee on Housing City Council/Rent Board Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution placing the proposed amendments to the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance on the ballot of the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election.

2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Matt Brown, Rent Stabilization Board, (510) 981-7368 Information Reports

21. Youth Commission Work Plan 2022
From: Youth Commission
Contact: Ginsi Bryant, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-6700

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90- day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Comm
unications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at

https://berkeleyca.gov/.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 11
City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building , 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on Thursday, June 30, 2022.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Item #19: Restoring and Improving Access to City of Berkeley Website and Archival Materials

1. David Lerman (2)
Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan and Cesar Chavez Park

2. Laura Katz

3. Sarah Elzea

4. Helen Greenspan

5. Margaret and Laura Goodman

6. Kristi Bennewitz

7. Ric Keeley

8. Robin Slovak

9. Nancy Schimmel

10. Leslie Brogan

11. Kate Greswold

12. Mort Cohn

13. Rose Glickman

14. Karen Hoffman

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 12

15. Nel Benningshof

16. Phyllis Olin

17. Claire Kahane

18. Kathleen Tandy

19. Kellie Gan

20. Nick Despota

21. Robin Freeman

22. Carol Ginsburg and Joseph Como

23. Kate Greswold

24. Sahana Rajasekar

25. Caroline Powell

26. Stefani Berger

Vacancy Tax

27. Elana Auerbach

28. Avram

29. Barbara Gilbert (2)

30. Toni Mester

Hopkins Corridor

31. Rachel Bradley

32. Tanya Bustamante, on behalf of The Commission on Aging

33. Susan Taylor
eScooters

34. Robert Byler

35. Anne McClintock (2)

36. Melanie Beasley, on behalf of the City Manager’s Office

People’s Park

37. Moni Law

Climate

38. Thomas Lord

Neighbors Smoking – Modify B.M.C. 12.70.035

39. Anne Marie (2)

Plastic Bag Ordinance

40. Dakota Peebler

Hybrid Council Meetings

41. Elana Auerbach

Homelessness

42. M. Emillie Keas

43. Gordon Peterson

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 13

Illegal Short-Term Rental

44. Ramona Cavanaugh

1740 San Pablo New Construction – Funding Application

45. Kate Traynor, on behalf of BRIDGE Housing

Reimagining Public Safety

46. Nan McGuier

Shellmound

47. Zahcary Bell

Eviction Moratorium

48. Anne

African American Holistic Resource Center (AAHRC)

49. George Lippman, on behalf of Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission

Traffic at Intersections of 80 and University and Gilman

50. Nick Roosevelt

51. Farid Javandel

SB 1183

52. Seena Hawley

BART Development

53. Nancy Lieblich

Needles and Drug Use Downtown

54. Alex Merenkov

Fire Anniversary of September 17, 1923

55. Margot Smith

Eviction of the Pacific Center at 2712 Telegraph Avenue

56. Lasara Firefox

Double Parking on Durant

57. Alex Merenkov

Housing Element

58. Kelly Hammargren

Fire Danger at People’s Park

59. Max Ventura

Tuesday, July 12, 2022 AGENDA Page 14

Accept Haitian Migrants to Berkeley

60. Nin Ichikawa

UN Secretary General

61. Thomas Lord

Arson and Wildfires

62. Barbara Gilbert

Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act

63. Kelly Hammargren

64. 56 similarly-worded from letters from “[email protected]” Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Available by 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Available by 5:00 p.m. two days following the meeting.

Ordinance No. #,###-N.S. Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE NO. 7,828-N.S.

ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE BASED ON THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY

MANAGER AND PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That the Annual Appropriations Ordinance based on the budget for FY 2022 submitted by the City Manager and passed by the City Council be adopted as follows and as summarized in Exhibit A:

A. General Fund (Funds 001-099) 286,855,836
B. Special Funds (Funds 100-199) 118,780,728
C. Grant Funds (Funds 300-399) 52,928,326
D. Capital Projects Funds (Funds 500-550) 72,110,770
E. Debt Service Fund (Funds 551-599) 9,804,404
F. Enterprise Funds (Funds 600-669) 150,239,058
G. Internal Service Funds (Funds 146, 670-699) 49,268,188 H. Successor Agency (Funds 760-769) 57,120
I. Agency Funds (Funds 771-799) 7,434,439
J. Other Funds (Funds 800-899) 6,697,755
K. Total
Total General Fund 286,855,836
Add: Total Other Than General Fund 467,320,788
Gross Revenue Appropriated 754,176,624
Less: Dual Appropriations -78,226,153
Less: Revolving/Internal Service Funds -50,010,472
Net Revenue Appropriated 625,939,999
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby permitted, without further authority from the City Council, to make the following transfers by giving written notice to the Director of Finance:
a. From the General Fund to the General Fund – Stability Reserve Fund; Catastrophic Reserve Fund; PERS Savings Fund; Health State Aid Realignment; Fair Election Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; Phone System Replacement;

Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. Page 2 of 8
Equipment Replacement Fund; Public Liability Fund; Catastrophic Loss Fund; IT Cost Allocation Fund: Police Employee Retiree Health Assistance Plan; Safety Members Pension Fund; and Sick Leave Entitlement Fund.
b. To the General Fund from the General Fund – Stability Reserves Fund; Catastrophic Reserves Fund; Community Development Block Grant Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations and Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA); IT Cost Allocation Fund; and Health State Aid Realignment Fund. c. To the First Source Fund from the Parks Tax Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; and the Marina Fund.
d. From Measure FF – Public Safety Fund to Paramedic Tax Fund e. From the American Rescue Plan Fund to the General Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Marina Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; and Parking Meter Fund. f. From Capital Improvement Fund to PERS Savings Fund; Berkeley Repertory Theater Fund; and 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) Fund.
g. To the Public Art Fund from the Parks Tax Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; and the Marina Fund.
h. To CFD#1 District Fire Protection Bond (Measure Q) from Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS.
i. To Private Sewer Lateral Fund from Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund. j. To Catastrophic Loss Fund from Permit Service Center Fund. k. To Catastrophic Loss Fund from Unified Program (CUPA) Fund. l. To the Building Purchases and Management Fund from General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Measure B Local Streets & Road Fund; Employee Training Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; and Health State Aide Realignment Trust Fund.
m. To Equipment Replacement Fund from General Fund; Mental Health Services Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation

Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. Page 3 of 8
Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Central Services Fund.
n. To the Equipment Maintenance Fund from General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Mental Health Services Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Library - Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Ta Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; FEMA Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Central Services Fund.
o. To the Building Maintenance Fund from the General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Measure B Local Street & Road Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
p. To the Central Services Fund from the General Fund; First Source Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Library-Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
q. To Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund from General Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Health (Short/Doyle); Library Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
r. To the Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax

Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. Page 4 of 8
Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.
s. To the Sick Leave and Vacation Leave Accrual Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina

Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. Page 5 of 8
Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.
t. To the Payroll Deduction Trust Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.

Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. Page 6 of 8
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on June 28, 2022, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Hahn, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: Droste; Harrison.

Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. Page 7 of 8
Attachment for Annual Appropriations Ordinance - Fiscal Year 2023

REVOLVING FUNDS/INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Appropriations are identified with revolving and internal service funds. Such funds derive revenue by virtue of payment from other fund sources as benefits are received by such funds, and the total is reflected in the "Less Revolving Funds and Internal Service Funds" in item I. The funds are:

Revolving/Internal Service Funds
Employee Training Fund 834,947
Equipment Replacement Fund 6,676,989
Equipment Maintenance Fund 9,573,258
Building Maintenance Fund 4,798,308
Central Services Fund 391,386
Workers' Compensation Fund 6,440,039
Public Liability Fund 3,797,298
17,498,246
Subtotal Revolving/Internal Service Funds 50,010,472$
Information Technology Fund

DUAL APPROPRIATIONS - WORKING BUDGET
Dual appropriations are identified with revenues generated by one fund and transferred to another fund. Both funds are credited with the applicable revenue, and the total is reflected in the "Less Dual Appropriations" in item I. The dual appropriations are:

Transfers to the General Fund
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
CDBG Fund 176,194
Street Light Assessment District Fund 155,738
Zero Waste Fund 2,774,222
Marina Enterprise Fund 434,028
Sanitary Sewer Fund 1,319,702
Clean Storm Water Fund 265,658
Permit Service Center Fund 2,014,434
Unified Program (CUPA) Fund 90,415
Subtotal Transfers to General Fund: 7,230,391$

Ordinance No. 7,828-N.S. Page 8 of 8
Transfer to Safety Members Pension Fund from General Fund 551,804 4,900,000
Transfer to Stability Reserve Fund from General Fund 3,025,000 Transfer to Catastrophic Reserve Fund from General Fund 2,475,000 Transfer to PERS Savings Fund from General Fund 2,000,000 Transfer to Health State Aid Realignment from General Fund 1,953,018 Transfer to Fair Election Fund from General Fund 505,002 Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) from General Fund 19,000,905 449,408
Transfer to Equipment Replacement Fund from General Fund 1,081,699 Transfer to Public Liability Fund from General Fund 3,895,888 Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from General Fund 3,048,587 Transfer to IT Cost Allocation Fund from General Fund 71,335 400,136
Transfer to Sick Leave Entitlement Fund from General Fund 201,501 Transfer to General Fund from Health State Aid Realignment Fund 2,643,280 757,925
12,271,612
2,614,331
1,150,000
Transfer to Off-Street Parking Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund 200,000 2,700,000
Transfer from CIP Fund to PERS Savings Fund 151,632
499,802
Transfer from CIP Fund to 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) Fund 402,613 90,501
50,555
5,082
Transfer to General Fund from Parking Meter Fund 1,742,288 2,048,940
Transfer to First Source Fund from Parks Tax Fund 6,675 Transfer to First Source Fund from Capital Improvement Fund 29,943 Transfer to First Source Fund from Marina Fund 2,625
Transfer to Public Art Fund from Parks Tax Fund 11,681
Transfer to Public Art Fund from Capital Improvement Fund 52,400 Transfer to Public Art Fund from Marina Fund 4,594
Subtotal Transfers to Other Funds: 70,995,762
Sub-Total Dual Appropriations 78,226,153$
Grand Total Dual Appropriations 128,236,625$
Transfer to Phone System Replacement - VOIP from General Fund Transfer to Police Employee Retiree Health Assistance Plan from General Fund Transfer from Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS to CFD#1 District Fire Protect Bond (Measure Q)
Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from Permit Service Center Fund Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from Unified Program (CUPA) Fund Transfer to Private Sewer Lateral Fund from Sewer Fund
Transfer to Berkeley Repertory Theater Debt Service Fund from CIP Fund Transfer to Measure U1 Fund from General Fund
Transfer to Marina Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund
Transfer to Parking Meter Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund Transfer to Paramedic Tax Fund from Measure FF - Public Safety Fund Transfer to General Fund from Amercian Rescue Plan Fund Transfer to Paramedic Tax Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund

EXHIBIT A
ERMA
Fund # Fund
FY 2023
Adopted
11 General Fund Discretionary 280,671,294
16 Measure U1 - Housing 6,184,542
101 Library - Tax 24,538,247
103 Library - Grants 66,330
104 Library - Friends & Gift 150,000
105 Library - Foundation 200,000
106 Asset Forefeiture 201,000
107 Special Tax Measure E 1,590,735
108 First Source Fund 48,500
110 Sec 108 Loan Gty Asst. 587,612
111 Fund Raising Activities 55,115
113 Gilman Sports Field 280,063
115 Animal Shelter 52,480
116 Paramedic Tax 5,218,195
119 Domestic Violence Prev - Vit Stat 26,102
120 Affordable Housing Mitigation 2,805,896
121 Affordable Child Care 13,275
122 Inclusionary Housing Program 587,147
123 Condo Conversion 121,339
125 Playground Camp 3,596,951
126 State-Prop 172 Pub.Safety 434,773
127 State Transportation Tax 6,562,677
128 CDBG 4,882,923
129 Rental Housing Safety Program 1,902,671
130 Measure B - Local St & Road 769,249
131 Measure B - Bike and Pedestrian 129,471
132 Measure B - Paratransit 36,797
133 Measure F Alameda County VRF St & Rd 1,353,067
134 Measure BB - Local St & Road 12,737,784
135 Meaure BB - Bike & Pedestrian 758,193
136 Measure BB - Paratransit 934,031
138 Parks Tax 16,247,510
140 Measure GG - Fire Prep Tax 5,276,233
142 Streetlight Assesment District 3,312,730
143 Berkeley Bus Ec Dev 156,387
146 Employee Training 834,947
147 UC Settlement 4,563,664
148 Cultural Trust 92,663
149 Private Party Sidewalks 100,000
150 Public Art Fund 104,775
152 Vital & Health Statistics Trust Fund 74,903
156 Hlth State Aid Realign Trust 3,961,045
157 Tobacco Cont.Trust 379,256
158 Mental Health State Aid Realign 4,061,702
159 Citizens Option Public Safety Trust 262,093
161 Alameda Cty Abandoned Vehicle Abatement 133,993

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
23AAO.xlsx 6/27/2022 6:07 PM

EXHIBIT A
ERMA
Fund # Fund
FY 2023
Adopted

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
164 Measure FF 8,160,000
165 Fair Elections 510,868
302 Operating Grants - State 64,437
305 Capital Grants - Federal 1,364,500
306 Capital Grants - State 8,723,370
307 Capital Grants - Local 837,000
309 OTS DUI Enforcement Education Prg. 137,060
310 HUD/Home 806,549
311 ESGP 271,587
312 Health (General) 3,370,574
313 Target Case Management Linkages 936,341
314 Alameda County Tay Tip 35,812
315 Mental Health Service Act 12,441,437
316 Health (Short/Doyle) 5,080,644
317 EPSDT Expansion Proposal 500,241
318 Alcoholic Bev Ctr OTS/UC 55,639
319 Youth Lunch 68,451
320 Sr. Nutrition Title III 119,884
321 CFP Title X 39,527
324 BUSD Grant 392,232
325 Vector Control 276,025
326 Alameda County Grants 788,215
327 Senior Supportive Social Services 83,453
328 Family Care Support Program 86,662
329 CA Integrated Waste Management 5,244
331 Housing Mitigation 1,126,763
333 CALHOME 363,100
334 Community Action 293,817
336 One-Time Grant: No Cap Exp 5,132,743
338 Bay Area Air Quality Management 117,000
339 MTC 393,029
340 FEMA 954,621
341 Alameda Cty Waste Mgt. 285,000
343 State Dept Conserv/Recylg 28,000
344 CALTRANS Grant 131,908
347 Shelter+Care HUD 6,348,109
348 Shelter+Care County 886,153
349 JAG Grant 55,650
350 Bioterrorism Grant 327,550
354 ARPA - Local Fiscal Recovery Fund 20,023,436
501 Capital Improvement Fund 24,012,302
502 Phone System Replacement 449,408
503 FUND$ Replacement 3,221,742
504 PEG-Public, Education & Government 100,000
511 Measure T1 - Infra & Facil. 17,858,315
512 Measure O 6,445,567
23AAO.xlsx 6/27/2022 6:07 PM

EXHIBIT A
ERMA
Fund # Fund
FY 2023
Adopted

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
552 09 Measure FF Debt Service 1,343,638
553 2015 GORBS 2,051,966
554 2012 Lease Revenue Bonds BJPFA 502,238
555 2015 GORBS - 2002 G.O. Refunding Bonds 379,561
556 2015 GORBS (2007, Series A) 142,865
557 2015 GORBS (2008 Measure I) 481,286
558 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) 406,991
559 Measure M GO Street & Water Imps 740,738
560 Infrastucture & Facilities Measure T1 1,731,181
561 Measure O - Housing Bonds 2,023,940
601 Zero Waste 56,177,214
608 Marina Operation 8,499,369
611 Sewer 35,226,521
612 Private Sewer Lateral FD 172,628
616 Clean Storm Water 6,123,689
621 Permit Service Center 21,981,180
622 Unified Program (CUPA) 877,919
627 Off Street Parking 6,790,627
631 Parking Meter 10,557,178
636 Building Purchases and Management 3,832,733
671 Equipment Replacement 6,676,989
672 Equipment Maintenance 9,573,258
673 Building Maintenance Fund 4,798,308
674 Central Services 391,386
676 Workers Compensation 6,440,039
678 Public Liability 3,797,298
680 Information Technology 17,498,246
762 Successor Agency - Savo DSF 57,120
776 Thousand Oaks Underground 98,448
777 Measure H - School Tax 500,000
778 Measure Q - CFD#1 Dis. Fire Protect Bond 1,362,705
779 Spl Tax Bds. CFD#1 ML-ROOS 2,824,802
781 Berkeley Tourism BID 416,667
782 Elmwood Business Improvement District 30,000
783 Solano Ave BID 25,000
784 Telegraph Avenue Bus. Imp. District 583,315
785 North Shattuck BID 210,363
786 Downtown Berkeley Prop & Improv. District 1,383,139 801 Rent Board 6,697,755
GROSS EXPENDITURE: 754,176,624
Dual Appropriations (78,226,153)
Revolving & Internal Service Funds (50,010,472)

NET EXPENDITURE: 625,939,999
23AAO.xlsx 6/27/2022 6:07 PM

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 1 of 15
ORDINANCE NO. 7,829-N.S.

REPEAL AND REENACT BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.52 TO ALLOW PAYMENT AT LICENSE PLATE ENTRY (“PAY-BY-PLATE”) PAY STATIONS AND

IMPLEMENT PAID PARKING IN PORTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL

PARKING (RPP) AREA I AS PART OF THE GOBERKELEY SMARTSPACE PILOT

PROGRAM
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.52 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

14.52.010 Parking meter zones.

A. goBerkeley Program parking meter zones are those streets or portions of streets in the City located within the goBerkeley Areas hereinafter described as zones within which the parking of motor vehicles shall be controlled, regulated and inspected with the aid of parking meters, pay stations, and/or a City-approved software application that processes pay-by-phone payments from a mobile phone at fees set in 14.52.120:

Acton Street, both sides, from 150 feet north of University Avenue to University Avenue.

Addison Street, both sides, from Oxford Street to Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Addison Street, north side, from Martin Luther King Jr. Way to 170 feet west of Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Adeline Street, east side, from Ward Street to Essex Street.

Adeline Street, west side, from Russell Street to Ashby Avenue.

Alcatraz Avenue, south side, from 75 feet east of College Avenue to College Avenue.

Allston Way, both sides, from Oxford Street to Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Ashby Avenue, both sides, from Domingo Avenue to Claremont Avenue.

Ashby Avenue, north side, from College Avenue to Benvenue Avenue.

Ashby Avenue, south side, from Benvenue Avenue to Elmwood Avenue.

Ashby Place, east side, from Ashby Avenue to a point 80 feet north of Ashby Avenue.

Bancroft Way, both sides, from Piedmont Avenue to Milvia Street.

Benvenue Avenue, west side, from Ashby Avenue to 100 feet south of Ashby Avenue.

Berkeley Square, both sides, from Addison Street to Center Street.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 2 of 15
Berkeley Way, north side, from Oxford Street to Shattuck Avenue.

Berkeley Way, south side, from Oxford Street to 385 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Blake Street, both sides, from Telegraph Avenue to 125 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

Blake Street, south side, from Shattuck Avenue to 80 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Bonar Street, east side, from University Avenue to 150 feet south of University Avenue.

Bonar Street, west side, from University Avenue to Addison Street.

Bonita Avenue, east side, from University Avenue to Berkeley Way.

Bowditch Street, east side, from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way.

California Street, both sides, from 100 feet north of University Avenue to 100 feet south of University Avenue.

Camelia Street, north side, from Tenth Street to Ninth Street.

Camelia Street, north side, from San Pablo Avenue to 100 feet west of San Pablo Avenue.

Center Street, both sides, from Oxford Street to Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

Channing Way, north side, from Shattuck Avenue to 250 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Channing Way, north side, from College Avenue to Dana Street.

Claremont Avenue, east side, from Russell Street to Ashby Avenue.

Claremont Avenue, west side, from Russell Street to Claremont Boulevard.

Colby Street, west side, from Webster Street to South Hospital Drive.

College Avenue, east side, from Bancroft Way to 200 feet south of Dwight Way.

College Avenue, west side, from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way.

College Avenue, east side, from 75 feet south of Webster Street to 175 feet north of Russell Street.

College Avenue, west side, from 140 feet north of Russell Street to Webster Street.

College Avenue, east side, from 150 feet north of Alcatraz Avenue to Berkeley-Oakland city limits south of Alcatraz Avenue.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 3 of 15
College Avenue, west side, from Alcatraz Avenue to Berkeley-Oakland city limit, south of Alcatraz Avenue.

Colusa Avenue, east side, from Catalina Avenue to 225 feet south of Solano Avenue Colusa Avenue, west side, from Catalina Avenue to 180 feet south of Solano Avenue.

Curtis Street, both sides, from 100 feet north of University Avenue to University Avenue.

Dana Street, both sides, from Bancroft Way to Channing Way.

Dana Street, west side, from Haste Street to 150 feet south of Haste Street.

Delaware Street, south side, from 60 feet east of Shattuck Avenue to Shattuck Avenue.

Derby Street, north side, from 150 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to 50 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

Derby Street, south side, from 150 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to Telegraph Avenue.

Derby Street, south side, from 300 feet east of Milvia Street to Milvia Street.

Domingo Avenue, both sides, from Berkeley-Oakland city limit to Ashby Avenue.

Durant Avenue, both sides, from Fulton Street to Milvia Street.

Durant Avenue, both sides, from College Avenue to Ellsworth Street.

Dwight Way, both sides, from Fulton Street to Milvia Street.

Dwight Way, north side, from 300 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to 300 feet east of Dana Street.

Dwight Way, north side, from College Avenue to Bowditch Street.

Dwight Way, south side, from 125 feet east of Regent Street to 325 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

Dwight Way, south side, from Benvenue Avenue to Hillegass Avenue.

Dwight Way, north side, from 40 feet east of San Pablo Avenue to San Pablo Avenue.

Eighth Street, west side, from 100 feet north of University Avenue to 200 feet south of University Avenue.

Ensenada Avenue, east side, from 66 feet north of Solano Avenue to 90 feet south of Solano Avenue.

Euclid Avenue, east side, from 135 feet north of Ridge Road to Hearst Avenue.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 4 of 15
Euclid Avenue, west side, from 130 feet north of Ridge Road to Hearst Avenue.

Fifth Street, west side, from Virginia Street to Hearst Avenue.

Fifth Street, both sides, from Hearst Avenue to Addison Street.

Fourth Street, east side, from Virginia Street to Addison Street.

Fourth Street, west side, from Cedar Street to Addison Street.

Francisco Street, both sides, from Shattuck Avenue to 100 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Fresno Avenue, east side, from Solano Avenue to 69 feet south of Solano Avenue.

Fulton Street, both sides, from Kittredge Street to Bancroft Way.

Fulton Street, east side, from Bancroft Way to Durant Avenue.

Fulton Street, west side, beginning at Durant Avenue and extending south for 80 feet.

Grant Street, both sides, from 100 feet north of University Avenue to 100 feet south of University Avenue.

Grayson Street, south side, from San Pablo Avenue to 60 feet west of San Pablo Avenue.

Harold Way, both sides, from Allston Way to Kittredge Street.

Haste Street, both sides, from 250 feet east of Shattuck Avenue to Milvia Street.

Haste Street, north side, from College Avenue to Dana Street.

Haste Street, south side, from 300 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to 350 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

Haste Street, south side, from College Avenue to Bowditch Street.

Hearst Avenue, north side, from LaLoma Avenue to Scenic Avenue.

Hearst Avenue, south side, from Euclid Avenue to Gayley Road.

Hearst Avenue, south side, from Oxford Street to Arch Street.

Hearst Avenue, both sides, from Oxford Street to Shattuck Avenue.

Hearst Avenue, north side, from Fifth Street to Third Street.

Hearst Avenue, south side, from Sixth Street to Third Street.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 5 of 15
Kittredge Street, both sides, from Oxford Street to Milvia Street.

LaLoma Avenue, both sides, from Ridge Road to Hearst Avenue.

LeRoy Avenue, both sides, from Ridge Road to Hearst Avenue.

Lincoln Street, south side, from Shattuck Avenue to 150 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Martin Luther King Jr. Way, both sides, from Addison Street to Allston Way.

Milvia Street, both sides, from Berkeley Way to Center Street.

Milvia Street, east side, from Center Street to Bancroft Way.

Milvia Street, east side from Derby Street to Ward Street.

Modoc Street, east side, from Solano Avenue to 90 feet south of Solano Avenue.

Modoc Street, west side, from Solano Avenue to 66 feet south of Solano Avenue.

Ninth Street, east side, from 300 feet north of Gilman Street to Gilman Street.

Ninth Street, west side, from 75 feet north of University Avenue to 150 feet south of University Avenue.

Oregon Street, north side, from 75 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to 50 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

Oregon Street, south side, from 175 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to Telegraph Avenue.

Oregon Street, both sides, from Shattuck Avenue to Adeline Street.

Oxford Street, both sides, from Hearst Avenue to Kittredge Street.

Page Street, north side, from San Pablo Avenue to Tenth Street.

Pardee Street, south side, from San Pablo Avenue extending 60 feet west of San Pablo Avenue.

Parker Street, both sides, from 200 feet west of Regent Street to 100 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

Parker Street, both sides, from Shattuck Avenue to 100 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Parker Street, north side, from 100 feet east of Shattuck Avenue to Shattuck Avenue.

Regent Street, east side, from Ashby Avenue to 125 feet south of Webster Street.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 6 of 15
Regent Street, west side, from Ashby Avenue to South Hospital Drive.

Ridge Road, north side, from 100 feet east of Euclid Avenue to 250 feet west of Euclid Avenue.

Ridge Road, south side, from LeRoy Avenue to 250 feet west of Euclid Avenue.

Rose Street, north side, from 100 feet east of Shattuck Avenue to 100 feet west of Henry Street.

Rose Street, south side, from Walnut Street to Shattuck Place.

Russell Street, north side, from 85 feet east of College Avenue to 175 feet west of College Avenue.

Russell Street, south side, from 120 feet east of College Avenue to 200 feet west of College Avenue.

Russell Street, south side, from 75 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to 100 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

San Pablo Avenue, both sides, from Harrison Street to Carrison Street.

Scenic Avenue, east side, from Hearst Avenue to Ridge Road.

Seventh Street, east side, from University Avenue to 150 feet south of University Avenue.

Shattuck Avenue, both sides, from 100 feet north of Rose Street to University Avenue.

Shattuck Avenue, both sides, of the east roadway, from University Avenue to Addison Street (Shattuck Square).

Shattuck Avenue, both sides, of the west roadway, from University Avenue to Addison Street (Shattuck Square).

Shattuck Avenue, both sides, of the east roadway, from Addison Street to Center Street (Berkeley Square).

Shattuck Avenue, both sides, of the west roadway, from Addison Street to Center Street (Berkeley Square).

Shattuck Avenue, both sides, from Center Street to Ashby Avenue.

Shattuck Place, both sides, from Rose Street to Shattuck Avenue.

Sixth Street, east side, University Avenue to Addison Street.

Solano Avenue, both sides, from Tulare Avenue to The Alameda.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 7 of 15
Solano Avenue, north side, from 140 feet to 184 feet east of The Alameda.

South Hospital Drive, south side, from Colby Street to 75 feet west of Colby Street.

Stuart Street, north side, from 70 feet east of Shattuck Avenue to Adeline Street.

Stuart Street, south side, from 50 feet east of Telegraph Avenue to Telegraph Avenue.

Tacoma Avenue, both sides, from 66 feet north of Solano Avenue to Solano Avenue.

Telegraph Avenue, both sides, from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way.

Telegraph Avenue, east side, from Dwight Way to Woolsey Street.

Telegraph Avenue, west side, from Dwight Way to Prince Street.

Tenth Street, west side, from 300 feet north of Gilman Street to Gilman Street.

Tenth Street, both sides, from Gilman Street to Camelia Street.

Tenth Street, east side, from 100 feet north of University Avenue to 100 feet south of University Avenue.

The Alameda, east side, from Solano Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue.

The Alameda, west side, from 90 feet north of Solano Avenue to 220 feet north of Los Angeles Avenue.

Tulare Avenue, east side, from Solano Avenue to 90 feet south of Solano Avenue.

University Avenue, both sides, from Oxford Street to Third Street.

Vine Street, north side, from 75 feet east of Walnut Street to 100 feet east of Henry Street.

Vine Street, south side, from 150 feet east of Walnut Street to 100 feet east of Henry Street.

Virginia Street, north side, from 150 feet east of Shattuck Avenue to 150 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Virginia Street, south side, from Shattuck Avenue to 125 feet west of Shattuck Avenue.

Walnut Street, east side, from 75 feet north of Vine Street to 125 feet south of Vine Street.

Walnut Street, west side, from Rose Street to 200 feet south of Vine Street.

Walnut Street, both sides, from Berkeley Way to University Avenue.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 8 of 15
Ward Street, north side, from 300 feet east of Milvia Street to Milvia Street.

Webster Street, both sides, from 125 feet east of College Avenue to 100 feet west of College Avenue.

Webster Street, north side, from Colby Street to 150 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

Webster Street, south side, from Colby Street to 100 feet west of Telegraph Avenue.

B. goBerkeley SmartSpace Pilot Program parking meter zones are those streets or portions of streets currently included in Residential Preferential Program (RPP) Area I in the City hereinafter described as zones within which the parking of motor vehicles shall be controlled, regulated and inspected with the aid of parking meters, pay stations, and/or a City-approved software application that processes pay-by-phone payments from a mobile phone at fees set in 14.52.120:

Channing Way, north side, from Piedmont Avenue to College Avenue.

Durant Avenue, both sides, from Piedmont Avenue to College Avenue.

Haste Street, both sides, from Piedmont Avenue to College Avenue.

Piedmont Avenue, both sides, from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way.

C. The City Traffic Engineer shall cause parking meters and pay stations to be installed and maintained in all parking meter zones.

14.52.020 Manner of installation.

A. Single space meters.

1. Parking meters shall be installed upon the curb or sidewalk area immediately adjacent to each parking space. Each meter shall be placed in such manner as to show or display by a sign or signal that the parking space adjacent thereto is or is not legally in use. Each parking meter shall indicate the limit of parking time in the parking space adjacent to the parking meter.

2. Each parking meter shall be set to display, after the operational procedure has been completed, a sign or signal indicating legal parking for that period of time conforming to the limit of parking time as indicated on the meter, and shall continue to operate from the time of the completion of the operational procedure until the expiration of the time fixed as the parking limit or a portion thereof for the part of the street upon which said meter is placed. Each said meter shall also be so arranged that upon the expiration of said legal parking time it will indicate by a mechanical operation and by proper signal that the lawful parking period has expired.

B. Pay stations.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 9 of 15

1. Pay stations are used to accept payment for multiple paid parking spaces on a block face or off-street parking lot and shall include pay-and-display stations and pay-by-plate stations.

2. Pay stations shall be installed upon the curb or sidewalk area within any designated meter zone. Each pay station shall indicate the limit of parking time in that particular designated meter zone.

3. Each pay-and-display station shall be set to dispense, after the operational procedure has been completed, a two-part windshield dispensing machine ticket indicating legal parking for that period of time conforming to the limit of parking time as indicated on the pay-and-display station or indicated by signage or curb markings.

4. Each pay-by-plate station shall be set for the vehicle operator to register their vehicle license plate as the parking permit indicating legal parking for that period of time conforming to the limit of parking time as indicated on the pay-by-plate station or indicated by signage or curb markings.

14.52.030 Time of operation of parking meters and pay stations.

A. The provision of this chapter relating to the operation of parking meters and pay stations shall be effective between the hours of nine a.m. and six p.m. every day except Sundays, and as may be otherwise provided for specific locations in the sections of establishing parking meter zones.

B. goBerkeley SmartSpace Pilot Program

1. The provision of this chapter relating to the operation of parking meters and pay stations in the goBerkeley SmartSpace pilot program areas listed in 14.52.010 (B) shall be effective between the hours of eight a.m. and seven p.m. every day except Sundays.

2. A motor vehicle which has a valid RPP “Area I” annual or visitor residential parking permit is exempt from hourly paid parking in the goBerkeley SmartSpace pilot program areas listed in 14.52.010 (B).

14.52.040 Operational procedure to be followed.

A. Single space meters. Immediately after occupancy of a parking meter space, the operator of a vehicle shall, if necessary, deposit a coin of the United States, or use a credit or debit card acceptable to the City, or use a City-approved software application that processes pay-by-phone payments from a mobile phone, at said parking meter in accordance with the instructions posted on the face of the parking meter or the pay-by- phone software application that processes payments from a mobile device.

B. Pay-and-display stations.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 10 of 15

1. Immediately after occupancy of a pay-and-display station space, the operator of a vehicle shall, if necessary, locate the nearest pay-and-display station on the block and deposit a coin of the United States, or use a credit or debit card acceptable to the City, or use a City-approved software application that processes pay-by-phone payments from a mobile phone at said pay-and-display station and make selections in accordance with the instructions posted on the face of the pay-and-display station, or the pay-by-phone software application that processes payments from a mobile phone.

2. Upon obtaining the printed dispensing machine ticket from the pay-and-display station, the operator of the vehicle shall return immediately to their vehicle and place the dispensing machine ticket face up on the street-side of the vehicle’s dashboard in such a manner that the expiration time and date are readily visible from the exterior.

C. Pay-by-plate stations. Immediately after occupancy of a pay-by-plate station space, the operator of a vehicle shall, if necessary, locate the nearest pay-by-plate station on the block, enter their vehicle license plate number to register their payment, deposit a coin of the United States, or use a credit or debit card acceptable to the City, or use a City- approved software application that processes pay-by-phone payments from a mobile phone at said pay-by-plate station, and make selections in accordance with the instructions posted on the face of the pay-by-plate station, or the pay-by-phone software application that processes payments from a mobile phone.

14.52.050 Unlawful to park after meter and/or pay station time has expired.

A. Single space meter. It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to permit said vehicle to remain parked in any parking space during any time that an operable meter is showing a signal indicating that such space is illegally in use, such as where the time has expired, unless the operator of the vehicle has otherwise paid for the parking space via the use of a City-approved software application that processes pay-by-phone payments from a mobile phone, other than such time immediately after the original occupancy as is necessary to operate the meter to show legal parking.

B. Pay-and-display stations. It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to permit said vehicle to remain parked in any parking space during any time that pay-and-display station dispensing machine ticket is indicating that such space is illegally in use, such as where the time has expired, unless the operator of the vehicle has otherwise paid for the parking space via the use of a City-approved software application that processes pay-by- phone payments from a mobile phone, other than such time immediately after the original occupancy as is necessary to obtain a receipt from the pay-and-display station and to place said dispensing machine ticket face up on the street-side of the vehicle’s dashboard to show legal parking.

C. Pay-by plate stations. It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to permit said vehicle to remain parked in any parking space during any time that the operator has not registered their vehicle by entering their vehicle license plate number and submitted payment at the nearest pay-by-plate station, unless the operator of the vehicle has otherwise paid for the

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 11 of 15
parking space via the use of a City-approved software application that processes pay-by- phone payments from a mobile phone, other than such time immediately after the original occupancy as is necessary to register their vehicle license plate number at the pay-by- plate station.

14.52.060 Unlawful to extend time beyond limit.

A. Single space meter. It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person to follow the operational procedure or any part of the operational procedure for the purpose of increasing or extending the parking time of any vehicle beyond the legal parking time which has been established for the parking space adjacent to which said parking meter is placed.

B. Pay-and-display stations. It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person to follow the operational procedure or any part of the operational procedure for the purpose of increasing or extending the parking time of any vehicle beyond the legal parking time which has been established for the parking space which is indicated on the pay-and-display station dispensing machine ticket.

C. Pay-by-plate stations. It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this chapter for any person to follow the operational procedure or any part of the operational procedure for the purpose of increasing or extending the parking time of any vehicle beyond the legal parking time which has been established for the parking space controlled by the nearest pay-by-plate station.

14.52.063 No pay-and-display dispensing machine ticket displayed.

A motor vehicle on which is properly displayed a valid pay-and-display dispensing machine ticket as provided for herein shall be permitted to stand or be parked in a pay- and-display zone for which the dispensing machine ticket has been issued for the period of time indicated on the dispensing machine ticket without being subject to parking penalties in effect for such area. However, any motor vehicle on which there is not displayed a valid dispensing machine ticket as provided herein shall be subject to parking regulations and consequent penalties in effect for such area. (Ord. 7305-NS (part), 2013)

14.52.066 Improperly displayed pay-and-display dispensing machine ticket.

A motor vehicle on which the pay-and-display dispensing machine ticket is not properly displayed as provided herein shall be subject to parking regulations and consequent penalties in effect for such area. (Ord. 7305-NS (part), 2013)

14.52.070 Improper use of meter and pay station.

It is unlawful to deposit or cause to be deposited in any parking meter any defaced or bent coin, or any slug, device or metallic substitute for a coin of the United States, or to otherwise use any card or other device in a parking meter or pay station having alternative payment capability in lieu of a card or device lawful and appropriate to an alternative payment process at such parking meter or pay station, or for any person to deface, injure, tamper with, open or willfully break, destroy or impair the usefulness of any parking meter or pay station. (Ord. 7305-NS (part), 2013)

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 12 of 15

14.52.080 Deposit of coins in meter or coins, credit card, debit card, or epark card in meter or pay station by unauthorized person.

A. Single space meter. It is unlawful for any person, other than the owner or operator of a vehicle, to deposit any coin, debit card or credit card in any parking meter without the knowledge or consent of said owner or operator of the vehicle using the parking space immediately adjacent to said meter.

B. Pay stations. It is unlawful for any person, other than the owner or operator of a vehicle, to deposit any coin, credit card, debit card, or epark card in any pay station without the knowledge or consent of said owner or operator of the vehicle using the parking space. (Ord. 7305-NS (part), 2013)

14.52.090 Parking meters, pay stations and parking meter/pay station standards not to be used for certain purposes.

A. Single space meters. It is unlawful for any person to attach anything to or allow a bicycle, newsrack or any other article or thing to lean against a parking meter or a parking meter standard.

B. Pay stations. It is unlawful for any person to attach anything to or allow a bicycle, newsrack or any other article or thing to lean against a pay station unit or a pay station standard. (Ord. 7305-NS (part), 2013)

14.52.100 Rule of evidence.

A. Single space meters. The parking or standing of any motor vehicle in a parking space, at which space the parking meter displays the sign or signal indicating illegal parking shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the vehicle has been parked or allowed to stand in such space for a period longer than permitted by this chapter.

B. Pay-and-display stations. The parking or standing of any motor vehicle in a parking space, at which space the pay-and-display station dispensing machine ticket indicates illegal parking shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the vehicle has been parked or allowed to stand in such space for a period longer than permitted by this chapter.

C. Pay-by-plate stations. The parking or standing of any motor vehicle in a parking space, at which space the vehicle license plate has not been registered at the nearest pay-by- plate station, shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the vehicle has been parked or allowed to stand in such a space for a period longer than permitted by this chapter.

14.52.110 Use of money deposited in parking meters and pay stations.

Except as permitted under subdivision G below, all moneys collected from parking meters and pay stations in the City shall be placed in a special fund, which fund shall be used for the following purposes:

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 13 of 15
A. For the purchasing, leasing, installing, repairing, maintaining, operating, removing, regulating and policing of parking meters and pay stations in the City and for the payment of any and all expenses relating or incidental thereto.

B. For the purchasing, leasing, acquiring, improving, operating and maintaining of off- street parking facilities in the City.

C. For the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices and signals.

D. For the painting and marking of streets and curbs required for the direction of traffic and the parking of motor vehicles.

E. For the proper regulation, control and inspection of parking and traffic upon the public streets.

F. To be pledged as security for the payment of principal of and interest on off-street parking revenue bonds issued by the City.

G. Additional Revenue deemed to be generated by the goBerkeley Pilot Program will be used to fund goBerkeley efforts, pursuant to Section 1012(b) of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, as amended, as agreed in the 2012 Cooperative Agreement between the City of Berkeley, the California Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.

H. Surplus money not utilized under subdivision A through F above may be transferred to the general fund. The City Manager or their designee may make an annual determination as to what is surplus based on the needs and obligations of the special fund and transfer such surplus to the general fund. (Ord. 7498-NS § 2, 2016: Ord. 7305- NS (part), 2013).

14.52.120 Parking meter and pay station fees.

Single-space meter and pay station fees for the goBerkeley Program parking meter zones hereinabove set forth in 14.52.010 shall be as follows:

A. For goBerkeley Program parking meter zones set forth in 14.52.010:

1. Pay stations and credit card enabled single-space meters shall accept nickels, dimes, quarters, one dollar coins and credit/debit cards.

2. The minimum transaction amount for cash payment shall be five cents ($0.05) and shall purchase a segment of time proportional to the prevailing hourly rate, rounded up to the nearest whole minute. The prevailing hourly rate for meter zones specified in 14.52.010 shall be set by section 14.52.120(B).

3. The 12-minute minimum transaction amount for credit/debit card payment shall purchase a segment of time proportional to the prevailing hourly rate, rounded up to the

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 14 of 15
nearest whole minute. The prevailing hourly rate for meter zones specified in 14.52.010 shall be set by section 14.52.120(B).

B. At single-space meters and pay stations within the goBerkeley Program parking meter zones:

1. The hourly rate may vary between $0.50 and $5.00 per hour effective FY 2017, between $0.50 and $6.00 per hour effective FY 2018, between $0.50 and $7.00 effective FY 2019, and between $0.50 and $8.00 effective FY 2020, as set by the City Manager.

2. The parking fee may be either flat rates (same rate for a specified time period e.g. 1 hour, 4 hours, all day), or may be variable rates based on time of day, length of stay, or a combination of those pricing structures, as set by the City Manager.

3. The City Manager may adjust the parking fee by increments no larger than 50 cents ($0.50) per hour.

4. The City Manager may implement special event pricing at designated times and at designated pay stations and parking meters,

5. Adjustments to the parking fee must be supported by published data on parking usage statistics with the goal of achieving 65-85% parking occupancy of spaces as calculated in the goBerkeley Program Guidelines.

6. Adjustments to the parking fee at pay stations and parking meters must be posted to the City’s website no later than 30 calendar days prior to the adjustment.

7. Parking rates may be adjusted no more frequently than once per 60 calendar days. (Ord. 7752-NS § 2, 2021: Ord. 7498-NS § 3, 2016: Ord. 7308-NS § 1, 2013: Ord. 7305-NS (part), 2013)

14.52.130 Time limits enforced at inoperable parking meters and pay stations.

A. Single space meters. Where parking meters are installed in the City, if the parking meter is inoperable, the time limits posted on the parking meter shall be enforced during the hours of operation of parking meters.

B. Pay stations. Where pay stations are installed in the City, if the pay station is inoperable, the time limits posted on the pay station within the block that the vehicle is parked or indicated by signage or curb markings shall be enforced during the hours of operation of the pay station.

Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Ordinance No. 7,829-N.S. Page 15 of 15
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on June 28, 2022, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Droste, Hahn, Harrison, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.berkeleyca.gov

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted By: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Voting Delegates – League of California Cities Annual Conference

RECOMMENDATION
Designate, by motion, a voting delegate and alternate for the business meeting of the Annual League of California Cities conference to be held on Friday, September 9, 2022, in Long Beach.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Conference fees of approximately $650 for the full conference or $350 for a one-day pass.

BACKGROUND
The League laws allow for any official of a member city, with the approval of the city council, to be designated the city’s voting delegate or alternate at the annual business meeting.

As designated in Resolution No. 70,203-N.S. Councilmember Hahn is the City’s representative for the League and Councilmember Taplin is the alternate.

This year’s conference is being held in Long Beach from Wednesday, September 7 through Friday, September 9, 2022. Each city is allowed to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. The voting delegate or alternate must be registered for the conference.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or climate impacts associated with the recommendation of this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, 981-6900
Attachments
1: Voting Delegate Information

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: June 1, 2022
TO: City Man
agers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNA

TION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference & Expo – September 7-9, 2022 Cal Cities 2
022 Annual Conference & Expo is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022 in Long Beach. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly) on Friday, September 9. At this meeting, Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy.

In order
to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.

Please co
mplete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to Cal Cities office no later than Friday, September 2. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council.

When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference R
egistration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration will open by June 1 on the Cal Cities
website. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter
must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting.

Council Action Advised by August 31, 2022
Attachment 1

• Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

• Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges.

The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 7, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 8, 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, September 9, 7:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2. If you have questions, please call Darla Yacub at (916) 658-8254.

Attachments:
• Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

Annual Conference Voting Procedures

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.

6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting.

CITY:________________________________________

2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM

Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2, 2022. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.

To vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.

Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.

1. VOTING DELEGATE

Name:

Title:

2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE

Name: Name:

Title: Title:

ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR

ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).

Name: ____________________________________ Email_________________________________

Mayor or City Clerk_________________________ Date____________ Phone________________ (circle one) (signature)

Please complete and return by Friday, September 2, 2022 to:

Darla Yacub, Assistant to the Administrative Services Director E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: (916) 658-8254

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance
Subject: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on July 12, 2022

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.

Total estimated cost of items included in this report is $3,620,000.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May, 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S. effective June 6, 2008, which increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services to $50,000. As a result, this required report submitted by the City Manager to Council is now for those PROJECT Fund Source Amount
Corporation Yard Green Room
Improvements 511 Measure T1 $1,200,000
Telegraph-Channing Garage
Restroom Improvements 511 Measure T1 $220,000
Business License Software 011 GF - Discretionary $200,000 Grove Park Field and
Playground Renovations
511
138
501
306
Measure T1
Parks Tax
Capital Improvement
Capital Grants - State
$2,000,000
Total: $3,620,000

Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals CONSENT CALENDAR Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council July 12, 2022 Approval on July 12, 2022
purchases in excess of $100,000 for goods; and $200,000 for playgrounds and construction; and $50,000 for services. If Council does not object to these items being sent out for bid or proposal within one week of them appearing on the agenda, and upon final notice to proceed from the requesting department, the IFB (Invitation for Bid) or RFP (Request for Proposal) may be released to the public and notices sent to the potential bidder/respondent list.

BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S., amending the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Finance Department reviews all formal bid and proposal solicitations to ensure that they include provisions for compliance with the City’s environmental policies. For each contract that is subject to City Council authorization, staff will address environmental sustainability considerations in the associated staff report to City Council.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Need for the services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Darryl Sweet, General Services Manager, Finance, 510-981-7329 Attachments:
1: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on July 12, 2022
a. Corporation Yard Green Room Improvements
b. Telegraph-Channing Garage Restroom Improvements
c. Business License Software
d. Grove Park Field and Playground Renovations
Note: Original of this attachment with live signature of authorizing personnel is on file in General Services.

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: July 12, 2022
Attachment 1
1 of 2

SPECIFICATI
ON NO.

DESCRIPTION

OF GOODS /

SERVICES
BEING

PURCHASED
APPROX.

RELEASE
DATE
APPROX.

BID

OPENING
DATE

INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE

CHARGED
DEPT. /

DIVISION

CONTACT
NAME &
PHONE
22-11534-C Corporation Yard
Green Room
Improvements
7/13/2022 8/13/2022 Renovation of the
Corporation Yard Green
Room (Building H). Scope
includes architectural
improvements, roof
replacement, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing
upgrades, and associated
work.
$1,200,000 511-54-623-677-0000-000-
444-662110- PWT1CB2209
PW/Eng Titus Chen
981-6410
22-11535-C Telegraph-
Channing
Garage
Restroom
Improvements
7/13/2022 8/13/2022 Renovation of two public
restrooms and two tenant
restrooms at the Telegraph-
Channing Parking Garage.

Scope includes new
plumbing fixtures, wall,
flooring, and ceiling
finishes, lighting, and
associated mechanical and
electrical work.
$220,000 511-54-623-677-0000-000-
444-662110- PWT1CB2207
PW/Eng Titus Chen
981-6410
Dept TOTAL $1,420,000
22-11537 Business
License
Software
7/13/2022 8/11/2022 Request for Information re:
business license software
$200,000 011-33-324-343-0000-000-
412-651120
Finance/Treasury Rosario Riche
981-7334
Dept TOTAL $200,000

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: July 12, 2022
Attachment 1
22-11538-C Grove Park
Field and
Playground
Renovations
9/1/2022 10/1/2022 This project includes
renovation of the ball fields,
upgrades and ADA
improvements to the ages
2-5 and ages 5-12 play
areas, and picnic area.
$2,000,000 Measure T1
$700,000 511-52-545-
000 0000-000-461-663110-
PRWT119004
Parks Tax
$750,000 138-52-545-
000 0000-000-461-663110-
PRWT119004
CIP
$400,000 501-52-545-
000 0000-000-461-663110-
PRWT119004
Prop 68 Funds
$150,000
306-52-545-000-0000-000-
461-663110-
PRWT119004
PRW/
Capital Projects
Wendy
Wellbrock
981-6346
Evelyn Chan
981-6430
Dept TOTAL $2,000,000
TOTAL $3,620,000.00

SPECIFICATI
ON NO.

DESCRIPTION

OF GOODS /

SERVICES
BEING

PURCHASED
APPROX.

RELEASE
DATE
APPROX.

BID

OPENING
DATE

INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE

CHARGED
DEPT. /

DIVISION

CONTACT
NAME &
PHONE

2 of 2

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Subject: Contract No. 32000243 Amendment: Waters Moving & Storage for Facility Moves

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000243 with Waters Moving & Storage for moving office furniture between various Health, Housing, & Community Services Department (HHCS) facilities, as part of HHCS program relocations. These facility sites include, but are not limited to, the North Berkeley Senior Center (NBSC), West Berkeley Service Center (WBSC), 830 University Avenue, and 1947 Center Street.

The contract is being amended to add to the scope and increase the original contract by $10,000 to the original contract amount of $50,000 to move Aging Services back into the newly rehabilitated North Berkeley Senior Center. The total amended amount will not exceed $60,000 for the period June 1, 2020 through December 30, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Waters Moving & Storage, a City vendor, has an existing contract with HHCS to move office furniture as part of various program site relocations. Contract No. 32000243 was established with an original contract amount of $50,000. Funding in the amount of $10,000 is available in the FY 2023 budget in the General Fund (ERMA GL 011-51-505- 541-0000-000-444-639990), bringing the new total not to exceed amount to $60,000.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The moving contract with Waters Moving & Storage will enable the HHCS Public Health and Aging Services Divisions to move office and program furniture as part of several program site relocations. The original contract included Public Health program relocations only; the current contract is being amended to include the relocation of Aging Services from the West Berkeley Service Center back to the newly renovated North Berkeley Senior Center.

Contract No. 32000243 Amendment: Waters Moving & Storage for Facility Moves CONSENT CALENDAR July 12, 2022

BACKGROUND
The West Berkeley Service Center served as a temporary senior center, during the North Berkeley Senior Center renovation, between January 2019 through March 2020.

The facility was shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic, though the Aging Services was able to pivot its services to continue to provide meal deliveries and critical case management and resource referral services for the remainder of the 2020 calendar year, and thru 2021 as well. With the upcoming renovation completion of the North Berkeley Senior Center, Aging Services staff and programs will be relocating to that site in summer 2022. Subsequently, the West Berkeley Service Center will once again house several public health programs.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Every effort will be made to schedule efficient and timely facility moves so as not to utilize more moving vehicles than are needed.

The North Berkeley Senior Center includes several energy efficient upgrades, such as solar panels installed on the roof of the facility, and solar tubes. Since the facility is used for City Council and Commission meetings, private rentals, and as a City emergency shelter, these energy upgrades will aid in reducing utility costs.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Waters Moving & Storage is a current City vendor that provides relocation services for City programs and staff. They provide moving crates in advance, and efficient moving operations at a competitive price. Waters Moving & Storage was used initially, when Aging Services relocated from the North Berkeley Senior Center, to the West Berkeley Service Center, in anticipation of the facility renovation.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could not continue to provide essential senior services, such as information and assistance, nutrition, and socialization opportunities, without relocating to the recently renovated North Berkeley Senior Center. Additionally, public health services and programs could not continue to be implemented without relocating those programs to the West Berkeley Service Center.

CONTACT PERSON
Tanya Bustamante, Aging Services Division Manager, HHCS, 981-5178 Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 32000243 AMENDMENT: WATERS MOVING & STORAGE FOR

FACILITY MOVES
WHEREAS, renovation and earthquake retrofitting of the North Berkeley Senior Center will be completed in June 2022; and
WHEREAS, Aging Services staff will need to relocate from the West Berkeley Service Center to the North Berkeley Senior Center to continue providing Berkeley’s older adult community with essential nutrition and wellness activities and services; and WHEREAS, essential public health programs will subsequently relocate to the West Berkeley Service Center; and
WHEREAS, the Health, Housing, & Community Services Department has an existing contract with Waters Moving & Storage; and
WHEREAS, the existing contract will be amended with an additional $10,000 from ERMA General Fund Account 011-51-505-541-0000-000-444-639990.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to amend the existing contract, and execute any subsequent amendments, with Waters Moving & Storage to relocate office furniture to various Health, Housing, & Community Services facility sites in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for the period June 1, 2020 through December 30, 2022. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

Office of the City Manager
PAGE 3

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Donald Ellison, Interim Director of Human Resources Subject: Contract No. 8958F Amendment: Bartel Associates, LLC for Actuarial Consulting Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 8958F increasing contract amount by $110,000 with Bartel Associates, LLC for Actuarial Consulting Services, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $380,000 through December 31, 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The contract amendment with Bartel Associates, LLC for Actuarial Consulting Services will add $110,000 to the existing contract through December 31, 2023. Funding for the proposed amendment is available in the FY 2024 Human Resources General budget.

Funding for this contract amendment will come from various funds: General Fund budget code 011-99-900-900-0000-000-412-612990 (for CalPERS actuarial services); various Retiree Medical Trust Funds (Funds 722 through 731); the Payroll Deduction Trust Fund (Fund 013 for the Supplementary Retirement and Income Plan); and the Safety Members Pension Fund Trust Fund (Fund 701 for the Safety Members Pension Fund) for a revised amount not to exceed $360,000.

Current Contract Amount $270,000
Proposed Increase (this amendment) $110,000
Total New Contract Amount $380,000

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Under the direction of the City Council and the City Manager, the Human Resources Department is responsible for labor relations activities including actuarial projections to determine the fiscal impacts of the City’s various post-employment benefits related to pension, medical, and disability. The City pre-funds all of the post-employment benefit plans and contracts for periodic actuarial studies to ensure the plans are meeting the financial assumptions to be able to pay the benefits in future years and to comply with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 45 (Accounting and Financial Reporting for Employers for Post-employment Benefits other than Pension);

GASB Statement No. 27 (Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers); GASB Statement No. 67 (Financial Reporting for Pension Plans – An Amendment of GASB 25); and GASB Statement No. 68 (Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions-An Amendment of GASB Statement No. 27) reporting requirements. Moreover, in creating these post-employment benefit plans, one of the stipulations stated in the various Union agreements requires the City to complete periodic actuarial evaluations of the plans to ensure adequate funding. Lastly, City management, at the direction of City Council, has applied this same requirement to any proposed modifications to the negotiated benefit which may be proposed as a result of contract negotiations. Fundamentally, the intent is to provide a thorough overview of the City’s long-term retirement expenditure obligations in a format that is easily understandable.

BACKGROUND
Bartel Associates, LLC specializes in providing GASB compliant actuarial services to public agencies including retiree medical and pension GASB valuations, actuarial audits, and CalPERS retirement consulting. Over the past several years, the City has contracted with Bartel Associates, LLC to complete actuarial services which are used for periodic actuarial evaluation, and to determine the fiscal impacts of the The City’s retirement pension benefits are provided through its participation in CalPERS.

The benefits are funded by a combination of employee contributions that are set by statute and by employer contributions which fluctuate from year to year based on an annual actuarial valuation performed by CalPERS.
set by statute and by employer contributions which fluctuate from year to year based on an annual actuarial valuation performed by CalPERS.

The City contributes to the following plans in the CalPERS system:

City CalPERS Groups CalPERS
Pension Benefit
Miscellaneous Classic Members 2.7% at age 55
Miscellaneous New Members (as defined by PEPRA) 2.0% at age 62 Safety Fire Classic Members 3.0% at age 50
Safety Fire New Members (as defined by PEPRA) 2.7% at age 57 Safety Police Classic Members Tier I (closed group) 3.0% at age 50 Safety Police Classic Members Tier II 3.0% at age 55
Safety Police New Members (as defined by PEPRA) 2.7% at age 57 Each of the plans has different rates for the City’s annual employer contribution which are generally based on the demographics of the plan participants and the value of investment returns of the City’s assets in the CalPERS system.

In addition to CalPERS, the City also provides pension benefits to a closed group of former firefighters and police officers who elected to not transfer to CalPERS and retired prior to March 1973 under the Safety Members Pension Fund (SMPF). This single

employer defined benefit pension plan is administered by the Safety Members Pension Board. Annual actuarial valuations are required of this plan as stated in GASB Statement No. 27; GASB Statement No. 67; and GASB Statement No. 68.

The City also provides retiree medical benefits and a disability retirement benefits to a closed group of Supplementary Retirement and Income Plan I (SRIP I) participants who were hired prior to July 22, 1988, who have not elected to transfer to SRIP II, and are permanently or indefinitely disabled.

On November 16, 2010, the City Council received the City Auditor’s report on “Employee Benefits: Tough Decisions Ahead” that included a recommendation that the City Manager determine which employee benefits are the highest risk to the City and, if appropriate, perform actuarial valuations annually, rather than biennially. The City’s objective is to recognize current and future liabilities and to establish a funding policy so that assets are available to pay the premium costs as employees retire and not place an undue one-time strain on the City’s budget.

The actuarial analyses conducted by Bartel allows the City to comply with the various GASB Statement requirements and to meet the City’s objectives in recognizing current and future liabilities, and assists the City in its continuing efforts to foster a funding policy that ensures assets are available to pay the benefits as employees retire and not place an undue one-time strain on the City’s budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Bartel Associates, LLC offers the City a professional and cost-effective solution to the City’s actuarial analysis requirements. In addition, the firm has institutional knowledge of the City’s post-employment benefit plans, as well as those of many comparable agencies in the region, which assures the City remains competitive in the labor market.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The type of actuarial work is specialized and staff is unable to undertake such an endeavor.

CONTACT PERSON
Donald Ellison, Interim Director of Human Resources, 510-981-6807 Attachment:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 8958F AMENDMENT: BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR

ACTUARIAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, there is a need for actuarial services for determining future liabilities for the City’s post-employment benefit plans: pension plans with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS); Retiree Health Premium Assistance Plan; Police Employees Retirement Income Plan; Safety Members Pension Fund; and Supplementary Retirement and Income Plan I;
WHEREAS, this type of actuarial work is specialized within the professional accounting field and is done by persons who are familiar with professional accounting and actuarial standards and reporting requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have staff that can provide such opinion, advice and services; and
WHEREAS, Bartel Associates, LLC was selected for actuarial services related to CalPERS as part of a continuing engagement since September 2011; and WHEREAS, on September 30, 2011, the City entered into a contract with Bartel Associates, LLC (hereinafter “Bartel”) (Contract No. 8958) for an amount not to exceed $15,000 to provide actuarial services pertaining to the City’s CalPERS pension plan; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2012, the City Manager authorized an amendment to increase the contract amount by $15,000 for a revised contract amount not to exceed $30,000; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2014, the City Manager authorized an amendment to increase the contract amount by $19,999 for a revised contract amount not to exceed $49,999; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016 by Resolution No. 67,779-N.S., Council authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 8958C with Bartel, increasing the contract amount by $30,001, for a revised contract amount not to exceed $80,000; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2015, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP No. 15- 10932-C) for actuarial services related to other post-employment benefits: Retiree Health Premium Assistance Plan, Police Employees Retirement Income Plan, Safety Members Pension Fund, and Supplementary Retirement and Income Plans; and a selection committee selected Bartel Associates, LLC as being best able to meet the City’s objectives; and

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2015, by Resolution No. 67,181-N.S., Council authorized the City Manager to enter into Contract No. 8958D with Bartel for a contract amount not to exceed $175,000 for other non-CalPERS post-employment benefits; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, by Resolution No. 68,217-N.S., Council authorized the City Manager to enter into Contract No. 8958E with Bartel for a contract amount not to exceed $175,000 for other non-CalPERS post-employment benefits; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, by Resolution No. 69,978-N.S., Council authorized the City Manager to enter into Contract No. 8958F with Bartel for a contract amount not to exceed $270,000 for other non-CalPERS post-employment benefits; and WHEREAS, the City is close to reaching its contract limit of $270,000 and unless the contract amount is increased, the City would be without the professional actuarial Consulting Services; and
WHEREAS, funding for this amendment is available in the FY 2024 Human Resources
Department General Fund budget.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Bartel Associates, LLC for actuarial consulting services, for an amount not to exceed $380,000 effective September 30, 2011 through December 31, 2023. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Office of the City Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Michael Sinor, Director, Information Technology Subject: Contract No. 31900045-3 Amendment: Vestra Resources, Inc. for Additional Geographic Information System (GIS) Projects

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 31900045-3 with Vestra Resources, Inc. for Geographic Information System (GIS) professional services, for a total not to exceed $28,679.19 and for a total contract value of $64,990.19 from September 15, 2018 to June 30, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Ongoing funding for this Vendor in the amount of, $28,679.19 will be available in the Department of Information Technology’s FY23 IT Cost Allocation Fund.

FY 2023: 680-35-377-6002-000-472-612990$28,679.19 (IT Cost Allocation, GIS, IT Professional Services) $28,679.19 Total FY 2023 Professional Services

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The GIS Master Plan development and planning process was a citywide effort involving key staff representing multiple departments. Vestra has provided reliable consulting services and development work and has proven to be a strong partner in GIS development. We have a project coming up that will upgrade our GIS software and replace our GIS Portal user interface that will be no longer in service.

The projects planned for FY 2023 include setting up a GeoEvent server and upgrading the City’s GIS database and interfaces.

The GeoEvent server will allow us to process “real-time” data, that is data as it is being recorded. This can be useful in Police analytics and transparency and for other work such as traffic analytics.

Contract No. 31900045-3 Amendment: Vestra Resources, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Additional GIS Projects July 12, 2022
The upgrade project keeps us in compliance with updates to ESRI software and GIS data and is needed to set up the GeoEvent service.

BACKGROUND
On December 3, 2018 the City of Berkeley executed a contract with Vestra Resources for $23,824.00 for GIS database and application work related to a GIS upgrade, and adding to the database architecture and schema. That contract expired June 30, 2020.

This would bring the total value of Vestra work for the City of Berkeley to. $64,990.19 from September 15, 2018 to June 30, 2024.

GIS development and maintenance is an ongoing effort. We use GIS tools in many ways in the city, from sewer mapping to park information and parcel information made available through a portal on the City Web Site. Vestra support on the database side ensures that we can provide current data for the changing needs of City of Berkeley.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
These projects will move the City forward in attaining its goals of becoming a viable environmentally sustainable city. While the main project is to provide up to date detailed information on parcels, parks, crime and other data in the City for staff and residents, there are additional benefits to be realized. Information collected coupled with existing data gives the city, staff and community the information to collaborate and improve services.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Vestra is well versed in the setting up and maintaining GIS data. They are also very familiar with the City’s GIS architecture and data. GIS technologies are powerful tools for improving the quality, accuracy, efficiency, and responsiveness of government services provided by the City of Berkeley. An Enterprise GIS guides a citywide approach to GIS, focused on:
 Using mutually accepted standards, policies, and business practices;  Encouraging collaborative GIS efforts among City, government, and related organizations;
 Integrating GIS technologies into City business operations;  Supporting emergency and disaster planning, response, and recovery; and  Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of GIS investments.

The Enterprise GIS Program, established in 2008, provides central shared resources to support these goals. The program currently includes the following GIS services: Data Services, Online Mapping Services, Applications, Software License Management, and Training and Support.

Contract No. 31900045-3 Amendment: Vestra Resources, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Additional GIS Projects July 12, 2022

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff considered planning and executing these projects without Vestra or other consulting services. However, the City has limited resources to plan and execute the projects needed for FY23.

CONTACT PERSON
Michael Sinor, Director, Information Technology, 510-981-6541 Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 31900045-3 AMENDMENT:

VESTRA RESOURCES, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL GIS PROJECTS
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, the original contract was signed to develop a GIS Architecture Design and Upgrade; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2019, the original contract was amended to include additional tasks upgrade the GIS environment; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2020 the contract was amended to provide on-call support for FY21; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2021, the contract was amended to provide on-call support for FY22; and
WHEREAS, the contract needs to be amended for two projects and for on-call support for FY23 and FY24; and
WHEREAS, funding for this project in the amount of $28,679.19 is available in the Department of Information Technology’s Fiscal Year FY 2022 Cost Allocation fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract amendment with Vestra Resources, Inc., for a total not to exceed $28,679.19, and for a total contract value of $64,990.19 from September 15, 2018 to June 30, 2024.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7010 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract No. 31900193 Amendment: Hamilton Tree Service, Inc. for As- needed Tree Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 31900193 with Hamilton Tree Service, Inc, for as-needed tree services, increasing the amount by $300,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $500,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract amendment of $300,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138-52-542-566-0000-000-461-612990-) and the General Fund, Fire Fuel Abatement program (011-52-542-566-1001-000-461-612990-).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City currently has a contract with Hamilton Tree Service, Inc. to perform various tree services, primarily consisting of tree and stump removals and tree pruning throughout the city in the public right of way, street medians, pathways, and in public parks. To date, staff has identified trees to be removed and pruned to reduce fire fuel and improve public safety.

BACKGROUND
In April 2019, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued seeking qualified firms to provide tree services on an as-needed basis. The City determined that Hamilton Tree Service, Inc. was a qualified firm and executed contract No. 31900193. To-date, the contractor has completed required tree removals along Shasta and Tamalpais Roads, at the Waterfront, on Harding Path, on Ajax Place, along Summit Road, and in Remillard and John Hinkel Parks.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The maintenance of the urban forest and the prevention of destructive urban fires are essential to meeting the City’s Climate Action Goals over the long term.

Contract No. 31900193 Amendment: Hamilton Tree Service, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for As-needed Tree Services July 12, 2022
2 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff has identified trees that require pruning or removal at various parks, on City paths, and along the public right of way that will reduce the fire fuel load and improve public safety. The City does not have the in-house labor or equipment resources to complete these jobs in an efficient manner.

Alternative Actions Considered
None

CONTACT PERSON
Bruce Pratt, Parks Superintendent, 981-6632
Dan Gallagher, Senior Forestry Supervisor, 981-6687
Attachments:
1: Resolution

Contract No. 31900193 Amendment: Hamilton Tree Service, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for As-needed Tree Services July 12, 2022
2 RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 31900193 AMENDMENT: HAMILTON TREE SERVICE, INC.

SPECIALISTS FOR AS-NEEDED TREE SERVICES
WHEREAS, in April 2019, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued seeking firms to provide tree services on an as-needed basis; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2019, the City determined that Hamilton Tree Service, Inc was a qualified firm and executed contract no. 31900193; and
WHEREAS, to-date, staff has identified additional trees requiring removal to reduce the fire fuel load and other trees requiring pruning to improve the health and safety of the urban forest; and
WHEREAS, funding for this contract amendment of $300,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 budget from the Parks Tax Fund (138) and the General Fund, Fire Fuel Abatement program (011).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900193 with Hamilton Tree Service, Inc for as-needed tree services, increasing the amount by $300,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $500,000. A record signature copy of any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7010 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract No. 31900218 Amendment: West Coast Arborists, Inc. for As- needed Tree Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend contract No. 31900218 with West Coast Arborists Inc., for as-needed tree services, increasing the amount by $200,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $700,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract amendment of $200,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138-52-542-566-0000-000-461-612990) and the General Fund, Fire Fuel Abatement program (011-52-542-566-1001-000-461-612990).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City currently has a contract with West Coast Arborists to perform various tree services, primarily consisting of tree and stump removals and tree pruning throughout the city in the public right of way, street medians, pathways, and in public parks. Due to the Caldor fire, staff has identified trees that require removal and pruning to reduce fire fuel and improve public safety at Echo Lake Camp.

BACKGROUND
In April 2019, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued seeking qualified firms to provide tree services on an as-needed basis. The City determined that West Coast Arborists was a qualified firm and executed contract No. 3190218. To-date, the contractor has completed tree removals at Remillard Park, Grizzly Peak Boulevard, John Hinkel Park, Del Mar Avenue, Glendale-La Loma Park, Live Oak Park, Wildcat Canyon Road, Shasta Road, Fairlawn Drive, Codornices Park, and along Cragmont Avenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The maintenance of the urban forest and the prevention of destructive urban fires are essential in meeting the City’s Climate Action Goals over the long term.

Contract No. 31900218 Amendment: West Coast Arborists CONSENT CALENDAR for As-needed Tree Services July 12, 2022

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff has identified trees that require removal or pruning as part of the clean-up after the Caldor Fire. This work will improve public safety and reduce the fire fuel load at Echo Lake Camp. The City does not have the in-house labor or equipment resources to complete these jobs in an efficient manner.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Bruce Pratt, Parks Superintendent, 981-6632
Dan Gallagher, Senior Forestry Supervisor, 981-6687
Attachments:
1: Resolution

Contract No. 31900218 Amendment: West Coast Arborists CONSENT CALENDAR for As-needed Tree Services July 12, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 31900218 AMENDMENT: WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. FOR AS-

NEEDED TREE SERVICES
WHEREAS, in April 2019, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued seeking firms to provide tree services on an as-needed basis; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2019, the City determined that West Coast Arborists was a qualified firm and executed Contract No. 31900218; and
WHEREAS, to-date, staff has identified trees that require removal or pruning due to the Caldor Fire. This work will reduce the fire fuel load and improve the health and safety of the urban forest; and
WHEREAS, funding for this contract amendment of $200,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 budget from the Parks Tax Fund (138) and the General Fund, Fire Fuel Abatement program (011).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900218 with West Coast Arborist for as-needed tree services, increasing the amount by $200,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $700,000. A record signature copy of any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7010 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract No. 32200076 Amendment: OBS Engineering, Inc. for John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200076 with OBS Engineering, Inc. for the John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project, increasing the amount by $26,000 for an amended total amount not to exceed $1,145,580.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract amendment will be recommended for appropriation through the FY 2023 first amendment to the appropriations ordinance in the Parks Tax Fund (138- 52-545-000-0000-000-461-663110-PRWPK19004). No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The contract with OBS Engineering, Inc. for the John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project, was approved on July 27, 2021 for a total amount not to exceed $1,119,580. During construction, unforeseen existing conditions required that additional drainage work, paving, tree removal, and fencing be performed. The City has negotiated these change orders with OBS Engineering, Inc. This work was not included in the original contract scope, but is necessary to maintain proper drainage and safety conditions at the City’s parks, and improves the finish of the completed project.

BACKGROUND
The project includes a new play area (ages 5-12), picnic area, and repairs and restoration of the existing masonry work and amphitheater and improvements to other site feature in conformance with current ADA standards. John Hinkel Park was designated as a historic landmark by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in April 2001 and work is done in compliance with Structural Alteration Permit LMSAP2020- 0002. These park improvements are part of the City’s ongoing program to repair, renovate, and improve safety and accessibility at non-compliant or aging Parks facilities.

Contract No. 32200076 Amendment: OBS Engineering, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project July 12, 2022 2 The project was advertised for bids on Monday, June 7, 2021, and bids were opened on June 22, 2021. The City received 5 bids, from a low base bid of $1,007,100 to a high base bid of $1,667,500. OBS Engineering, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Staff conducted references checks and received satisfactory feedback.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The construction contract includes requirements to comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy. The project is a renovation of a developed urban site and therefore will not negatively affect natural habitat.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City and OBS Engineering, Inc. have negotiated a price within the City’s budget for renovations and safety improvements. This increase to the contract is necessary to perform deferred maintenance repairs, and correct deficiencies with existing infrastructure. The City does not have the in-house labor or equipment resources to complete these construction activities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Evelyn Chan, Senior Civil Engineer, PRW, (510) 981-6430 Isaac Carnegie, Associate Civil Engineer, PRW, (510) 981-6432 Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 32200076 AMENDMENT: OBS ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE

JOHN HINKEL PARK AMPHITHEATER AREA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, John Hinkel Park, Amphitheater Area is in need of renovation; and WHEREAS, the City has neither the labor nor the equipment necessary to undertake this construction work; and
WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised on June 7, 2021, and bids were opened on June 22, 2021, and the City received 5 bids;
WHEREAS, OBS Engineering, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and references for OBS Engineering, Inc. were provided and checked out satisfactorily; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, by Resolution No. 69,979-N.S., the City Council authorized Contract No. 32200076 with OBS Engineering, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,119,580 for the John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project; and WHEREAS, an increase of $26,000 to the amended not to exceed contract amount is necessary to make repairs and complete change orders; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FY 2023 Parks Tax (Fund 138) budget.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200076 with OBS Engineering, Inc. for the John Hinkel Park Amphitheater Area Improvements Project, increasing the contract amount by $26,000, for a total amended amount not to exceed $1,145,580. A record signature copy of any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-mail: [email protected] ● Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

CONSENT CALENDAR
JULY 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Berkeley’s Financial Condition (F Y 2012 – FY 2021): Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by November 2022, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the City Manager and Finance Department. They have agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response. This audit report has been updated with new information regarding the City’s Section 115 Trust.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The audit recommendations are intended to build on the City’s financial strengths and address the risks identified in the report. If the City does not implement the recommendations, unfunded pension liabilities and infrastructure needs will continue to grow and may put pressure on other spending priorities in the
future. The City may also be less prepared for unforeseen economic challenges if it does not assess the risk of the reserves, and ensure that enterprise funds can balance and avoid recurring shortfalls. Additionally, the City may overlook important considerations in determining a manageable level of debt if it does not update its debt policy.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
We used various financial indicators to analyze the City’s financial condition between FY 2012 and FY 2021. While the City’s near-term financial outlook was mostly positive, the financial indicators related to the City’s long-term outlook revealed some challenges.

Near-Term
 Revenues and Expenses: The City’s revenues have increased since FY 2012 and outpaced expenses most years. Governmental activities expenses exceeded revenues in FY 2020 due to the economic impacts of COVID-19, but the City took balancing measures to address the revenue shortfall in FY 2021.
 Demographic and Economic Indicators: Indicators related to the economic stability of the Berkeley community, including assessed value of property and personal income per capita, showed sustained strength over the audit period.
 Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves: The City’s net position has been negative due to unfunded pension and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities. The City maintained a strong liquidity ratio despite setting aside funds in the Stability and Catastrophic reserves.

While the reserves helped address the shortfall caused by the pandemic, without a risk assessment of the reserves and plan for how to replenish them, the City may be less prepared for unforeseen economic challenges. Most enterprise funds have met the City’s

Berkeley’s Financial Condition:

Pension
Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention JULY 12, 2022 requirement to balance since FY 2016, but the City does not have a policy outlining the target fund balance necessary for the funds to balance and avoid recurring annual shortfalls.

Long-Term
 Long-Term Debt (excluding pension and OPEB): Long-term liabilities have increased, but compared to benchmark cities, Berkeley’s long-term liabilities per resident are in the middle range. General obligation bond debt has remained low compared to total taxable assessed property value, but general obligation debt per resident has increased and the City’s debt policy does not have robust criteria to assess its debt capacity.  Pension and OPEB Liabilities: Berkeley’s unfunded liabilities for retiree benefits continue to pose a financial risk to the City. The City established a Section 115 Trust to pre-fund pension obligations, but has not consistently met its annual contribution goal. Without a plan to ensure sufficient funding of the Section 115 Trust, the City may not be prepared to make its required CalPERS contributions.
 Capital Assets: The City is facing a reported $1.2 billion unfunded capital and deferred maintenance need as of FY 2021. Without a funding plan to reduce these needs, the City cannot address the current problem or prevent future unfunded capital needs.

BACKGROUND
This audit provides Berkeley residents, businesses, city management, and public officials with a high-level overview of the City’s financial condition over 10 fiscal years. By broadening the scope of financial reporting to incorporate long-term financial trends, financial condition analysis can introduce long-term considerations into the budgeting process, clarify the City’s fiscal strengths and weaknesses, and help highlight financial risks that the City needs to address.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Our office manages and stores audit workpapers and other documents electronically to significantly reduce our use of paper and ink. Our audit recommendation to implement a funding plan to reduce the City’s unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs could also support more resilient and sustainable infrastructure and help advance the Vision 2050 effort.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will help the City address its unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs and unfunded pension liabilities. Our recommendations will also help the City prepare for unforeseen economic challenges by assessing the risk of the reserves, and ensure that enterprise funds can balance and avoid recurring shortfalls. Additionally, our recommendation to update the City’s debt policy will strengthen the City’s ability to assess its general obligation debt capacity.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750 Attachment: Audit Report: Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 – FY 2021): Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Audit Report
May 5, 2022
Berkeley’s Financial
Condition (FY 2012-
FY 2021): Pension
Liabilities and
Infrastructure Need
Attention

Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Caitlin Palmer, Senior Auditor
Pauline Miller, Auditor I

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
For the full report, visit:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits
Themes & Findings
Overall, Berkeley’s near-term financial position is strong.

However, the financial indicators related to the City’s long-term outlook reveal some challenges that need to be addressed.

Near-Term
Revenues and Expenses: Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2012,
revenues have grown and exceeded expenses in eight of the last ten fiscal years. Although expenses exceeded revenues in FY 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City took budgetary actions to address the revenue shortfall.

Demographic and Economic Indicators: The Berkeley
community showed sustained economic health overall. The taxable assessed value of property and personal income of Berkeley residents increased since FY 2012.

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves: The City has
maintained a strong liquidity ratio, though the City’s net position has been negative due to unfunded pension and other post- employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities. The City established the Stability and Catastrophic Reserves, and used a portion of those reserves to cover the General Fund deficit caused by the COVID- 19 pandemic. All of the City’s enterprise funds have experienced at least one annual shortfall over the past five years.

Long-Term
Long-Term Debt and Liabilities: Berkeley’s long-term
liabilities have increased since FY 2012, but compared to benchmark cities, Berkeley’s long-term liabilities per resident are in the middle range. General obligation bond debt per resident has increased. Berkeley’s general obligation bond debt has remained low compared to total taxable assessed property value, but the City’s debt policy does not have robust criteria to assess debt capacity.

Net Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits
Liabilities: Like other California cities, Berkeley’s unfunded liabilities for retiree benefits continue to pose a financial risk to the City. The California State Auditor considers Berkeley’s pension funding ratio to be high risk. The City started setting aside resources dedicated to prefunding pension obligations in a Section 115 Trust, but has not consistently met its annual contribution goals.

Continued on next page.

May 5, 2022
Objective
Our objective was to assess
Berkeley’s financial condition using
indicators for the following
categories:

1. Revenues and Expenses

2. Demographic and Economic
Indicators

3. Net Position, Liquidity, and
Reserves

4. Long-Term Debt and Liabilities

5. Net Pension and Other Post-
Employment Benefit (OPEB)
Liabilities

6. Capital Assets
Why This Audit Is Important
Financial condition analysis
simplifies complex financial
information to make it more
accessible. By incorporating long-
term financial trends, financial
condition analysis can introduce long
-term considerations into the
budgeting process, clarify the City’s
fiscal strengths and weaknesses, and
help highlight financial risks that the
City needs to address. This audit is
especially relevant as the COVID-19
pandemic has underscored the
importance of financial flexibility.

During fiscal year 2021, the City
faced a $40 million General Fund
deficit and made difficult decisions to
balance the budget.

Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012-FY 2021):

Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
For the full report, visit:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits
Themes & Findings
Net Pension Liability Per Plan (in millions, adjusted for inflation)
Source: Department of Finance data
Capital Assets: The City’s underinvestment in infrastructure has led to a reported $1.2 billion unfunded capital and deferred maintenance need. Without sufficient investment now, these liabilities will continue to grow.

Unfunded Capital and Deferred Maintenance Needs
FY 2017 to FY 2021 (adjusted for inflation)
Source: Berkeley’s unfunded liability reports
May 5, 2022
Recommendations
To better prepare the City for unforeseen
economic challenges, we recommend that
the City Manager complete the risk
assessment required by the City’s reserves
policy as scheduled and propose a plan to
City Council to replenish the reserves.

To ensure the City’s enterprise funds can
balance and avoid recurring annual
shortfalls, we recommend the City
Manager assess the appropriate fund
balance for each of the City’s enterprise
funds, report findings to the City Council,
and explore financial policy options to
manage enterprise fund balances.

To strengthen the City’s debt
management, we recommend that the
Finance Department update the Debt
Management Policy.

To maximize the benefit of the Section 115
Trust for prefunding pension obligations,
we recommend that the City Manager
present a plan for adoption by the City
Council to assure sufficient contributions
to the Trust.

To address rising costs for unmet capital
needs, we recommend that the City
Manager collaborate with the Department
of Public Works to implement a funding
plan aimed at reducing the City’s
unfunded capital and deferred
maintenance needs and ensuring regular
maintenance of city assets to prevent
excessive deferred maintenance costs in
the future.

Introduction Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 1 Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Background ............................................................................................ 3 Revenues and Expenses ......................................................................... 5 Demographic and Economic Indicators ................................................. 11 Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves ..................................................... 14 Long-Term Debt and Liabilities ............................................................. 21 Net Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) Liabilities ...... 28 Capital Assets ........................................................................................ 33 Recommendations and Management Response ..................................... 37 Methodology and Statement of Compliance .......................................... 39 Appendix I. Enterprise Funds ................................................................ 44

Introduction
This audit provides Berkeley residents, businesses, city management, and public officials with a high- level overview of the City’s long-term financial condition over 10 fiscal years (FY), from FY 2012 to FY 2021. By broadening the scope of financial reporting to incorporate long-term financial trends, financial condition analysis can introduce long-term considerations into the budgeting process, clarify the City’s fiscal strengths and weaknesses, and help highlight financial risks that the City needs to address. This report is designed to be easy to understand for readers without a background in finance.

Overall, Berkeley’s near-term financial outlook is strong. However, in the long term, Berkeley faces difficult decisions related to future costs for employee pensions, other post-employment benefits (OPEB), and capital assets. Due to Berkeley’s strong near-term financial condition, the City was able to address recent unexpected declines in revenues. In coming years, it will be important for the City to balance its near-term needs and long-term financial obligations.

Throughout the report, we compared some of Berkeley’s financial indicators to other California cities with similar characteristics. Across almost all financial indicators that we benchmarked to peer cities, Berkeley is not an outlier and ranks at or near the middle of the range.

Introduction Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 2 Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Our objective was to assess Berkeley’s financial condition using financial indicators for the following categories:

1. Revenues and Expenses

2. Demographic and Economic Indicators

3. Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves

4. Long-Term Debt and Liabilities

5. Unfunded Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) Liabilities

6. Capital Assets
To meet our objective, we relied mainly on data from Berkeley’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFRs).1 For some indicators, we also analyzed other sources of city financial data. Where appropriate, we adjusted financial indicators for inflation using the Bay Area Consumer Price Index calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to express values in 2021 dollars. We note where our findings are adjusted for inflation. We examined Berkeley’s financial data for the past 10 fiscal years, from FY 2012 to FY 2021, except for a few indicators for which data was only available for limited years.

We used financial indicators included in the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) Evaluating Financial Condition handbook for local governments. Additionally, we used one indicator developed by the California State Auditor’s Office for their Fiscal Health of California Cities dashboard2 as well as indicators used by peer cities in their financial condition audits. We do not provide an in-depth analysis of causes and impact, but we point out areas of financial risk for the City to evaluate further.

To better understand how some of Berkeley’s financial indicators compared to peer cities, we benchmarked to California cities with some similar economic and social factors such as population, general fund expenditures per resident, services provided, and presence of a large university. We selected Davis, Long Beach, Oakland, Pasadena, Santa Clara, and Santa Monica because these cities are similar to Berkeley across one or more criteria. Due to variation in availability of comparison cities’ FY 2021 ACFRs, we used FY 2020 data for the comparisons.

For more information on our methodology and data reliability assessment, see page 39.

1 Berkeley’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports are available on the Department of Finance website:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/financial-information/financial-reports-and-policies 2 Fiscal Health of California Cities: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/dashboard-csa

Background Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 3 Background
According to the ICMA, a government’s financial condition broadly refers to its ability to finance its services on an ongoing basis. Financial condition also refers to a government’s ability to maintain current service levels, withstand unexpected economic downturns, and meet the changing needs of residents.

This audit considers Berkeley’s many unique characteristics. Berkeley has the highest population density of any city in the East Bay. Berkeley’s economy is shaped by the presence of the University of California, Berkeley campus, the high assessed value of property, relatively high personal income per capita, and a diverse tax base. The City provides residents a full range of services beyond those offered by most similarly-sized cities in California. The City offers its own public safety services; sanitation, sewer, and waste management services; parks, recreation, and the Berkeley Marina; health, housing, and community services, including city-funded health clinics and mental health services; animal control; public improvements; planning and zoning; general and administrative services; and library services. Berkeley is also a relatively older city and faces inherent challenges with aging infrastructure.

Financial Reporting Terms
Governmental and Business-Type Activities. Governmental activities are government functions that are supported mostly by taxes and intergovernmental revenues. Governmental activities fund city operations serving all Berkeley residents, including general government, public safety, transportation, community development, and culture and leisure. Business-type activities are the programs that operate like businesses, and are intended to cover all or a significant portion of their costs with user fees and charges for service. Examples of business-type activities include the Berkeley Marina, Zero Waste services, and the Permit Service Center. These services are supported by enterprise funds established to finance and account for the operation and maintenance of business-type activities. This audit report discusses business-type activities but mainly focuses on governmental activities.

Governmental Funds. For financial reporting purposes, most of the City’s basic services are reported in its various governmental funds. The General Fund is the largest of all governmental funds and is the City’s primary operating fund which pays for general services provided by the City. Other governmental funds include the General Grants Fund, the Library Fund, and the Capital Improvement Fund that are designated for specific purposes.

Background Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 4 Financial Policies
City Council has developed guidelines to inform the budgeting process, and the Department of Finance has developed citywide financial management policies. An in-depth analysis of the City’s compliance with fiscal policies was outside of the scope of this audit.

Council Guidelines:

1. Focusing on the long-term fiscal health of the City by adopting a two-year budget and conducting multi-year planning;

2. Building a prudent reserve;

3. Developing long-term strategies to reduce unfunded liabilities;

4. Controlling labor costs while minimizing layoffs;

5. Allocating one-time revenue for one-time expenses;

6. Requiring enterprise and grant funds to balance and new programs to pay for themselves;

7. Requiring new revenue or expenditure reductions along with any new expenditure;

8. Using Transfer Tax in excess of $12.5 million as one-time revenue for the City’s capital infrastructure needs;

9. As the General Fund subsidy to the Safety Members Pension Fund declines over the next several years, using the amount of the annual decrease to help fund the new Police Employee Retiree Health Plan; and

10. Allocating short-term rental tax revenues exceeding the amount needed to pay for staffing to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (66.7 percent) and the Civic Arts Grant Fund (33.3 percent).

Citywide Financial Management Policies:3

1. Investment Policy: Pooled Cash and Investment Policy

2. Investment Policy: Retiree Medical Plan Trust Funds

3. Debt Management and Disclosure Policy

4. General Fund Reserve Policy

5. With regard to spending, the City’s policy is to spend restricted fund balances before spending unrestricted fund balances. This refers to expenditures incurred for which both restricted and unrestricted funds are available, and excludes cases in which a city ordinance or resolution specifies the fund balance.
3 The City’s policies related to investment, Retiree Medical Plan Trust funds, reserves, and debt management are available on the Finance Department’s webpage: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/financial- information/financial-reports-and-policies

Revenues and Expenses Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 5 Revenues and Expenses
Revenues
Revenues refer to money available for appropriation during the fiscal year, including the money the City receives over the course of the year (new revenues) and balances carried over from prior years.

Revenues determine the City’s capacity to provide services. Ideally, revenues should come from stable and diverse sources, and should grow at the same rate or faster than inflation and expenses.

Where do revenues for Berkeley’s governmental activities come from? Taxes make up the majority of revenues used to fund governmental activities. In FY 2021, the largest source of revenues was property taxes. State and local taxes were the second largest source (Figure 1).

Some of the City’s tax revenues are set by other jurisdictions, which limits the City’s ability to increase those taxes. For example, the City receives only 32.6 percent of Real Property Tax revenues collected by Alameda County. The rest is distributed between the county, schools, and special districts.

Figure 1. Revenues for Governmental Activities by Source, FY 2021

Note: “Other” includes revenues from contributions not restricted to specific programs, revenues (or losses) from the gain or loss on the sale of capital assets, miscellaneous revenues, and revenues from other unrestricted state subventions.

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR
Of all revenue streams, revenues from property taxes grew the most between FY 2012 and FY 2021, adjusted for inflation (Figure 2). Revenues from charges for services declined the most between FY 2012 and FY 2021.

Charges for Service
7%
Operating/Capital
Grants and
Contributions
16%
Investment Earnings
2%
Other
1%
Property Taxes
51%
State and Local
Taxes
23%

Revenues and Expenses Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 6 Figure 2. Revenues for Governmental Activities by Source (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Note: “Other” includes revenues from contributions not restricted to specific programs, revenues (or losses) from the gain or loss on the sale of capital assets, miscellaneous revenues, and revenues from other unrestricted state subventions.

Source: Berkeley ACFRs
For every dollar of property tax revenue the City received in FY 2021, a portion was designated to general purposes, library services, city parks, debt service for voter-approved bond measures,4 fire department services, and paramedic services (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Breakdown of Berkeley’s Property Tax Revenues, FY 2021

General Purposes
69¢
Library
11¢
Parks
8¢
Debt
Service
7¢
Fire
3¢
Paramedic
2¢
Note: Figure 3 represents the portion of property taxes the City received, and does not account for taxes allocated to other jurisdictions.

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR

4 Bond measures include Measure FF, Measure M, Measure T1, Measure O, and Refunding Bonds. $125.6
$67.2
$46.0 $38.2
$3.6 $5.0
$183.0
$83.4
$55.7
$25.7
$7.9 $2.4
Property Taxes State and Local
Taxes
Operating/Capital
Grants and
Contributions
Charges for Service Investment
Earnings
Other
FY 2012 (adjusted for inflation) FY 2021

Revenues and Expenses Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 7 Governmental activities revenues increased by 25 percent.

When adjusted for inflation, governmental activities revenues increased by 25 percent, from $285.6 million in FY 2012 to $358.0 million in FY 2021. Business-type revenues increased by 23 percent, from $95.8 million to $117.5 million (Figure 4). The City’s total revenues grew by 25 percent.

Figure 4. Revenues (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Berkeley ACFRs
According to ICMA, as the population of a city increases, revenues should grow proportionately, resulting in near constant revenues per resident over time. A decline in revenues per resident would suggest that the City is unable to maintain service levels using existing revenues, but Berkeley’s governmental activities revenues per resident have increased by 23 percent since FY 2012, adjusted for inflation.

Compared to benchmark cities, Berkeley's governmental activities revenues per resident were in the middle of the range at $2,756 per resident (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Revenues for Governmental Activities per Resident, FY 2020

Source: Cities’ FY 2020 ACFRs

$285.6 $286.7 $297.6 $281.3 $305.7 $317.7 $319.6
$353.5 $348.5 $358.0
$95.8 $97.0 $103.1 $112.2 $111.5 $116.1 $120.0 $125.6 $125.6 $117.5 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Governmental Activities Revenues
Business-Type Activities Revenues
$4,951
$2,879
$2,757
$2,756
$2,262
$1,889
$1,210
Santa Monica
Oakland
Pasadena
Berkeley
Santa Clara
Long Beach
Davis

Revenues and Expenses Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 8 UC Berkeley has provided economic stability and revenue.

Berkeley is home to the main campus of the University of California (UC Berkeley), which provides a high degree of economic stability for the City. During the audit period, UC Berkeley brought an average of about 40,000 students to Berkeley each year. It was also one of the City’s largest employers, employing an average of about 14,000 people each year. UC Berkeley students, employees, and visitors contribute to the local economy, though the COVID-19 pandemic caused UC Berkeley to temporarily stop in-person classes. Additionally, UC Berkeley has spurred growth in the technology and biotechnology sectors, which contribute to the diversity of the City’s economy and helped lessen the economic impacts of the pandemic. The university presence also generates expenses for the City of Berkeley. In 2021, UC Berkeley agreed to pay the City $82.6 million over 16 years to support city expenses, including fire and other city services.

Expenses
Expenses refer to money the City records as spent each year. Expenses are a rough measure of the City’s service output. Generally, the more services a city provides, the greater the city’s expenses. Expense growth rates are a critical measurement of a city’s ability to operate within its revenue constraints.

What does Berkeley spend on governmental activities?
In FY 2021, public safety, culture and recreation, and health and welfare represented the City’s largest expenses by function (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Expenses for Governmental Activities by Function, FY 2021

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR

General Government
11%
Public Safety
44%
Highways and
Streets
5%
Health and Welfare
12%
Culture and Recreation
15%
Community Development and
Housing
10%
Economic Development
2%
Interest on Long-Term Debt
2%

Revenues and Expenses Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 9 The largest increase in spending for governmental activities was for public safety.

Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the city functions with the largest increases in spending were public safety and health and welfare, when adjusted for inflation. Conversely, spending on highways and streets and general government decreased (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Expenses for Governmental Activities by Function (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Berkeley ACFRs
Governmental activities expenses increased by 20 percent.

Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, governmental activities expenses increased by 20 percent from $284.2 million to $341.4 million, adjusted for inflation. Expenses for business-type activities increased by 10 percent from $94.5 million to $104.2 million (Figure 8). The City’s total expenses grew by 18 percent.

Figure 8. Expenses (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Berkeley ACFRs
According to ICMA, because personnel costs are a major portion of a local government’s operating budget, tracking changes in the number of employees per capita is a good way to measure changes in costs. Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the number of full-time equivalent employees per 1,000 residents increased slightly from 13.4 to 13.9, as shown in Figure 9. $121.0
$45.3 $38.6 $25.2 $25.1 $19.0 $4.7 $5.3
$149.2
$52.0 $38.0 $41.6 $32.8 $16.7 $5.6 $5.5
Public Safety Culture and
Recreation
General
Government
Health and
Welfare
Community
Development
and Housing
Highways
and Streets
Economic
Development
Long-Term
Debt Interest
FY 2012 (adjusted for inflation) FY 2021
$284.2 $274.8 $273.2 $284.8 $284.0 $272.5
$317.7 $337.1 $362.3 $341.4
$94.5 $94.5 $92.2 $93.0 $89.3 $98.1 $101.2 $110.4 $111.7 $104.2 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Business-type Activities Expenses
Governmental Activities Expenses

Revenues and Expenses Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 10 Figure 9. Full-Time Equivalent City Employees per 1,000 Residents

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR
The City’s governmental activities revenues generally outpaced expenses.

According to ICMA, it is important to track whether governmental expenses grow faster than revenues to ensure that the City is able to fund all of its programs and services at the current level. Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, revenues for governmental activities exceeded expenses eight out of ten years (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Governmental Activities Revenues and Expenses (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Berkeley ACFRs
Governmental activities expenses exceeded revenues by the greatest amount in FY 2020, when the City issued the COVID-19 Risk Reduction Order. Expenses related to governmental activities exceeded diminished revenues by $13.7 million, adjusted for inflation. To address the revenue shortfall in FY 2021, the City took a number of actions including a hiring freeze, delaying spending on capital, reducing non-personnel expenditures, drawing on emergency reserves, reducing transfers to internal service funds, and suspending the Council policy to allocate Property Transfer Tax revenues in excess of $12.5 million to the Capital Improvement Fund.

13.4 12.8 11.3 11.1 11.1 11.2 11.5 12.6 13.2 13.9
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 $285.6 $286.7 $297.6
$281.3
$305.7 $317.7 $319.6
$353.5
$348.5
$358.0
$284.2 $274.8 $273.2
$284.8
$284.0 $272.5
$317.7 $337.1
$362.3
$341.4
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Governmental revenues exceeded
governmental expenses for all years surveyed
except for FY 2015 and FY 2020.

Revenues
Expenses

Demographic and Economic Indicators Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 11 Demographic and Economic Indicators
Demographic and economic factors such as population, personal income, and taxable assessed property values reflect the strength of the City’s tax base and residents’ overall ability to contribute to city revenues through taxes. Similarly, the unemployment rate sheds light on the local economy and the strength of the City’s revenue base. These factors also affect the types of city services the community needs.

Population
For the most part, Berkeley’s population increased during the audit period. However, in fiscal years 2020 and 2021, the population declined (Figure 11). This decrease coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and may be due to temporary relocation of students or other Berkeley residents.

Figure 11. Population

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR
The City’s Unemployment rate improved in FY 2021.

The City’s unemployment rate reflects changes in personal income, which affect the community’s ability to generate tax revenues. Berkeley’s unemployment rate declined from 9.0 percent in FY 2012 following the 2007-2009 recession to 3.1 percent in FY 2019. By FY 2020, the City’s unemployment rate increased to 13.5 percent. This spike in unemployment is due to the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in March 2020 and risk reduction orders that limited economic activity. Unemployment is expected to decrease as the economy recovers. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), Berkeley’s unemployment rate in June 2021 was 5.5 percent, a sign of economic recovery. For comparison, the Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley metropolitan area unemployment rate as of June 2021 was 6.8 percent.

114,821 115,716 117,372 118,853 119,915 121,238 121,874 123,328 122,580 116,761
100,000
105,000
110,000
115,000
120,000
125,000
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Demographic and Economic Indicators Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 12 Personal income per resident has grown since FY 2012.

Personal income per resident is a key component of a City’s financial condition because it is a measure of a community’s ability to pay taxes. Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the average personal income of Berkeley residents increased 11 percent from $45,794 per resident to $50,619 per resident, adjusted for inflation.

In FY 2020, Berkeley’s personal income per resident was higher than all but one benchmark city (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Personal Income per Resident, FY 2020

Note: Oakland’s 2020 ACFR uses a personal income figure based on the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metropolitan Statistical Area. We used the most recent census data available to estimate Oakland’s personal income per resident.

Source: Cities’ FY 2020 ACFRs, Santa Monica FY 2021 ACFR, U.S. Census Bureau Property values have been a strong and growing source of city revenues.

Property values are integral to Berkeley’s overall financial health. Growth in taxable assessed property value corresponds to growth in property tax revenues because property taxes are based on a percentage of the assessed value of property.

Berkeley has benefited from growing taxable assessed property values. Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the assessed value of taxable property in Berkeley increased by 32 percent, from $16.2 billion to $21.3 billion, adjusted for inflation (Figure 13).
$66,684
$48,229
$47,868
$46,407
$44,181
$42,079
$41,828
Santa Monica
Berkeley
Santa Clara
Oakland
Pasadena
Long Beach
Davis

Demographic and Economic Indicators Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 13 Figure 13. Total Taxable Assessed Property Value (in billions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR
Berkeley’s taxable assessed property values did not decrease during the 2007-2009 recession nor the COVID-19 pandemic, which suggests that Berkeley’s taxable assessed property values have been generally less affected by economic downturns than some other cities. Additionally, Berkeley has a high collection rate for property taxes. Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the collection rate for taxes levied on property fluctuated between 97 percent and 99 percent.

$16.2 $16.2 $16.7 $17.0 $17.8 $18.2 $18.8 $19.5 $20.4 $21.3 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 14 Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves
Net position measures the difference between the City’s assets (what it owns) and its liabilities (what it owes). Net position reflects a government’s financial condition at a point in time, and can be thought of as the City’s remaining resources after its debts are accounted for.

Liquidity measures a government’s ability to balance its budget and pay its bills on time. It generally refers to the City’s cash position, which includes cash on hand and in the bank, as well as other assets that can easily be converted into cash. Liquidity tells us about the City’s ability to pay its short-term obligations, while net position represents a longer-term view of the City’s financial condition because it includes assets not easily converted into cash. These concepts are connected because declining or low liquidity, or a cash shortage, may be the first sign that a government has overextended itself in the long run.

Reserves are funds set aside for future use and are built through the accumulation of operating surpluses. Strong reserves allow cities to weather economic downturns more effectively, manage the consequences of outside agency actions that may result in revenue reductions, and address unexpected emergencies like natural disasters and other catastrophic events such as pandemics.

The City’s net position related to governmental activities has been negative due to unfunded liabilities.

Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, Berkeley’s net position related to governmental activities changed from $311.7 million to -$101.7 million, adjusted for inflation (Figure 14). In FY 2015, a change in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) standards required government entities to report the total long-term cost of pension benefits as a liability in their annual financial reports. In FY 2018, another change in GASB accounting standards required government entities to also report the total long-term cost of other post-employment benefits (OPEB) as a liability in their annual financial reports.

As a result of these changes in standards, Berkeley's reported net position declined significantly in those years.

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 15 Figure 14. Net Position (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Berkeley ACFRs
The accounting standards that changed in fiscal years 2015 and 2018 did not materially alter the City’s financial condition. Rather, the City started including its pension and OPEB liabilities in its net position calculations in the ACFR. The City’s net position will likely remain negative in coming years if the City’s unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities continue to grow. Pension and OPEB liabilities are covered in more depth starting on page 28.

Berkeley’s liquidity ratio is strong, but has declined since FY 2018.

The liquidity ratio, otherwise known as cash position, measures the City's ability to pay its short-term obligations. According to ICMA, the ratio is calculated by dividing cash and short-term investments (assets that can be easily converted to cash) by current liabilities (short-term obligations). A liquidity ratio of greater than one would indicate that cash and short-term investments exceed current liabilities.

A ratio of one or less than one would be considered a cause for concern, particularly if this trend persists for more than three years.

Overall, Berkeley's liquidity ratio has remained positive from FY 2012 to FY 2021. Berkeley’s liquidity ratio more than doubled from FY 2012 to FY 2018, then began to decline, from 5.9 in FY 2018 to 1.7 in FY 2021 (Figure 15).
$311.7 $317.2 $333.8
-$140.5 -$115.3 -$70.5
-$132.5 -$108.0
-$120.9
-$101.7
$211.0 $206.4 $209.6
$147.5 $166.0 $176.5 $180.9 $185.3 $201.4 $210.4
-$200
-$100
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Business-Type Activities
Governmental Activities
Changes in 2015 and 2018 net position were largely due
changes in accounting reporting standards.

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 16 Figure 15. Liquidity Ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities

Source: Berkeley ACFRs
According to the Department of Finance, the recent decline in the liquidity ratio is partly due to setting aside funds for reserves and a recent influx of federal funding. The City established reserves in FY 2017, which restricted a portion of funds and reduced the amount of available cash. Additionally, in FY 2021, the City received $33.3 million in federal aid through the American Rescue Plan, which was accounted for as an unearned revenue liability.

While the decrease in the liquidity ratio since FY 2017 suggests that Berkeley's capacity to pay its bills in the short-term has declined over time, the liquidity ratio does not capture all of the funds the City has to pay its bills.

The COVID-19 pandemic slowed the City’s progress toward its 2027 reserve funding goal.

In FY 2017, the City created the Catastrophic Reserve and the Stability Reserve following a city audit of the General Fund reserve policy. The Catastrophic Reserve is intended to support General Fund operations in the event of a public emergency defined as extreme, one-time events, such as an earthquake, fire, flood, civil unrest, terrorist attack, public health emergencies, and pandemics. The Stability Reserve is intended to help the City maintain services and reduce financial risks associated with unexpected revenue shortfalls during a single fiscal year or prolonged period of recession.

Based on current trends, the City is not on track to meet the reserve balance goal of 30 percent of General Fund revenues by FY 2027 as set by the City’s reserve policy. As shown in Figure 16, the City was meeting its reserve goals in FY 2017 through FY 2019. However, the City fell off track in FY 2020 because it borrowed from both reserves to balance a General Fund deficit caused by the impact of COVID-19 on city revenues.

2.6 3.5 3.6 4.0 4.5

5.6 5.9

4.8 3.0

1.7 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 17 Figure 16. Actual Reserves Compared to Reserve Goal

Note: The graph does not represent the policy's intermediate goal of 16.7 percent because the purpose is to show a possible path from the start of the reserves to the long-term goal.

Source: Year-End Results and First Quarter Budget Update Reports To cover the General Fund deficit, the City borrowed $6.9 million from the Stability Reserve and $4.5 million from the Catastrophic Reserve. The City repaid $3.3 million dollars in FY 2021. The City does not currently have a plan for how to meet its FY 2027 reserve goal.

The General Fund reserve policy states that City Council may consider increasing or lowering the level of reserves based on a risk assessment to be updated at least every five years. Since the reserves were established in FY 2017, the first risk assessment would be due in FY 2022.

All of the City’s enterprise funds faced at least one annual shortfall between FY 2016 and FY 2021.

Business-type activities include the City’s enterprise funds. Enterprise funds are funds that the City uses to account for the operation and maintenance of facilities and services, and are mainly supported by user charges.

The City’s budgets provide summaries of fund balances for all enterprise funds except for Building Purchases and Management.5 The City Council’s current policy states that enterprise funds are required to balance. Fund balances are the net of expenditures and revenues. For a fund to be considered balanced, revenues should be equal to or greater than expenditures.

5 Ending fund balances for fiscal years 2016 through 2020 reflect actuals, while the ending fund balance for FY 2021 reflects the adopted budget amount from the FY 2022 budget. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
FY
2027
Actual reserves as percentage of General Fund revenues
Reserve policy goal
FY 2027
Goal: 30%
Reserve funds used to cover budget
shortfall due to COVID-19

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 18 This section presents an overview of summaries from city budgets. A detailed analysis of individual enterprise funds was outside of the scope of this audit. For an overview of the City’s enterprise funds, see Appendix I.

The Permit Service Center Fund has faced annual shortfalls in three of the most recent six years (Table 1). The fund's recovery will depend on economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 1. Permit Service Center Fund Balance, FY 2016 - FY 2021 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Beginning Balance $12,617,224 $11,233,859 $11,516,323 $12,777,977 $12,643,651 $15,398,407 Ending Balance $11,233,859 $11,516,329 $12,777,853 $12,643,651 $15,398,407 $12,070,511 Surplus/(Shortfall) ($1,383,365) $282,470 $1,261,530 ($134,326) $2,754,756 ($3,327,896) Source: Berkeley’s budgets
The Sanitary Sewer Fund has faced annual shortfalls in two of the most recent six years (Table 2).

Factors that contribute to depressed revenues include drought conditions and water conservation efforts. Additionally, the upcoming Sanitary Sewer Master Plan will determine if future rate increases are needed.

Table 2. Sanitary Sewer Fund Balance, FY 2016 - FY 2021 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Beginning Balance $7,897,389 $5,309,962 $9,203,590 $13,203,977 $26,027,896 $25,918,159 Ending Balance $5,309,962 $9,203,575 $13,203,975 $26,027,896 $25,918,159 $29,898,141 Surplus/(Shortfall) ($2,587,427) $3,893,613 $4,000,385 $12,823,919 ($109,737) $3,979,982 Source: Berkeley’s budgets
The Zero Waste Fund faced one annual shortfall in FY 2021 (Table 3). A rate study is in progress to determine if increases are needed moving forward.

Table 3. Zero Waste Fund Balance, FY 2016 - FY 2021
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Beginning Balance $5,566,976 $11,403,226 $13,664,122 $17,677,642 $20,079,053 $24,358,287 Ending Balance $11,403,226 $13,677,397 $17,677,654 $20,079,053 $24,358,287 $22,996,702 Surplus/(Shortfall) $5,836,250 $2,274,171 $4,013,532 $2,401,411 $4,279,234 ($1,361,585) Source: Berkeley’s budgets
The Parking Meter Fund has faced annual shortfalls in two of the most recent six years (Table 4). The pandemic had an immediate and severe impact on parking meter revenues. Fund recovery will depend on the length of the pandemic and economic recovery.

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 19 Table 4. Parking Meter Fund Balance, FY 2016 - FY 2021 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Beginning Balance $5,241,583 $5,379,078 $5,683,946 $3,270,420 $4,990,946 $3,208,091 Ending Balance $5,379,078 $5,683,942 $3,270,432 $4,990,946 $3,208,091 $4,629,330 Surplus/(Shortfall) $137,495 $304,864 ($2,413,514) $1,720,526 ($1,782,855) $1,421,239 Source: Berkeley’s budgets
The Marina Fund faced annual shortfalls in three of the most recent six years (Table 5). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly worsened the fund's revenue outlook, as lease revenues from hotel, restaurant, and commercial tenants greatly decreased.

Table 5. Marina Fund Balance, FY 2016 - FY 2021
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Beginning Balance $2,709,368 $3,640,031 $3,998,848 $3,058,152 $3,503,847 $3,151,777 Ending Balance $3,640,031 $3,999,406 $3,058,161 $3,503,847 $3,151,777 $2,597,486 Surplus/(Shortfall) $930,663 $359,375 ($940,687) $445,695 ($352,070) ($554,291) Source: Berkeley’s budgets
The Off-Street Parking Fund faced annual shortfalls in two of the three most recent years (Table 6). The Center Street garage reopened in FY 2019 after two years of construction and was subsequently impacted by revenues losses associated with the pandemic. Fund recovery will depend on the length of the pandemic and economic recovery.

Table 6. Off-Street Parking Fund Balance, FY 2016 - FY 2021 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
Beginning Balance missing missing missing $9,342,477 $2,235,776 ($1,215,101) Ending Balance missing missing missing $2,235,776 ($1,215,101) ($106,157) Surplus/(Shortfall) missing missing missing ($7,106,701) ($3,450,877) $1,108,944 Source: Berkeley’s budgets
In fiscal years 2020 and 2021, the Off-Street Parking Fund was unable to balance, as reflected in the negative ending fund balance (Table 6). According to the Budget Office, if a shortfall exists, revenues can be supplemented with the existing fund balance, and if funds are unable to balance, they become a General Fund liability. The Budget Office stated that they work with departments that manage enterprise funds during the budget process and throughout the year to ensure the funds do not face recurring shortfalls. However, the City does not have a policy outlining the target fund balance necessary to balance enterprise funds and avoid recurring annual shortfalls. Without targets, it is difficult to assess the financial condition of each enterprise fund.

Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 20 Recommendations

1.1 To better prepare the City for unforeseen economic challenges, we recommend that the City Manager complete the risk assessment required by the City’s reserve policy as scheduled and propose to the City Council a plan to replenish the Stability and Catastrophic Reserves based on the results of the assessment. This may include revising the funding goal for 2027 to align with the City’s financial reality and projected risk level.

1.2 To ensure the City’s enterprise funds can balance and avoid recurring annual shortfalls, we recommend the City Manager assess the appropriate fund balance for each of the City’s enterprise funds, report findings to the City Council and explore financial policy options to manage enterprise fund balances.

Long-Term Debt and Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 21 Long-Term Debt and Liabilities
Not Including Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit Liabilities Why do local governments take on long-term debt?
Debt financing can be a reasonable strategy for local governments, as it allows cities to borrow to pay for large infrastructure initiatives. Additionally, since infrastructure like streets and public buildings are used over multiple decades, borrowing spreads the cost burden over time so that taxpayers who will benefit from the asset now and in the future can help pay for it.

While financing projects through debt spreads costs over time, it commits the City to pay fixed debt service6 costs for many years. Decisions around debt also affect the Berkeley community. Debt impacts homeowners and businesses who pay the cost of debt through taxes on property and renters who may face higher rents passed down as a result of increased taxes on property. Like many financial decisions local governments make, issuing long-term debt requires a careful review of tradeoffs. For Berkeley, unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs are an important consideration, as deferred investments in infrastructure assets can mean higher costs down the line.

What are long-term liabilities?
An accounting liability is an obligation to make a payment in the future as a result of a past event.

Long-term liabilities include debts, in addition to other long-term obligations like accrued vacation and sick leave, accrued workers’ compensation claims and judgments, and accrued public liability claims and judgments. Long-term liabilities can include unfunded pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB), but they are not included in this section and instead covered in depth on page 28.

Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the City’s total long-term liabilities (excluding pension and OPEB) increased from $197.5 million to $270.0 million, adjusted for inflation (Figure 17).

6 Debt service is the set of payments including principal and interest that is required to be made through the life of the debt.

Long-Term Debt and Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 22 Figure 17. Governmental Activities Long-Term Liabilities (in millions, adjusted for inflation)
Source: Berkeley ACFRs
Compared to benchmark cities, Berkeley is not an outlier. Cities’ total long-term liabilities for governmental activities ranged from $88 per resident to $3,008 per resident in FY 2020. Berkeley’s long-term liabilities were in the middle of that range at $1,858 per resident (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Governmental Activities Long-Term Liabilities per Resident, FY 2020

Source: Cities’ FY 2020 ACFRs
Debt by Type
The City has a variety of debt instruments used primarily to finance acquisition and construction of capital facilities projects and equipment needs. Ninety-one percent of Berkeley’s debt comes from general obligation bonds (Figure 19). These are bond measures that must have at least two-thirds voter approval to pass. The City’s current general obligation bonds include Measure T1, a loan to fund infrastructure and facilities; Measure M, a loan to fund street paving and greening infrastructure projects; and Measure O, a loan to fund low income housing. The remaining nine percent of Berkeley’s debt comes from revenue bonds, capital leases, and loans payable (Figure 19). $88
$428
$1,772
$1,858
$2,253
$2,627
$3,008
Davis
Santa Clara
Pasadena
Berkeley
Long Beach
Oakland
Santa Monica
$197.5
$187.7
$193.6
$181.2
$181.2
$180.8
$207.4
$199.0
$235.0
$270.0
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Long-Term Debt and Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 23 Figure 19. Governmental Activities Debt by Type, FY 2021

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR
Berkeley’s general obligation bond ratings have been consistently favorable and improved in FY 2019.

The City's overall debt standing is reflected in its strong bond ratings. Bond ratings issued by credit agencies are a measure of the certainty that the City will pay all interest and principal owed to investors.

The higher the bond rating, the lower the cost of borrowing; the lower the cost of borrowing, the more savings the City can pass on to taxpayers. The City's general obligation bond ratings from Standard and Poor's remained at its second highest rating of AA+ over the audit period. The City's general obligation bond ratings from Moody's were Aa2, the third highest bond rating offered by Moody's, before they increased to Aa1 in FY 2019 (Table 7).

Table 7. Berkeley’s General Obligation Bond Ratings

FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
S&P's Rating AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+
Moody's Rating Aa2 Aa2 Aa2 Aa2 Aa2 Aa2 Aa2 Aa1 Aa1 Aa1
Source: Berkeley ACFRs
The City’s general obligation bond debt remained under one percent of taxable assessed property value.

In 2017, Berkeley established a debt policy that sets a debt capacity limit for its general obligation bonds at 15 percent of taxable assessed value of property. Over the audit period, the City’s general obligation bond debt has remained below one percent of taxable assessed property value (Figure 20), which is significantly lower than the City’s current threshold of 15 percent.

General
Obligation Bonds
$192.7 (91%)
Revenue Bonds
$8.4 (4%)
Capital Leases
$4.6 (2%)
Loans Payable
$6.2 (3%)

Long-Term Debt and Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 24 Figure 20. General Obligation Bond Debt as a Proportion of Taxable Assessed Property Value

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR
General obligation bond debt per resident has grown but payments for existing debt will peak in FY 2024.

Another way to track the burden of a City’s debt is through the change in debt per resident over time.

Most of Berkeley’s bonded debt comes from general obligation bonds. General obligation bond debt is repaid through taxes on property.

Since FY 2012, Berkeley voters have passed three general obligation bond measures authorizing the City to borrow a total of $265 million. Of that authorized $265 million, the City currently has $117 million in unissued debt for Measure T1 and Measure O that it plans to issue in the coming years, which will be added to the City’s total debt.

Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the City's general obligation bond debt per resident increased from $893 to $1,559 per resident, adjusted for inflation (Table 8).

0.63% 0.59% 0.65% 0.59% 0.56% 0.56% 0.68% 0.60% 0.72% 0.85% 15%
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Debt Limit in
Policy

Long-Term Debt and Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 25 Table 8. Outstanding General Obligation Debt per Resident (adjusted for inflation) Fiscal Year
General Obligation
Bonded Debt per
Resident
Debt Issued Bond Measure
2012 $ 893
2013 $ 830
2014 $ 920 $ 15,000,000 Measure M 2015 $ 850
2016 $ 832 $ 15,000,000 Measure M 2017 $ 848 $ 35,000,000 Measure T1 2018 $ 1,043
2019 $ 951
2020 $ 1,203 $ 38,000,000 Measure O 2021 $ 1,559 $ 45,000,000 Measure T1 Note: This figure does not include the $117 million authorized by voters but not yet issued by the City.

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Department of Finance data According to projections in the FY 2021 ACFR, the amount of debt service for existing debt will peak in 2024 and decline until it is paid off in 2052 (Table 9). Residents of Berkeley also face debt obligations from other jurisdictions not administered by the City, including three current general obligation bonds issued by the Berkeley Unified School District.

Long-Term Debt and Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 26 Table 9. Remaining Scheduled Debt Service on Outstanding General Obligation Debt (in millions)
Fiscal Year Scheduled Debt
Service

Fiscal Year

Scheduled Debt
Service
2022 $10.8 2038 $9.2
2023 $12.5 2039 $8.8
2024 $12.7 2040 $8.8
2025 $11.8 2041 $7.4
2026 $11.8 2042 $7.4
2027 $11.8 2043 $7.5
2028 $11.8 2044 $7.5
2029 $10.9 2045 $6.6
2030 $9.7 2046 $6.6
2031 $9.2 2047 $6.6
2032 $9.2 2048 $5.7
2033 $9.2 2049 $4.0
2034 $9.2 2050 $4.0
2035 $9.2 2051 $4.0
2036 $9.2 2052 $2.0
2037 $9.2
Note: This table represents a snapshot of the City’s debt service payments based on the amount of general obligation bond debt in FY 2021. This table does not include the $117 million in authorized general obligation bonds that the City plans to issue by 2026.

Source: Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR
According to the Finance Director, the City is planning to issue an additional $40 million in Measure O bonds in FY 2022. Once the City has issued this amount, the City will have a remaining balance of $77 million in unissued bond debt from Measure O and Measure T1. The City plans to issue this remaining authorized amount between FY 2024 and FY 2026. This additional debt will affect the amount of general obligation bond debt per resident and the schedule of future debt service payments.

The City’s limit for general obligation bond debt is set at 15 percent of total assessed property value.

As of FY 2021, the estimated total taxable assessed value of property in Berkeley was $21.3 billion. Since the City sets its threshold for general obligation bond debt at 15 percent of assessed property value, the most recent general obligation bond debt limit was $3.2 billion dollars. Based on the current policy, the City is permitted to borrow a remaining $3.0 billion dollars in addition to its current debt.

Long-Term Debt and Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 27 According to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), appropriate debt limits can have a positive impact on bond ratings, especially if they are adhered to over time. GFOA states that limits on debt can be set according to debt per capita, debt to personal income, debt to taxable property value, and debt service payments as a proportion of general fund revenues or expenditures. In its 2021 general obligation rating report, Standard and Poor’s noted the City has a basic debt policy that includes some quantitative limits but does not include robust quantitative measures or benchmarks. While Berkeley’s policy does consider the ratio of debt to taxable assessed value of property, it does not evaluate any additional factors used by some other cities to assess their debt capacity. For example, the City of Santa Monica’s general obligation debt limit is based on two of GFOA’s measures of affordability: debt per capita and debt as a percentage of assessed property value (Santa Monica sets this threshold at 10 percent). If Berkeley does not consider more robust quantitative metrics to assess its general obligation debt capacity, the City may overlook important considerations in determining a manageable level of debt.

Recommendations

2.1 To strengthen the City’s debt management, we recommend that the Finance Department update the Debt Management Policy. The Finance Department may consider revising its current general obligation bond threshold of 15 percent of assessed property value or building upon the City’s existing general obligation bond debt limit by considering additional debt capacity factors such as debt per capita, debt to personal income, and/or debt service payments as a proportion of General Fund revenues.

Net Pension and OPEB Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 28 Net Pension and Other Post-Employment
Benefit (OPEB) Liabilities
What is a net pension or OPEB liability?
Berkeley contributes to various employee retirement benefit plans including the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). These benefits are earned by employees each year to be paid out after they retire. If the estimated cost of benefits exceeds the value of the assets that have been set aside to pay for those benefits, a net pension or net OPEB liability exists. The net pension liability or net OPEB liability as reported in the City’s financial documents is the unfunded portion of the City’s total pension or OPEB liability, also referred to as an unfunded liability.

Pension and OPEB contributions can place significant pressure on a city’s budget. Additionally, some factors, such as yearly required contributions for CalPERS plans are set by CalPERS and are outside the City’s control, posing a widespread challenge for California cities. Cities that do not have substantial funds set aside today will likely face impacts to their credit rating and have to make higher contributions to plans later, which could limit funding for other priorities.

The City’s total unfunded liability for pension and OPEB commitments increased.

In total, the City’s unfunded liability for pension benefits and OPEB grew by 36 percent, from $567.4 million in FY 2012 to $773.1 million in FY 2021, adjusted for inflation (Figure 21).

Figure 21. Combined Net Pension and OPEB Liabilities (in millions, adjusted for inflation)
Source: Department of Finance data
$567.4
$666.2 $723.9
$623.4 $685.8 $723.0 $743.6 $721.6 $787.2 $773.1
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021

Net Pension and OPEB Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 29 Further, the City’s 2021 report on unfunded liability obligations and unfunded infrastructure needs (unfunded liability report) states that the City will face an estimated $42 million increase in pension costs over the next ten years.

Net Pension Liability
Berkeley has five defined benefit retirement plans. Defined benefit retirement plans include funds set aside over time by employees and their employer, and employees are guaranteed a certain amount of income upon retirement. Berkeley's three plans administered through the CalPERS are the Miscellaneous Plan, the Public Safety Fire Plan, and the Public Safety Police Plan. Berkeley also has two older city-sponsored plans that are closed to new members and being phased out: the Berkeley Retirement Income Benefit Plan7 and Safety Members Pension Plan.8 Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, the City's total net pension liability grew by 30 percent, from $506.9 million to $657.9 million, adjusted for inflation (Figure 22).

Figure 22. Net Pension Liability per Plan (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Department of Finance data
Decisions made by the CalPERS Board between FY 2012 and FY 2021 increased the City’s net pension liability and Berkeley’s required pension contribution amount. These included CalPERS ramping up required pension funding rates to improve cities’ chances of fully funding their plans within 30 years, as well as adopting new assumptions related to longer retiree lifespans and returns on investments.

7 The Berkeley Retirement Income Benefit Plan is a single -employer defined benefit pension plan offered to police employees with CalPERS pensions who retired with at least ten years of service on or after July 1, 1989 and before September 19, 2012. As of June 30, 2021, there were 147 remaining active employees covered by the plan. 8 The Safety Members Pension Fund is a single -employer defined benefit pension plan for fire and police officers that retired before March 1973. As of June 30, 2020, there were eight remainin g participants in the plan. $506.9
$594.0 $628.4
$533.3 $558.0
$609.6 $642.8 $613.5 $643.5 $657.9
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
Safety Members
Pension Plan
Berkeley Retirement
Income Benefit Plan
CalPERS Public
Safety Police Plan
CalPERS Public
Safety Fire Plan
CalPERS
Miscellaneous Plan

Net Pension and OPEB Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 30 Net OPEB Liability
In addition to pensions, the City has unfunded liabilities related to other post-employment benefits (OPEB), or earned compensation other than pensions provided to employees when they retire. In Berkeley, OPEB refers to retiree healthcare coverage.

Berkeley's net OPEB liability grew 91 percent between FY 2012 and FY 2021, from $60.4 million to $115.1 million, adjusted for inflation (Figure 23). According to the Director of Finance, Berkeley has paid less than its actuarially determined contributions for all of its OPEB plans since FY 2012.

Figure 23. Net OPEB Liability (in millions, adjusted for inflation)

Source: Department of Finance data
The California State Auditor considers Berkeley’s pension funded ratio to be high risk.

The pension funded ratio compares the City’s pension plan assets to its accrued pension liabilities. A funded ratio of 100 percent indicates that a city has set aside enough assets to pay for all pension benefits earned by its employees. If a city does not set aside adequate assets to fund its pension liability, its required contributions may become costlier in the future, which could impact its spending priorities down the line.

Based on the California State Auditor’s assessment, Berkeley’s pension funded ratio was considered high risk from FY 2017 to FY 2020, the years for which the California State Auditor has assessed this metric (Table 10).
$60.4
$72.2
$95.5 $90.1
$127.8
$113.5
$100.7 $108.1
$143.7
$115.1
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021

Net Pension and OPEB Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 31 Table 10. Berkeley’s Funded Ratio Risk Level, FY 2017 - FY 2020 Risk
Value of Pension Assets
Compared to Accrued
Pension Liabilities
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
High 0-70% 67% 67% 67% 66%
Moderate 71-80%
Low 81-100%
Source: California State Auditor’s Financial Health Dashboard The funded ratio of benchmark cities ranged from 63 percent to 78 percent in FY 2020. The funded ratio of Berkeley’s pension plans fell in the middle of that range at 66 percent (Figure 24).

Figure 24. Funded Ratio of Pension Plans, FY 2020
Source: California State Auditor’s Financial Health Dashboard The City has taken steps to increase pension funding.

Following a city audit of unfunded liabilities,9 the City authorized an IRS Section 115 Trust Fund (Trust) in FY 2018 to help pre-fund its pension obligations. The Trust acts as a rainy-day fund that allows the City to set aside resources restricted for payment of pension obligations and is intended to prepare for and partially offset increases in contributions in the coming years.10 When the City established the Trust in 2019, the City already had some funds set aside for employee retirement benefits, so there was a starting balance of $3.9 million. 9 Employee Benefits: Tough Decisions Ahead: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2010-11- 16_Item_13_Employee_Benefits_Tough_Decisions_Ahead-Auditor%281%29.pdf 10 According to the 2021 Unfunded Liabilities Report, employer contributions for the City’s three CalPERS pension plans fluctuate from year to year based on an annual actuarial valuation performed by CalPERS. The rate CalPERS comes up with is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. 78%
77%
75%
66%
66%
65%
63%
Long Beach
Santa Monica
Pasadena
Berkeley
Oakland
Davis
Santa Clara

Net Pension and OPEB Liabilities Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 32 The City has made contributions to the Trust on a yearly basis since FY 2019, but has fallen short of its goals in the last two fiscal years (Table 11).

Table 11. Contributions to the Section 115 Trust, FY 2019 - FY 2021 Fiscal Year
Actual
Contribution
Target
Contribution Difference
2019 $5,246,508 $4,000,000 $1,246,508
2020 $1,398,416 $5,500,000 ($4,101,584)
2021 $1,470,134 $5,500,000 ($4,029,866)
Source: Office of Budget and Fiscal Management data, May 14, 2019 staff report to City Council As of FY 2021, the Section 115 Trust balance was $12.1 million. The City is currently evaluating opportunities to invest more into the Trust, including by raising the Property Transfer Tax baseline by $2.5 million and allocating those funds to the Trust, and allocating savings generated by prefunding CalPERS plans to the Trust.

Recommendations

3.1 To maximize the benefit of the Section 115 Trust, we recommend that the City Manager present a plan for adoption by the City Council to assure sufficient contributions to the Trust. This may include taking the steps proposed by the Budget and Finance Committee to increase contributions to the Trust. It may also include a strategy to ensure that the City is able to meet its yearly contribution goals, such as allocating contributions at the beginning of the budget cycle.

Capital Assets Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 33 Capital Assets
How do the City’s capital assets impact its financial condition? Capital assets are assets that are used in city operations and have a life that extends beyond a single financial reporting period. Berkeley owns a wide range of capital assets, including public buildings, streets,11 sidewalks, sewers and storm drains, traffic signals, and parking infrastructure. The City’s responsibility for managing capital assets requires considerable resources and ongoing attention. As a relatively older city, Berkeley faces added challenges related to aging infrastructure. The City publishes a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that identifies anticipated financial needs over a five-year timeframe.

However, the City’s ability to fund the CIP is limited by its total available resources.12 If a city does not address regular maintenance on its capital assets, it can face deferred maintenance costs down the line. Addressing capital assets once their condition has severely deteriorated is often more expensive than regular preventative care or maintenance. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, regular maintenance of roads is five to ten times cheaper than allowing roads to fail and then paying for the necessary rehabilitation (Figure 25).

Figure 25. Pavement Maintenance Costs
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Pothole Report III 2018 11 This includes streets and roads as defined in the City’s FY 2017-FY 2021 reports on unfunded liability obligations and unfunded infrastructure needs.
12 Funding sources for the Capital Improvement Plan include: the General Fund, special revenue funds, Measure T1, enterprise funds such as Zero Waste, the Marina, Sanitary/Sewer, Clean Storm Water, and Parking Meter; internal service funds such as the Equipment Replacement Fund; and federal, state and local funds and grants.

Capital Assets Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 34 One way to track the status of capital assets is to examine growth in unfunded capital needs related to improving the condition of current assets and building or acquiring new assets. Similar to unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs refer to the gap between the funding needs and the funds available to address those needs. The City’s level of unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs reflect the adequacy of the City’s investment in this area over time. Without regular maintenance, the City accumulates large deferred maintenance costs required to improve the condition of its assets.

In FY 2012, the City Council adopted a resolution requiring the City Manager to develop and publish a biennial report of current liabilities and projections of future liabilities. The following section provides an overview of the City’s reporting on unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs.

The City reported $1.2 billion in unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs in FY 2021.

Berkeley’s unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs13 are growing. According to the City’s unfunded liability reports, since FY 2017, these costs have grown from $524 million to $1.2 billion, adjusted for inflation (Figure 26). The Department of Public Works has stated that the estimated $1.2 billion in current capital and deferred maintenance needs is an undercount, as many city priorities are not included in that figure. Since FY 2017, the greatest increase in capital and deferred maintenance needs has been for public buildings, which has increased by nearly 648 percent, from $37.8 million to $282.3 million when adjusted for inflation.
13 Capital and deferred maintenance needs refer to a broad range of necessary activities, including investment in new capital assets, improving existing capital assets, replacing existing capital assets, and repairing existing capital assets.

Capital Assets Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 35 Figure 26. Unfunded Capital and Deferred Maintenance Needs, FY 2017 - FY 2021 (adjusted for inflation)
Note: The figure includes data from FY 2017 to FY 2021 because compre hensive data was not available prior to FY 2017. We did not include IT-related assets due to incomplete data, but these costs would not significantly change the capital and deferred maintenance needs outlook. Unfunded needs for sidewalks are included in th e figure, but were only included as a separate asset category in the 2019 and 2021 reports. City staff update these estimates regularly.

Source: Berkeley’s unfunded liability reports
According to the City’s 2021 unfunded liability report, the key drivers of this growth in capital and deferred maintenance needs are aging infrastructure and limited resources allocated toward infrastructure. According to the Director of Public Works, other factors include new state mandates and surging material costs during the pandemic, and the $1.2 billion figure also reflects the City’s efforts to more comprehensively assess all of its assets. More recently, the City deferred some spending on capital to offset the FY 2021 budget shortfall due to COVID-19. Although Berkeley voters have passed a number of infrastructure bond measures detailed in the long-term debt section, Measures M, T1, and O were steps in the right direction, yet insufficient to meet the growing risk. As noted in our 2020 streets audit, Measure M funding was lower than the unfunded need previously estimated by the City Auditor. As a result, the condition of Berkeley streets remained at risk, and the funds did not reverse the growing trend of unmet street infrastructure needs.

FY 2017 FY 2019 FY 2021
Traffic Signals
Storm Drains
Sewers
Streets
Sidewalks
Public Buildings
Parks, Park Buildings,
Pools, Waterfront, and
Camps
$524 million
$1.2 billion

Capital Assets Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 36 The rapid rise in Berkeley’s unfunded capital asset needs suggests that the City has not allocated enough funding to adequately maintain key capital assets like public buildings, streets, and sidewalks.

This trend presents a serious risk to the City's long-term financial health if these needs continue to grow. The City’s streets in particular are projected to deteriorate further without a significant investment, leading to higher costs later.

In addition to rapid cost escalation, as capital and deferred maintenance needs grow, it may become more difficult for the City to balance providing services and paying for capital assets, especially if important infrastructure cannot function as intended. While a deeper analysis of the condition of the City’s capital assets and the factors that have contributed to the size of capital needs was outside of the scope of this audit, there is more detailed information about the current status, causes, and potential effects related to the City’s streets in our 2020 streets audit.14 The City is planning to take steps towards addressing the unfunded capital needs. One of the City’s Vision 205015 strategies to support more resilient and sustainable infrastructure will focus on addressing inadequate funding of infrastructure by introducing a new revenue source.16 In FY 2022, the City Council provided direction on the development of a significant revenue measure or measures focused on infrastructure, including streets and affordable housing. The Public Works Department is conducting community outreach to explore opportunities for revenue measures to offset the City’s unfunded capital and maintenance needs.17
Recommendations

4.1 To address rising costs for unmet capital needs, we recommend that the City Manager collaborate with the Department of Public Works to implement a funding plan aimed at 1) reducing the City’s unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs, and 2) ensuring regular maintenance of city assets to prevent excessive deferred maintenance costs in the future. This may include prioritizing capital assets that generate the highest deferred maintenance costs. 14 Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Rocky-Road-Berkeley-Streets-at-Risk-and-Significantly- Underfunded.pdf
15 According to the 2018 voter information guide, Vision 2050 is a 30 -year plan to ensure that the City has a long - range plan to achieve a more resilient and sustainable infrastructure system. 16 See the staff report from January 2022: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2022- 01-20%20Worksession%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pdf
17 The City is considering an infrastructure bond, a parcel tax, or a sales tax.

Recommendations and Management Response Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 37 Recommendations and Management
Response

1.1 To better prepare the City for unforeseen economic challenges, we recommend that the City Manager complete the risk assessment required by the City’s reserve policy as scheduled and propose to the City Council a plan to replenish the Stability and Catastrophic Reserves based on the results of the assessment. This may include revising the funding goal for 2027 to align with the City’s financial reality and projected risk level.

Management Response: Agree
Proposed Implementation Plan: The result of the assessment should drive the policy change if there is a need for it. Replenishing reserves should always be a top priority of both management and the City Council.

Proposed Implementation Date: January 1, 2023

1.2 To ensure the City’s enterprise funds can balance and avoid recurring annual shortfalls, we recommend the City Manager assess the appropriate fund balance or reserve level for each of the City’s enterprise funds, report findings to the City Council and explore reserve policy options for the enterprise funds.

Management Response: Agree
Proposed Implementation Plan: The City Manager, with collaboration with other departments including Public Works, PRW, Police, Planning, Finance, etc., will research and draft fund balance policies for department-managed enterprise funds.

Departments will also look to operationalize the costing of the services so that the enterprises can recoup the cost of the services provided.

Proposed Implementation Date: September 30, 2022

2.1 To strengthen the City’s debt management, we recommend that the Finance Department update the Debt Management Policy. The Finance Department may consider revising its current general obligation bond threshold of 15 percent of assessed property value or building upon the City’s existing general obligation bond debt limit by considering additional debt capacity factors such as debt per capita, debt to personal income, and/or debt service payments as a proportion of General Fund revenues.

Recommendations and Management Response Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 38 Management Response: Agree
Proposed Implementation Plan: The Finance Department will stress test the City’s debt threshold and come up with a more appropriate yardstick for determining capacity. The City has hired GFOA to review its debt capacity. The result of that study will be instrumental in determining the appropriate debt threshold.

Proposed Implementation Date: September 30, 2022

3.1 To maximize the benefit of the Section 115 Trust, we recommend that the City Manager present a plan for adoption by the City Council to assure sufficient contributions to the Trust.

This may include taking the steps proposed by the Budget and Finance Committee to increase contributions to the Trust. It may also include a strategy to ensure that the City is able to meet its yearly contribution goals, such as allocating contributions at the beginning of the budget cycle.

Management Response: Agree
Proposed Implementation Plan: Complete a long-term funding plan that can be integrated in the City’s budgetary process on an annual basis. The strategies should focus on sustainable funding mechanisms.

Proposed Implementation Date: August 31, 2022

4.1 To address rising costs for unmet capital needs, we recommend that the City Manager collaborate with the Department of Public Works to implement a funding plan aimed at 1) reducing the City’s unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs, and 2) ensuring regular maintenance of city assets to prevent excessive deferred maintenance costs in the future. This may include prioritizing capital assets that generate the highest deferred maintenance costs.

Management Response: Agree
Proposed Implementation Plan: Pursue/pass Vision 2050 revenue measures, commit existing funding resources towards priority capital maintenance needs, request in annual budgets an increase in baseline allocations to capital and deferred maintenance needs from the General Fund.

Proposed Implementation Date: Whether voters get the opportunity, and then approve, a November 2022 ballot measure or measures focused on infrastructure will drive future CIP development. Annual Capital Budgets would be adjusted in the mid- biennial budget adjustment – adopted by June 30, 2023.

Methodology and Statement of Compliance Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 39 Methodology and Statement of Compliance
Methodology
We used financial indicators included in the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) Evaluating Financial Condition handbook designed for local governments. Additionally, we used indicators developed by the California State Auditor’s Office for their Fiscal Health of California Cities dashboard18 as well as indicators used by peer cities in their financial condition audits.

We compared Berkeley’s financial data to other California cities that are similar across economic and social factors including population, general fund expenditures per resident, services provided, and presence of a large university. We selected Davis, Long Beach, Oakland, Pasadena, Santa Clara, and Santa Monica because these cities are most similar to Berkeley across these criteria. Where appropriate, we adjusted financial indicators for inflation using the Bay Area Consumer Price Index calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to express values in 2021 dollars.

To meet our objective, we reviewed the following:
• Berkeley’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFRs) • Budget Office reports (Unfunded Liability Obligations and Unfunded Infrastructure Needs reports, city budgets, and Year-End Results and First Quarter Budget Update reports) • City Auditor reports on General Fund reserves, COVID-19, employee benefits, and streets • City policies on reserves and debt management
• Santa Monica’s policy on general obligation bond debt • Council reports and presentations related to the City’s finances and financial reporting • Standard and Poor’s 2021 General Obligation bond rating report • Moody’s 2021 Annual Comment Report
18 Fiscal Health of California Cities: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/local_high_risk/dashboard-csa

Methodology and Statement of Compliance Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 40 We also conducted interviews with:
• The Director of Finance
• Staff from the Office of Budget and Fiscal Management responsible for overseeing the City’s budget and spending
• Public Works staff responsible for overseeing city spending on capital assets and financial management of Enterprise funds
• The City of Oakland Auditor’s Office
• The California State Auditor’s Office
• Staff at Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s credit rating agencies that prepared recent rating reports for Berkeley
• Staff at the City’s external financial auditing firm Badawi and Associates We analyzed financial data from the sources below. For all indicators we adjusted for inflation, we used the inflation factor as of June 2021 from the Consumer Price Index: San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Table, 2011-2021, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Report Sections and Indicators Sources
Revenues and Expenses
• Revenue by Source
• Property Tax Revenues
• Revenues (trends)
• Revenues per Resident
• UC Berkeley Revenues
• Revenues per Resident
(Benchmark)
• Expenses by Function
• Expenses (trends)
• Full-Time Equivalent
Employees per 1,000 residents
• Revenues and Expenses
(trends)
Revenue by Source
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 and FY 2021 ACFRs,
Government-wide Financial Statements, Statement of
Activities
Property Tax Revenues
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Government-wide Financial Statements, Statement of Activities
Revenues (trends)
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 – FY 2021 ACFRs, Government- wide Financial Statements, Statement of Activities
Revenue per Resident
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 – FY 2021 ACFRs, Government- wide Financial Statements, Statement of Activities; City of Berkeley 2021 ACFR, Statistical Section: Demographic and Economic Statistics
UC Berkeley Revenues
• University of California website; University of California Berkeley: Office of the Vice Chancellor website
Revenue per Resident (benchmark)
• City of Berkeley, Davis, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa
Clara, and Santa Monica FY 2020 ACFRs, Management’s
Discussion and Analysis – Statement of Activities Summary; Statistical Section: Demographic and Economic Statistics Expenses by Function
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 and FY 2021 ACFRs,
Government-wide Financial Statements, Statement of
Activities
Expenses (trends)
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 – FY 2021 ACFRs, Government- wide Financial Statements, Statement of Activities

Methodology and Statement of Compliance Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 41 Report Sections and Indicators Sources
Full-Time Equivalent Employees per 1,000 residents
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Statistical Section:

Demographic and Economic Statistic; Statistical Section:

Full-time Equivalent City Governmental Employees by
Function/Program
Revenues and Expenses (trends)
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 – FY 2021 ACFRs, Government- Wide Financial Statements, Statement of Activities
Demographics
• Population
• Unemployment
• Personal Income per Resident
• Personal Income per Resident
(Benchmark)
• Assessed Property Value
Population
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Statistical Section:

Demographic and Economic Statistics
Unemployment
• City of Berkeley FY 2020 ACFR, Statistical Section:

Demographic and Economic Statistics
• State of California Employment Development Department – Local Area Unemployment Statistics
Personal Income per Resident
• City of Berkeley FY 2016, FY 2020, and FY 2021 ACFRs, Statistical Section: Demographic and Economic Statistics Personal Income per Resident (Benchmark)
• City of Berkeley, Davis, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Santa Clara FY 2020 ACFRs, City of Santa Monica FY 2021
ACFR, Statistical Section: Demographic and Economic
Statistics
• U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, July 1, 2019, City of Oakland
Assessed Property Value
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Statistical Section:

Assessed Value and Estimated Values of Taxable Property Financial and Operating Position
• Net Position
• Liquidity Ratio
• General Fund Reserves
• Enterprise Fund Balance
Net Position
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 - FY 2021 ACFRs, Government- Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position
Liquidity Ratio
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 - FY 2021 ACFRs Government-
Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position
General Fund Reserves
• City of Berkeley, Office of Budget and Fiscal Management, Year-End Results and First Quarter Budget Update Reports, FY 2017- FY 2021
Enterprise Fund Balances
• City of Berkeley budgets: FY 2018 and FY 2019, FY 2020 and FY 2021, and proposed FY 2022 budgets
Long-Term Debt
• Governmental Activities Long-
term Liabilities
• Governmental Activities Long-
term Liabilities per Resident
(Benchmark)
• Debt by Type
• Bond Ratings
• General Obligation Bond debt
Governmental Activities Long-Term Liabilities
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 – FY 2021 ACFRs, Notes to Basic Financial Statements: Governmental Activities Long-Term Liabilities Summary
Governmental Activities Long-Term Liabilities per Resident (benchmark)
• City of Berkeley, Davis, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa
Clara, and Santa Monica FY 2020 ACFRs, Government-
Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position

Methodology and Statement of Compliance Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 42 Report Sections and Indicators Sources
as a Proportion of Assessed
Property Value
• General Obligation Bond Debt
per Resident
• General Obligation Debt
Service
Debt by Type
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Notes to Basic Financial Statements: Governmental Activities Long-Term Liabilities Summary
Bond Ratings
• City of Berkeley FY 2012 - FY 2021 ACFRs, Introductory Section
• Standard and Poor’s Ratings Guide; Moody’s Rating
Definitions
General Obligation Bond Debt as a Proportion of Assessed Property Value
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Statistical Section, Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding; Statistical Section:

Assessed Value and Estimated Values of Taxable Property • City of Berkeley Debt Management and Disclosure Policy General Obligation Bond Debt per Resident
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, Statistical Section, Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding; Statistical Section:

Demographic and Economic Statistics
• Department of Finance data on General Obligation bond issuance
General Obligation Debt Service
• City of Berkeley FY 2021 ACFR, City of Berkeley General Obligation and General Fund Obligations Continuing
Disclosure Annual Report Information
Unfunded Pension and OPEB
Liabilities
• Combined Unfunded Pension
and OPEB Liability
• Net Pension Liability
• Net OPEB Liability
• Funded Ratio Risk Level
• Funded Ratio Risk Level
(Benchmark)
• Section 115 Trust Fund
Combined Unfunded Pension and OPEB Liability
• Department of Finance data
Net Pension Liability
• Department of Finance Data
Net OPEB Liability
• Department of Finance data
Funded Ratio Risk Level
• California State Auditor Financial Health Dashboard and risk level methodology
Funded Ratio Risk Level (Benchmark)
• California State Auditor Financial Health Dashboard
Section 115 Trust Fund
• City of Berkeley, Department of Finance data on Section 115 contributions; City of Berkeley, May 14, 2019 staff report to City Council
Capital Assets
• Pavement Maintenance Costs
• Unfunded Capital and
Maintenance Need
Pavement Maintenance Costs
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission, The Pothole
Report: Bay Area Roads at Risk, September 2018
Unfunded Capital and Deferred Maintenance Needs
• City of Berkeley Unfunded Liability Reports (2017, 2019, 2021)

Methodology and Statement of Compliance Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 43 Throughout the report, we use the terms expenses and expenditures. Government-wide financial statements (including governmental and business-type activities) use the accrual basis of accounting and refer to expenses. The accrual basis of accounting reports revenues and expenses in the period in which the underlying event occurs, regardless of the timing of cash flows. This means that revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when the liability is incurred, instead of when cash is actually received or disbursed. Governmental fund financial statements (including the General Fund) use the modified accrual basis of accounting and refer to expenditures. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recorded when measurable and available, and expenditures are recorded when the liability is incurred, except for interest on long-term debt, judgments and claims, workers’ compensation, and compensated absences, which are recorded when paid.

Risk Assessment and Internal Controls
We reviewed information for reasonableness and consistency, and we researched data that needed additional explanation. We did not, however, audit the accuracy of all source documents or the reliability of the data in computer-based systems. As nearly all financial information presented is from the City’s ACFRs, we relied on the work performed by the City’s external financial auditors.

We specifically assessed internal controls significant to the audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, interviews with staff in the Department of Finance and the Budget Office, and reports on city finances and budget. In performing our work, we identified concerns that the City does not currently have a plan for how to meet its FY 2027 reserve funding goal, the debt management policy does not have sufficient criteria to assess the City’s debt capacity, the City has not been meeting its Section 115 contribution goals, and the City does not yet have a plan to address its unfunded capital needs.

We performed a risk assessment of the City’s financial condition within the context of our audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, as well as interviews with subject matter experts and Department of Finance and the Budget Office staff.

Statement of Compliance
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix 1. Enterprise Funds Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 - FY 2021) 44 Appendix I. Enterprise Funds
Most of the City’s Enterprise funds and activities are housed within the Department of Public Works, except for the Marina Fund which falls under the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department, and the Permit Service Center, which falls primarily under the Planning Department.

1. The Zero Waste Fund uses fees for disposal of waste at the City’s transfer station and refuse fees charged to Berkeley property owners to provide commercial refuse, recycling and compost collection services, and residential refuse and compost collection services to Berkeley residents.

2. The Marina Fund uses fees generated from vessels that berth at the Marina, commercial building and ground leases, and special events to fund operations at the Berkeley Waterfront.

3. The Sanitary Sewer Fund uses fees charged to the users of the City’s sanitary system to fund the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of the City’s sanitary sewer collection system and comply with Environmental Protection Agency requirements.

4. The Clean Storm Water Fund uses fees from property taxes to fund the maintenance and improvement of the City’s storm water drainage system and reduce pollutants in storm water from entering local creeks and the Bay.

5. The Permit Service Center Fund uses zoning fees, building fees, and plan check fees to fund the processing and issuance of building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire, zoning, and Public Works permits.

6. The Off-Street Parking Fund uses parking fees to support capital, operation, and maintenance of three off-street parking facilities owned by the City: the Center Street Garage, the Oxford Garage, and the Telegraph Channing Garage.

7. The Parking Meter Fund uses payments made by hourly parkers to fund the maintenance, collection, capital, and enforcement of city parking meters.

8. The Building Purchases and Management Fund accounts for the purchase and management of the building at 1947 Center Street. According to the Department of Public Works, although the Building Purchases and Management fund is considered an enterprise fund for the purposes of the City’s financial reporting, it functions more as an internal service fund because most of the fund’s customers are internal city departments.

Mission Statement
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

Audit Team
Caitlin Palmer, Senior Auditor
Pauline Miller, Auditor I

City Auditor
Jenny Wong

Office of the City Auditor
Phone: (510) 981-6750
Email: [email protected]
Website and reports: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-mail: [email protected] ● Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

CONSENT CALENDAR
JULY 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Berkeley’s Financial Condition (F Y 2012 – FY 2021): Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by November 2022, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the City Manager and Finance Department. They have agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response. This audit report has been updated with new information regarding the City’s Section 115 Trust.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The audit recommendations are intended to build on the City’s financial strengths and address the risks identified in the report. If the City does not implement the recommendations, unfunded pension liabilities and infrastructure needs will continue to grow and may put pressure on other spending priorities in the
future. The City may also be less prepared for unforeseen economic challenges if it does not assess the risk of the reserves, and ensure that enterprise funds can balance and avoid recurring shortfalls. Additionally, the City may overlook important considerations in determining a manageable level of debt if it does not update its debt policy.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
We used various financial indicators to analyze the City’s financial condition between FY 2012 and FY 2021. While the City’s near-term financial outlook was mostly positive, the financial indicators related to the City’s long-term outlook revealed some challenges.

Near-Term
 Revenues and Expenses: The City’s revenues have increased since FY 2012 and outpaced expenses most years. Governmental activities expenses exceeded revenues in FY 2020 due to the economic impacts of COVID-19, but the City took balancing measures to address the revenue shortfall in FY 2021.
 Demographic and Economic Indicators: Indicators related to the economic stability of the Berkeley community, including assessed value of property and personal income per capita, showed sustained strength over the audit period.
 Net Position, Liquidity, and Reserves: The City’s net position has been negative due to unfunded pension and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) liabilities. The City maintained a strong liquidity ratio despite setting aside funds in the Stability and Catastrophic reserves.

While the reserves helped address the shortfall caused by the pandemic, without a risk assessment of the reserves and plan for how to replenish them, the City may be less prepared for unforeseen economic challenges. Most enterprise funds have met the City’s

Berkeley’s Financial Condition:

Pension
Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention JULY 12, 2022 requirement to balance since FY 2016, but the City does not have a policy outlining the target fund balance necessary for the funds to balance and avoid recurring annual shortfalls.

Long-Term
 Long-Term Debt (excluding pension and OPEB): Long-term liabilities have increased, but compared to benchmark cities, Berkeley’s long-term liabilities per resident are in the middle range. General obligation bond debt has remained low compared to total taxable assessed property value, but general obligation debt per resident has increased and the City’s debt policy does not have robust criteria to assess its debt capacity.  Pension and OPEB Liabilities: Berkeley’s unfunded liabilities for retiree benefits continue to pose a financial risk to the City. The City established a Section 115 Trust to pre-fund pension obligations, but has not consistently met its annual contribution goal. Without a plan to ensure sufficient funding of the Section 115 Trust, the City may not be prepared to make its required CalPERS contributions.
 Capital Assets: The City is facing a reported $1.2 billion unfunded capital and deferred maintenance need as of FY 2021. Without a funding plan to reduce these needs, the City cannot address the current problem or prevent future unfunded capital needs.

BACKGROUND
This audit provides Berkeley residents, businesses, city management, and public officials with a high-level overview of the City’s financial condition over 10 fiscal years. By broadening the scope of financial reporting to incorporate long-term financial trends, financial condition analysis can introduce long-term considerations into the budgeting process, clarify the City’s fiscal strengths and weaknesses, and help highlight financial risks that the City needs to address.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Our office manages and stores audit workpapers and other documents electronically to significantly reduce our use of paper and ink. Our audit recommendation to implement a funding plan to reduce the City’s unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs could also support more resilient and sustainable infrastructure and help advance the Vision 2050 effort.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will help the City address its unfunded capital and deferred maintenance needs and unfunded pension liabilities. Our recommendations will also help the City prepare for unforeseen economic challenges by assessing the risk of the reserves, and ensure that enterprise funds can balance and avoid recurring shortfalls. Additionally, our recommendation to update the City’s debt policy will strengthen the City’s ability to assess its general obligation debt capacity.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750 Attachment: Audit Report: Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 – FY 2021): Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention

Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín
Subject: Contract No. 32000196 Amendment: Szabo & Associates for Communications Consulting Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 32000196 with Szabo & Associates for communications consulting services for the Mayor’s Office, increasing the contract amount by $78,000 for a new total not to exceed $227,500, and extending the contract term to June 30, 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This amendment will add $78,000 to extend the Mayor’s Office’s existing contract for communications consulting services. The term of the contract will be extended by one year to June 30, 2023. Funds for this contract amendment are available from the Mayor’s Office budget.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Under Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18.010A, “expenditures…which exceed the amount of $50,000 shall require Council approval”, as adopted under Ordinance No. 7,566 and mandated under Article XI, Section 67.5 of the City Charter.

Contract No. 32000196 was entered into on March 16, 2020, originally at $35,000.

Since then, amendments have been made to extend the term of the contract. A new extension was approved by Council in July 2021, which was required as the increase in the cumulative amount of the contract went beyond the $50,000 threshold, thus requiring Council approval.

In 2021 during the first contract extension, as a courtesy, bargaining unit members of SEIU CSU/PTRLA were advised by City of Berkeley Human Resources Department of this contract extension and offered the opportunity to meet. The services provided under this contract are not of the kind, nature or type of work presently performed by the bargaining unit members.

BACKGROUND
Under Article VI, Section 21 of the City Charter, the Mayor is the ceremonial head of the City. As such, the Mayor serves as a spokesperson for the City, and should provide

Contract Amendment: Szabo & Associates CONSENT CALENDAR July 12, 2022

consistent information to residents and businesses on the operations and policies of the City. Providing open and transparent lines of communication is a cornerstone of democracy and good governance. Relaying critical information, such as communications during the ongoing local state of emergency in response to COVID-19, PG&E Power Safety Shutoff events, other critical events, and City policies and programs, are important to the health, safety and operation of the City.

Services provided by Szabo & Associates include development of press releases and media advisories on issues of importance to the Berkeley community, maintaining social media accounts, press coordination, graphic design, and other support services relating to the communications from the Mayor’s Office.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: SZABO & ASSOCIATES FOR COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE MAYOR’S OFFICE
WHEREAS, as the ceremonial head of the city under the City Charter, the Mayor must serve as a city spokesperson and provide consistent information to residents and businesses on the operations and policies of the City; and WHEREAS, Szabo & Associates is a communications consulting firm whose services include development of press releases and media advisories on issues of importance to the Berkeley community, maintaining social media accounts, press coordination, and other support services relating to the communications; and WHEREAS, providing open and transparent lines of communication is a cornerstone of democracy and good governance. Relaying critical information, such as communications during the ongoing local state of emergency in response to COVID-19, PG&E Power Safety Shutoff events, other critical events, and City policies and programs, are important to the health, safety and operation of the City; and WHEREAS, under Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18.010A, “expenditures…which exceed the amount of $50,000 shall require Council approval”, as adopted under Ordinance No. 7,566 and mandated under Article XI, Section 67.5 of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, Contract No. 32000196 was entered into on March 16, 2020, originally at $35,000, with additional amendments having been made, and requires Council approval by passing the $50,000 threshold; and
WHEREAS, in July 2021, Council approved Resolution No. 69,985-N.S. to increase the contract by $78,000 and extending the contract to June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, funding for this amendment to extend the contract by one year is available in the Mayor’s Office budget.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000196 with Szabo & Associates for communications consulting services for the Mayor’s Office, increasing the contract amount by $78,000 for a new total not to exceed $227,500, and extending the contract term to June 30, 2023.

Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín (Author), Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Co- Sponsor), and Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Joining the House America Initiative

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution joining House America, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to form partnerships with state, tribal and local governments to rehouse people experiencing homelessness.

BACKGROUND
Homelessness continues to be a major crisis across the United States, with an estimated 580,000 people experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2020. This crisis is especially acute on the West Coast, with California being home around 160,000 unhoused individuals. In the 2022 Point in Time Count, Berkeley’s homeless population was 1,057, a decrease of 5% compared to the 2019 count. While this downward trend is a positive sign of the City’s investment in lifting people out of homelessness and preventing displacement, significant work remains in addressing chronic homelessness.

Countywide, homelessness continues to be on the rise, albeit at a slower rate compared to previous years.

In September 2021, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) launched House America.

This initiative calls on state, tribal, and local leaders to partner with HUD and USICH to use resources from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), in addition to other resources, to re-house 100,000 households experiencing homelessness through a Housing First approach and to add to the development pipeline 20,000 units of affordable housing by December 31, 2022. Governor Gavin Newsom has signed up California to join this initiative, in addition to Mayors of multiple California cities including Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose.

ARPA continues to provide significant support to local communities as they recover from the economic fallout caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the $66.6 million the City of Berkeley directly received in ARPA funds, nationally it provides 70,000 emergency housing vouchers, $5 billion in HOME grants. In addition to providing financial stability to local governments, ARPA is also designed to address homelessness and housing instability, promoting a Housing First approach. ARPA, in

Joining House America CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022

combination with local and regional support received through the passage of Measures O, P, and A1, can make inroads in developing deeply affordable housing and providing the resources needed to lift people out of homelessness.

Joining House America will give Berkeley access to support from HUD and USICH through technical assistance, tools, regular communication, data support, and peer-to- peer learning. This will enable Berkley to maximize the efficiency of its robust homeless programs and accelerate our ability to rehouse and provide vital services to those experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no costs associated with joining the House America initiative. Joining House America could expand opportunities to provide further financial assistance from the federal government to assist in housing and homeless programs.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

JOINING HOUSE AMERICA
WHEREAS, homelessness is a national crisis, with an estimated 580,000 people throughout the country experiencing homelessness on any given night in 2020; and WHEREAS, as of February 2022, 1,057 people experience homelessness in Berkeley, a decrease of 5% from three years ago, but a sign that the successful efforts to rehouse and prevent homelessness need to expand to escalate these trends; and WHEREAS, addressing homelessness and creating affordable housing has consistently been listed as a top priority by Berkeley residents for the City to address; and WHEREAS, in January 2016, the City Council passed a Resolution declaring a homeless shelter crisis, which authorized a wide variety of options and tools to address the crisis; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has taken a Housing First approach to homelessness, which prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the American Rescue Plan Act provides 70,000 emergency housing vouchers, $5 billion in HOME grants nationwide, and has provided Berkeley with $66.6 million in direct funds; and
WHEREAS, in September 2021, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the US Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) launched House America, with the goal of re-housing 100,000 Americans and adding 20,000 units of affordable housing in the development pipeline by the end of 2022; and WHEREAS, House America partners local, regional, and state governments with HUD and USICH to provide technical assistance, tools, regular communication, data support, and peer-to-peer learning in addressing homelessness; and WHEREAS, partnering with HUD and USICH on the House America initiative will put Berkeley in a position to more effectively address the homeless crisis.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby joins the House America Initiative and pledges to respond with urgency to contribute towards the goals of this initiative by rehousing homeless individuals and expanding our stock of affordable housing.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin
Subject: Support for Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter of support for ACA-3 to members of the state legislature including Senator Kamlager (D-Los Angeles), Senator Skinner (D-Berkeley), and Assemblymembers Kalra and Wicks.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

BACKGROUND
The California Constitution currently prohibits slavery, but includes an exemption for involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3, introduced by then-Assemblymember Kamlager, would remove this exemption.

California was originally admitted to the Union as a “free state” under the Compromise of 1850, with federal legislation requiring that free states observe the Fugitive Slave Act and return escaped slaves to slaveholding states. Involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes was used after 1865 to continue to restrict the freedom of African Americans and provide cheap labor to plantation owners.

Today, incarcerated workers earn as little as 8 cents an hour and are expected to work, a form of “modern-day slavery.”1 According to Kamlager, Samual Nathaniel Brown, the original author of ACA-3 and a person incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, has had to sanitize the cells of incarcerated people infected with COVID-19 with insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE). Refusing his assignment would expose him to being “written up” by prison guards, which could jeopardize his chances of receiving early release.

In 2019, California had a total incarcerated population of 204,637, a rate of 310 per 100,000 residents.2 The incarceration rate for Black Californians was nearly 10 times as high as the rate for white Californians. African Americans account for 28% of the prison population and less than 6% of California’s overall population. 1 Silva, G. (2021). Inmates in California prisons making 8 cents an hour, senator calling it ‘Modern Day Slavery’. Fox LA. Retrieved from https://www.foxla.com/news/inmates-in-california-prisons-making-8- cents-an-hour-senator-calling-it-modern-day-slavery
2 https://www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#map

ACA-3 CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022

If passed by the California legislature, ACA 3 will create a ballot measure in 2022 that would prohibit involuntary servitude for prisoners if passed.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Letter

The Honorable Sydney Kamlager
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
July 12, 2022
RE: Support: Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3: Involuntary servitude.

Dear Senator Kamlager,
The City Council of the City of Berkeley is proud to support ACA-3, the constitutional amendment you introduced in the Assembly to fully prohibit involuntary servitude in the state of California.

While initially introduced to the Union as a “free state,” the so-called Compromise of 1850 was one of many injustices committed against African Americans under the guise of political moderation and consensus. Even after the Civil War, exemptions to the abolition of slavery were pervasive in the criminal justice system, providing a cudgel for white supremacist terror groups after the demise of Reconstruction governments and ensuring that white elites could always procure underpriced Black labor from state prisons. We must no longer compromise in our struggle for racial justice.

With California’s large prison population being disproportionately African American, involuntary servitude in state prisoners furthers these deep injustices and exacerbates the racial wealth gap, often compensating workers as little as 8 cents an hour when their economic opportunities were already limited before entering the prison system. Until we abolish this form of modern-day slavery, we are complicit in perpetuating it. We stand in full support of your effort to right this grave wrong immediately.

Thank you for your tireless courage and leadership.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
2180 Milvia St
Berkeley, CA 94704
cc:

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Assemblymember Ash Kalra
Senator Nancy Skinner

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin
Subject: Support for AB-1816: Reentry Housing and Workforce Development Program.

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1816 to Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) and state legislators representing the City of Berkeley (Skinner/Wicks).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

BACKGROUND
AB-1816 would establish a Reentry Housing and Workforce Program to be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The program would provide competitive grant funding for housing services and employment interventions for the formerly incarcerated, including rental assistance, incentives, and access to permanent supportive housing.

According to the nonprofit Housing California, the annual cost of imprisoning an individual in California is $100,000, while the annual cost of providing permanent supportive housing to an individual is $25,000. 39% of people entering parole in California report housing insecurity, while 50% of the unhoused population reports a history of incarceration.1 Recidivism is higher for unhoused parolees, while access to steady employment with good wages has been found to reduce recidivism.2

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Letter
1 https://www.housingca.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AB-1816-Fact-Sheet-v1-1.pdf 2 Yu, T. (2018). Employment and Recidivism. Evidence Based Policy Society. Retrieved from https://www.ebpsociety.org/blog/education/297-employment-recidivism

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
July 12, 2022
RE: Support: AB-1816: Reentry Housing and Workforce Development Program.

Dear Assemblymember Bryan,
The City Council of the City of Berkeley is proud to support your bill, AB-1816, to establish a Reentry Housing and Workforce Development Program under the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Support services for the adult reentry population are critical for ending cycles of poverty, violence, and disinvestment in lower-income communities of color across California. There is strong evidence that unstable housing, homelessness, and lack of employment increase recidivism, while steady employment with good wages and secure housing both reduce recidivism. Providing these services is therefore a critical step toward providing more holistic public safety for our constituents.

With the passage of AB-109 in 2011, the responsibility for many adult reentry services shifted to county jurisdictions through County Criminal Justice Realignment funding. A 2020 report on adult reentry services in Alameda County funded by Criminal Justice Realignment initiatives found that a “relatively small proportion of individuals” received these county services, and that “service expansion could reduce recidivism rates among Alameda County’s probation population going forward.” (see: https://probation.acgov.org/probation- assets/files/Reentryandpublicsafetydocs/RDA_AB109OverviewAndOutcomes_7-20.pdf) A state program that focuses on housing security along with workforce development would greatly advance local and regional efforts to redress many systemic harms in the criminal justice system, making our communities safer and more prosperous.

Thank you for your courageous leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
2180 Milvia St
Berkeley, CA 94704
cc:

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Senator Nancy Skinner

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7170 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Author) and Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Support for SB 1063: Flexibility for Energy Innovation

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to Senator Nancy Skinner and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in support of Senate Bill 1063, which would authorize the California Energy Commission (CEC) to make new technology standards effective sooner, enabling the Commission to expedite the rollout of new green technologies and be more responsive to climate emergencies.

BACKGROUND
The California Energy Commission is responsible for setting standards for minimum levels of operating efficiency, which regulate the sale of appliances such as water heaters, air conditioners, refrigerators, showerheads, and more. The Warren-Alquist Act (1977) includes a provision that requires a one-year delay for the effective date of new or updated energy and water efficiency standards. SB 1063 would allow for the one- year delay in effective date to be removed if the CEC adopts a finding that good cause exists for doing so, and if both the manufacturer and CEC deem the new standards to be cost-effective.

For some standards, the current effective date delay limits the ability of the CEC to be responsive to statewide or regional emergencies. This is of particular concern during heatwaves, drought, or increased electrical grid demand, where the State may have an interest in expediting the rollout of new technologies. Removing the mandatory one-year delay would allow the CEC to, for example, accelerate the availability of water-use efficiency technologies during a drought, or of energy-efficient appliances during times of great stress on the electrical grid.

Since the adoption of the one-year delay provision over 40 years ago, technology design and manufacturing processes have vastly improved. Now that appliance manufacturers have the ability to bring new technologies to market well before the one- year mark, the State’s standards should reflect this in the interest of allowing consumers access to climate-beneficial technology as soon as possible.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

Support for SB 1063 CONSENT CALENDAR July 12, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rigel Robinson, (510) 981-7170
Angie Chen, Legislative Assistant
Attachments:
1: Letter of support
2: Bill text
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1063

Support for SB 1063 CONSENT CALENDAR July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 8630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Berkeley’s Support for SB 1063
Dear Senator Nancy Skinner,
The Berkeley City Council would like to convey our full support for Senate Bill 1063, Flexibility for Energy Innovation, which authorizes the California Energy Commission (CEC) to make new technology standards effective sooner than one year after their date of adoption or revision, as long as they are deemed cost-effective by the manufacturer and the CEC.

This bill would allow for the one-year delay in effective date to be removed if the CEC adopts a finding that good cause exists for doing so. Providing the CEC with this flexibility would enable them to effectively assist in meeting the State’s climate goals, grid reliability concerns, and mandates, while still preserving the one-year delay in most situations. The CEC would have the authority to consider the specific circumstances of rapid innovation, achievable energy savings, and unpredictable climate and health and safety needs in each energy and water efficiency rulemaking.

SB 1063 would help Californians access new technologies faster by allowing new appliance standards to be applied more quickly in instances where accelerated adoption is warranted. As a city that has been a champion for electrification and energy efficiency, Berkeley is pleased to support SB 1063. We thank you for your leadership in spearheading this important piece of legislation.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council
CC: Assemblymember Buffy Wicks

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

PUBLIC HEARING
July 12, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Making Technical Edits and Corrections to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 23

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt first reading of an Ordinance containing technical edits, corrections and other non-substantive amendments to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
 BMC Section 23.202.140 (R-SMU Zoning District)
 BMC Section 23.204.020 (Commercial Districts -- Allowed Land Uses)  BMC Section 23.204.030 (Additional Permit Requirements)  BMC Section 23.204.060 (C-U Zoning District)
 BMC Section 23.204.130 (C-DMU District)
 BMC Section 23.206.202 (Manufacturing Districts – Allowed Land Uses)  BMC Section 23.302.030 (Temporary Uses and Structures)  BMC Section 23.302.070 (Use-Specific Regulations)
 BMC Section 23.404.040 (Public Notice)
 BMC Section 23.502.020 (Glossary)

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of the recommended amendments will not result in any costs to the City.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Ensuring an accurate Zoning Ordinance relates to the Strategic Plan goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community.

On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance (Title 23 – Berkeley Municipal Code). This action was the culmination of the first comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance since 1999, rewording and reformatting Berkeley’s land use regulations to make them easier to understand and administer. Aside from a specific list of “consent changes” to maintain consistency with State law and codify

Zoning Ordinance Amendments Making Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING and Corrections to BMC Title 23 JULY 12, 2022

existing practices, no substantive policy changes were included. The new Zoning Ordinance became effective December 1, 2021.

As expected with such a detailed series of revisions, since its adoption certain inconsistencies and inadvertent changes have come to light which need to be corrected to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance accurately reflects City Council policy. The ordinance included with this staff report would make 11 amendments / corrections to the new Zoning Ordinance. These are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1. Recommended Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Subject/Section Issue Amendment
Sec 23.202.140:

R-SMU Zoning
District
Height Subareas Map
The R-SMU Subareas map is
incomplete; there are parcels that
are not assigned to the correct
subarea.

Revises map to assign
parcels to proper subarea.

Sec 23.204.020:

Allowed Uses in
Commercial Districts
Research &
Development in C-W
The Allowed Uses Table misstates
that Research and Development is
permitted in the C-W with an AUP
Corrects the Allowed Use
Table to clarify that Research
and Development is a “use
not listed” in the C-W, which
requires additional findings to
approve.

Sec 23.204.030:

Additional Permit
Requirements
Change of Use
The Zoning Ordinance defines
Change of Use twice.

Removes the definition in the
Additional Permit
Requirements section and
maintains the definition in the
Glossary.

Sec 23.204.060:

C-U Zoning District
Setback Standards
C-U Solar Access standards are
mistakenly applied to parcels on the
south side of University Avenue.

Revises Setback Standards
table to clarify that parcels on
the north side of University
Avenue are subject to the
solar access standards.

Sec 23.204.130:

C-DMU Zoning
District
Open Space
Requirements
The Zoning Ordinance does not
include the Use Permit requirement
for certain in-lieu options to satisfy
Open Space requirements in the C-
DMU.

Includes language clarifying
the Use Permit requirement.

Sec 23.206.202:

Manufacturing
Districts
Imprecise language is used to
describe thresholds for use permits.

Includes additional language
clarifying thresholds.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments Making Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING and Corrections to BMC Title 23 JULY 12, 2022

Subject/Section Issue Amendment
Changes to Protected
Land Uses
Sec 23.302.030:

Temporary Uses and
Structures
Temporary Uses on
Private Property
The word “plain” is misspelled. Corrects spelling.

Sec 23.302.070:

Use-Specific
Regulations
Food Service
Establishments
The Zoning Ordinance does not
include the C-T district requirement
to post public notification of an AUP
decision within 300 feet of the
subject property.

Includes C-T in list of districts
where the noticing
requirement applies.

Sec 23.404.040:

Public Notice
Zoning Ordinance
Amendments
The Zoning Ordinance states a 14
day notice when State law requires
10 days.

Changes “14” days to “10”
days to conform with State
law.

Sec 23.404.040:

Public Notice
Newspaper
Publication
The Zoning Ordinance requires
newspaper publication of a public
hearing notice for a zoning text
amendment both 14 days and 7
days prior to the public hearing.

Clarifies that the newspaper
publication requirement is
only once, 7 days prior to the
public hearing.

Sec 23.502.020:

Glossary
Family Day Care
Home
Glossary definition of “Family Day
Care Home” includes the phrase
“primary dwelling,” which is not
defined.

Clarifies that a family day
care home “must be operated
in the dwelling unit or
accessory building where the
family day care operator
resides.”

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments,1 and recommended adoption by a vote of 9-0-0-0 (Moved Oatfield, Second Mikiten. Ayes: Capitelli, Ghosh, Gould, Hauser, Kapla, Mikiten, Moore, Oatfield, and Twu. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None).

When the new Zoning Ordinance was presented for adoption by the City Council in October, 2021, staff indicated that routine updates would follow periodically to correct unintended errors and make text edits. This is the second such package of 1 Agenda-related materials for the April 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting can be found here:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2022-04- 06%20PC%20Agenda_linked_1.pdf

Zoning Ordinance Amendments Making Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING and Corrections to BMC Title 23 JULY 12, 2022

amendments. A third, smaller package will be presented to the City Council after the 2022 summer recess.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental and climate impacts or opportunities associated with the adoption of the proposed amendments.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are required to ensure that the new Zoning Ordinance accurately reflects the prior ordinance and City Council policy, and does not contain any changes from the old Zoning Ordinance that were not specifically authorized by City Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternatives were considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Jordan Klein, Director, Planning & Development Department, 510-981-7410 Justin Horner, Associate Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981- 7476
Attachments:
1: Ordinance
2: Consent Changes Matrix
3: Report to Planning Commission, April 6, 2022
4: Public Hearing Notice

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING TITLE 23 OF THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO CORRECT ERRORS

AND MAKE NON-SUBSTANTIVE, TECHNICAL EDITS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.202.140 Figure 23.202-2 is amended as follows:

Figure 23.202-2. R-SMU SUBAREAS

2 Figure 23.202-2. R-SMU SUBAREAS
Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.204.020 Table 23.204-1 is amended as follows:

Table 23.204-1: Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts COMMERCIAL DISTRICTSZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
NP = Not Permitted
-- = Permitted with AUP, see

23.204.020(B)
[#] = Table Note Permit
Requirement
* Use-Specific Regulations Apply

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC

USE-SPECIFIC

REGULATIONS
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit See 23.306—Accessory Dwelling Units Dwellings
Single-Family UP(H) UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) 23.204.060.B.3 Two-Family UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) 23.204.060.B.3 Multi-Family UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) 23.204.060.B.3 Group Living Accommodation UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) 23.204.060.B.3 Hotel, Residential UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) 23.204.060.B.3 Mixed-Use Residential UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH)* UP(PH) UP(PH) UP(PH) See Table

23.204-41 UP(PH) 23.204.060.B.3;

23.204.100.B.4