Berkeley City Council
October 10, 2023

Tuesday, October 10, 2023 AGENDA Page 1

P R O C L AM AT I O N

C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M EE TI NG O F T HE

B E R K E LE Y CI T Y C O U N CIL
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Tuesday, October 10, 2023
4:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 1404 LE ROY AVE, BERKELEY, CA 94708

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 – MARK HUMBERT
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person attendance and virtual participation. For in - person attendees, face coverin gs or masks that cover both the nose and the mouth are encouraged. If you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

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.

Remote participation by the public is available through Zoom. To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this URL: https://cityofberkeley-info.zoomgov.com/j/1611670896.

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 1-669-254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 167 0896.

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 meeting will be recorded and all rules of procedure and decorum apply for in -person attendees and those participating 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 and applicable Executive Orders as issued by the Governor that are currently in effect . 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, October 10, 2023 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Worksession
Public comment is limited to items on this agenda only. The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda as the item is taken up.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, 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.

1. City Council Legislative Systems Redesign
From: Agenda & Rules Committee
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100, Sophie Hahn, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150, Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, (510) 981- 7160
Adjournment
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 6th day of October, 2023.

Jesse Arreguin, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Date: October 6, 2023
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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.

Tuesday, October 10, 2023 AGENDA Page 3
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.

Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electron ic 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:

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, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

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.

Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

Office of the Mayor

WORKSESSION
October 10, 2023
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín
Subject: City Council Legislative Systems Redesign

BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2021, at the direction of City Council during a retreat, the City Manager presented a Systems Alignment Proposal to the Agenda and Rules Committee.

Following discussion, the Systems Alignment proposal was calendared for a future Council meeting.

On April 26, 2021 the Systems Alignment proposal was presented to All Council.

Councilmember Droste submitted a response to the Systems Alignment proposal at the May 18, 2021 meeting followed by Councilmembers Hahn and Harrison at the June 15, 2021 meeting. During the June 15, 2023 Council engaged in discussion and referred the Systems Alignment proposal to the Agenda and Rules Committee for further consideration.

On March 14, 2023, Councilmembers Robinson and Wengraf presented Reforms to Public Comment Procedures at meetings of the City Council for discussion and action.

At the Agenda & Rules Committee Councilmember Hahn, in collaboration with the City Clerk and other staff, presented “Major Item Legislative, Budgeting & Implementation Systems Redesign”. Upon deliberation, the Agenda & Rules Committee set a worksession for full council discussion on October 10, 2023.

In order to assist Council in understanding the various recommendations from previous meetings, Mayor Arreguin directed his staff, with assistance from Councilmember Wengraf’s staff, to create a matrix of all the proposals and responses from City Councilmembers at the relevant meetings which was reviewed at the September 26, 2023 Agenda and Rules Committee meeting.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100

City Council Legislative Systems Redesign WORKSESSION
October 10, 2023
Attachments:
1: PowerPoint Presentation
2: Council Rules of Procedure – Appendix B
3: Comparison Matrix
4: Background Materials

MAJOR ITEM
Submission, Review, Approval,
Funding, & Implementation

PROCESS SKETCH FOR DISCUSSION
Presented to Berkeley City Council
by the Agenda & Rules Committee
October ##, 2023
1

TERMINOLOGY

MAJOR ITEM
Is an Item meeting the current/existing definition of
a Policy Committee Track Item:

Moderate to significant administrative,
operational, budgetary, resource, or
programmatic impacts
2

BIG IDEAS
COUNCIL/MAYOR - Successfully develop and implement State of The Art/ Innovative Programs and Policies to serve Berkeley, and to model best practices CITY CLERK - Consistency in process for Major Item Development, Budgeting and implementation
CITY ATTORNEY – Ensure legal and drafting compliance
CITY MANAGER - Help the Organization deliver without overwhelm; help staff be successful in their work
3

YEARLY CYCLE
Built around JUNE 30 Budget Adoption/Update
July – September

COUNCIL
Finalize Y2 Items

CITY MANAGER
Implement Y1 Items
October – March

COMMITTEE
SEASON
April – June
COUNCIL + BUDGET
SEASON
4

LEGISLATIVE SESSION
One Cycle - Benefits
• Every Year, opportunity to submit and have Council review/vote on and fund Major Items
• Four Subject Matter Committees only meet during a
Committee Season (except if emergency or special circumstance) • Staff can focus on implementation during the “off season,” and Councilmembers can finalize the next year’s items
• Significantly reduce gap between approval and implementation 5

MAJOR ITEM

DEVELOPMENT & SUBMISSION
All Year End of September
• Must use Major Item Guidelines format
(Appendix B to Council Rules of Procedure & Order)
• September 30 Submission Deadline
• Major Items can be submitted prior to September 30 and reviewed by Agenda & Rules for compliance with guidelines
• Timeline allows for Councilmembers to work all year on items, with concentrated opportunity July-September
• Staff input at Pre-submission = high level/conceptual; early vetting of concepts with City Attorney to identify legal & drafting inputs 6

AGENDA COMMITEE

OCTOBER
Review & Assign Major Items to
Committees
• Early October Special Meeting(s)
• Review Major Items for compliance with Guidelines
• Assign compliant Major Items to Policy Committees
• Send non-compliant Major Items back to Authors
for resubmission by End of October
7

POLICY COMMITTEES

OCTOBER - MARCH
• Organizing Meeting(s) Mid-October – Plan Committee
Session/Schedule Hearings
• Major Items reviewed by Committee and move out on Rolling Basis, November - March
• [Committees may also prioritize/score items they review] • All Major Items OUT of Policy Committees by March 30
8

CITY COUNCIL
APRIL
• Vote on all Major Items by April 30
• May require special meeting(s) in April
• City Attorney sign-off on drafting and legal conformity of Ordinances, Resolutions, and Formal Policies
• Approved items sent to Budget Committee
9

PRIORITIZATION OF
MAJOR ITEMS*

EARLY MAY
• All Major Items that have been passed by Council, both NEW and PENDING/previously unfunded, to be prioritized by Councilmembers • Prioritization due Second Friday in May (process TBD) * Not the same as All-Item prioritization
10

BUDGET COMMITTEE

MAY - JUNE
• Council [and Committee?] Prioritizations provided to Budget Committee as guides, but not binding
• Budget Committee makes Recommendations to Full Council • Budget passed; Major Items funded move forward to
Implementation
• ROLLOVER: Major Items passed by Council but not funded get automatically rolled-over to future funding opportunities 11

IMPLEMENTATION
JULY +
• Implementation Lead assigned by City Manager
• Implementation Team assembled by Lead + CM
• Meet with Author(s) to clarify intentions, sketch timelines, discuss opportunities, ideas, challenges
• Implementation Team prepares
• Launch Plan
• Operating Plan
• Program/Policy is Launched + Implemented
12

OVERRIDE
for Time Critical Items
• Rules of Procedure and Order already provide Override:

An item that would otherwise be assigned to a Policy
Committee may bypass Policy Review if the Agenda Committee deems it Time Critical. Agenda & Rules Committee retains discretion to decide the Time Critical nature of an item • Time Critical definition - may need to be reviewed/amended • May still go to a Policy Committee or directly to Council, per A&R • [Possible Add: Council-level override/appeal if Author doesn’t agree with the A&R decision on Time Critical nature of a Major Item].

SPECIAL TOPIC # 1
13

PRE-SUBMISSION DETAILS
• Guidelines Format Mandatory for all Major Items
• Only Authors (no Co-Sponsors) allowed at Pre-Submission and Committee stages, to reduce Brown Act issues
• Available: Pre-Submission Consult with City Manager to recommend internal subject matter experts for high-level input • Required: Pre-Submission Consult with City Attorney to identify legal and drafting considerations
• Consider role for COMMISSIONS in Pre-Submission Phase SPECIAL TOPIC # 2
14

STRENGTHEN COMMITTEE REVIEW
DEVELOP STANDARDS for review of Major Items:
• Relevance to Strategic Priorities or current needs/events • Added value of program/policy
• Potential benefits/costs of program/policy to Community and COB • Alternative means to achieve same or similar goals
• Phasing/timelines for implementation
• Staffing and Resources needed to Launch and Operate
• Evaluation/Metrics/Enforcement
• [Rate/Rank Major Items at end of Committee Session?]
• [Increase options re: positive and negative recommendations?] • Other?
SPECIAL TOPIC # 3
15

Public, Staff, City Attorney, Commission Inputs
• Active Outreach to all identifiable Stakeholders
• Multiple Hearings to allow for robust community, Staff, and City Attorney inputs + Discussion
• ENHANCE/EMPOWER City Attorney & Staff participation to ensure meaningful input, without requirement for formal reports
• Committee Schedule (set early October) will help ensure the right staff/attorneys are present for each item
• Consider how to obtain/integrate input from Commissions STRENGTHEN COMMITTEE REVIEWSPECIAL TOPIC # 3
16

PRIORITIZATION – SPECIAL

BACKLOGGED QUEUE
Need a one-time process to “clear the backlog” of Major Items currently in queue.

Suggest sending all pending (but not initiated) items to Policy Committees for review to suggest:
• Merging items and/or Updating Referrals
• Re-approval of items “as is”
• Recommendation to Sunset/Remove moot items
• Recommend disposition of all items, ranked By Lead Department • Council reviews and approves Committee recommendations for consolidation, removal, restatement, and re-support of items • May need some criteria - to ensure all council members get at least some of their priorities addressed
• May also include consideration of an RRV- or other kind of prioritization by full Council, organized by Lead Department and/or holistically SPECIAL TOPIC # 4
17

• Enhanced Committee process should result in fewer or no backlogs and items implemented in a reasonable timeframe • Prioritization becomes less of a BIG ISSUE
Prioritization in a rationalized system:
• More fully conceived and vetted items
• Committee scoring and/or ranking of items at end of
Committee Season
• Council Ranking of items by Lead Department and Overall PRIORITIZATION – REGULAR

YEARLY QUEUE
SPECIAL TOPIC # 5
18

Need Process & Criteria for funding
Items at AAO1 and AAO2
High Level Suggestions – need input from Budget & Finance • Only Time Critical and Rollover (previously approved but unfunded) items considered - same rule for Council and City Manager items
• Not all extra funds (if any) get allocated - reservation for the annual budget process so funds are available for Council initiatives going through yearly legislative process
• AA01 and 02 only for one-time and/or time sensitive needs, except special circumstances
SPECIAL TOPIC # 6
19

IMPLEMENTATION
Once Major Item is passed + funded, move to Implementation • Implementation Lead is assigned by City Manager – Single Individual Responsible for managing and ensuring implementation
• Implementation Team assembled by Lead + City Manager
• Consult with Author(s) to clarify intentions, sketch timelines, discuss opportunities, ideas, challenges
• Implementation Team prepares LAUNCH and OPERATING Plans • LAUNCH elements + Timeline
• OPERATING Plan
• Long term/ongoing operation of program/policy
SPECIAL TOPIC # 7
20

DISCUSSION + QUESTIONS
21

APPENDIX B. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND WRITING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 38 APPENDIX B. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND WRITING COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEMS

These guidelines are derived from the requirements for Agenda items listed in the Berkeley City Council Rules of Procedure and Order, Chapter III, Sections B(1) and (2), reproduced below. In addition, Chapter III Section C(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure and Order allows the Agenda & Rules Committee to request that the Primary Author of an item provide “additional analysis” if the item as submitted evidences a “significant lack of background or supporting information” or “significant grammatical or readability issues.”

These guidelines provide a more detailed and comprehensive overview of elements of a complete Council item. While not all elements would be applicable to every type of Agenda item, they are intended to prompt Authors to consider presenting items with as much relevant information and analysis as possible.

Chapter III, Sections (B)(1) and (2) of Council Rules of Procedure and Order:

2. Agenda items shall contain all relevant documentation, including the following as Applicable:
a. A descriptive title that adequately informs the public of the subject matter and general nature of the item or report and action requested; b. Whether the matter is to be presented on the Consent Calendar or the Action Calendar or as a Report for Information;
c. Recommendation of the City Manager, if applicable (these provisions shall not apply to Mayor and Council items.);
d. Fiscal impacts of the recommendation;
e. A description of the current situation and its effects; f. Background information as needed;
g. Rationale for recommendation;
h. Alternative actions considered;
i. For awards of contracts; the abstract of bids and the Affirmative Action Program of the low bidder in those cases where such is required (these provisions shall not apply to Mayor and Council items.); j. Person or persons to contact for further information, with telephone number.

If the Primary Author of any report believes additional background information, beyond the basic report, is necessary to Council understanding of the subject, a separate compilation of such background information may be developed and copies will be available for Council and for public review in the City Clerk Department, and the City Clerk shall provide limited distribution of such background information depending upon quantity of pages to be duplicated. In such case the agenda item distributed with the packet shall so indicate.

APPENDIX B. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND WRITING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 39 Guidelines for City Council Items:

1. Title

2. Consent/Action/Information Calendar

3. Recommendation

4. Summary Statement/Current situation and its effects

5. Background

6. Review of Existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws

7. Actions/Alternatives Considered

8. Consultation/Outreach Overview and Results

9. Rationale for Recommendation

10. Implementation, Administration and Enforcement

11. Environmental Sustainability

12. Fiscal Impacts

13. Outcomes and Evaluation

14. Contact Information

15. Attachments/Supporting Materials
___________________________________________________

1. Title
A descriptive title that adequately informs the public of the subject matter and general nature of the item or report and action requested.

2. Consent/Action/Information Calendar
Whether the matter is to be presented on the Consent Calendar or the Action Calendar or as a Report for Information.

3. Recommendation
Clear, succinct statement of action(s) to be taken. Recommendations can be further detailed within the item, by specific reference.

Common action options include:
● Adopt first reading of ordinance
● Adopt a resolution
● Referral to the City Manager (City Manager decides if it is a short term referral or is placed on the RRV ranking list)
● Direction to the City Manager (City Manager is directed to execute the recommendation right away, it is not placed on any referral list) ● Referral to a Commission or to a Standing or Ad Hoc Council Committee ● Referral to the budget process
● Send letter of support
● Accept, Approve, Modify or Reject a recommendation from a Commission or Committee
● Designate members of the Council to perform some action

APPENDIX B. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND WRITING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 40 4. Summary Statement/ “Current situation and its effects” A short resume of the circumstances that give rise to the need for the recommended action(s).
● Briefly state the opportunity/problem/concern that has been identified, and the proposed solution.
● Example (fictional):

Winter rains are lasting longer than expected. Berkeley’s winter shelters are poised to close in three weeks, but forecasts suggest rain for another two months. If they do not remain open until the end of the rainy season, hundreds of people will be left in the rain 24/7. Therefore, this item seeks authorization to keep Berkeley’s winter shelters open until the end of April, and refers to the Budget Process $40,000 to cover costs of an additional two months of shelter operations.

5. Background
A full discussion of the history, circumstances and concerns to be addressed by the item.
● For the above fictional example, Background would include information and data about the number and needs of homeless individuals in Berkeley, the number and availability of permanent shelter beds that meet their needs, the number of winter shelter beds that would be lost with closure, the impacts of such closure on this population, the weather forecasts, etc.

6. Review of Existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws Review, identify and discuss relevant/applicable Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws, and how the proposed actions conform with, compliment, are supported by, differ from or run contrary to them. What gaps were found that need to be filled? What existing policies, programs, plans and laws need to be changed/supplemented/improved/repealed? What is missing altogether that needs to be addressed?

Review of all pertinent/applicable sections of:
● The City Charter
● Berkeley Municipal Code
● Administrative Regulations
● Council Resolutions
● Staff training manuals
Review of all applicable City Plans:
● The General Plan
● Area Plans
● The Climate Action Plan
● Resilience Plan
● Equity Plan

APPENDIX B. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND WRITING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 41 ● Capital Improvements Plan
● Zero Waste Plan
● Bike Plan
● Pedestrian Plan
● Other relevant precedents and plans
Review of the City’s Strategic Plan
Review of similar legislation previously introduced/passed by Council Review of County, State and Federal laws/policies/programs/plans, if applicable

7. Actions/Alternatives Considered
● What solutions/measures have other jurisdictions adopted that serve as models/cautionary tales?
● What solutions/measures are recommended by advocates, experts, organizations?
● What is the range of actions considered, and what are some of their major pros and cons?
● Why were other solutions not as feasible/advisable?

8. Consultation/Outreach Overview and Results
● Review/list external and internal stakeholders that were consulted ○ External: constituents, communities, neighborhood organizations, businesses and not for profits, advocates, people with lived experience, faith organizations, industry groups, people/groups that might have concerns about the item, etc.
○ Internal: staff who would implement policies, the City Manager and/or deputy CM, Department Heads, City Attorney, Clerk, etc. ● What reports, articles, books, websites and other materials were consulted? ● What was learned from these sources?
● What changes or approaches did they advocate for that were accepted or rejected?

9. Rationale for Recommendation
A clear and concise statement as to whether the item proposes actions that:
● Conform to, clarify or extend existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws ● Change/Amend existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws in minor ways ● Change/Amend existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws in major ways ● Create an exception to existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws ● Reverse/go contrary to or against existing Plans, Programs, Policies and Laws

Argument/summary of argument in support of recommended actions. The argument likely has already been made via the information and analysis already presented,

APPENDIX B. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND WRITING COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 42 but should be presented/restated/summarized. Plus, further elaboration of terms for recommendations, if any.

10. Implementation, Administration and Enforcement
Discuss how the recommended action(s) would be implemented, administered and enforced. What staffing (internal or via contractors/consultants) and materials/facilities are likely required for implementation?

11. Environmental Sustainability
Discuss the impacts of the recommended action(s), if any, on the environment and the recommendation’s positive and/or negative implications with respect to the City’s Climate Action, Resilience, and other sustainability goals.

12. Fiscal Impacts
Review the recommended action’s potential to generate funds or savings for the City in the short and long-term, as well as the potential direct and indirect costs.

13. Outcomes and Evaluation
State the specific outcomes expected, if any (i.e., “it is expected that 100 homeless people will be referred to housing every year”) and what reporting or evaluation is recommended.

14. Contact Information

15. Attachments/Supporting Materials

Systems Realignment Matrix - Updated 10-3-2023

JM LM LM JM LM LM JM JM
City Manager's System's
Realignment Proposal Droste Response
Council Feedback from
Work Session Hahn Proposal Harrison Proposal 2021 Council Feedback Droste BERIPE Plan Hahn/City Clerk Proposal to A & R 4/26/2021 5/18/2021 5/18/2021 6/15/2021 6/15/2021 6/15/2021 3/14/2023 10/10/2023 Item Summary
Decisions/ Actions Taken
Thesis: Councilmembers to
return with
thoughts/proposals
Thesis: Supports CM Proposal.

Recommends template
adjustments to increase
effectiveness and clarify reason
for proposal and its
recomendations and increase
effectiveness.

Thesis: Mayor proposed and
Council approved continuing
the item to the June 15, 2021
regular meeting to allow
Councilmembers to submit
written comments for the
public record.

Thesis: Legislative process
should support Council in
passing legislation of
important local concerns and
value-based issues with
impact locally and more
broadly.

New legislation should be
thoroughly reseached,
revised and vetted with input
from stakeholders, the public,
City Staff and Council
collegues.

City staff contribute with
increased levels of input and
participation as the legislation
moves forward.

Thesis: Does not support CM
Proposal.

Major items only put forward
Jan - April to conincide with
budget process limits public
and Council voices.

Harrison's proposal operates
continuously with deadlines
for each step of review.

Thesis: Council
recommendation was to
review the proposal for
systems alignment and
provide edits and suggestions
in order to compile Council
feedback for the purpose of
drafting a revised proposal for
adoption. Sent back to A&R
to prepare a new proposal
No Councilmembers
commented on the Consent
Item during the meeting.

Thesis: Align with budget process,
create consistency in process and
proposal writing; ramp-up staff
engagement as proposal moves through
process. Create "seasons" (specific
annual timeframes for development,
policy committee, council and budget
approval)
Process for Council
Items
A & R determines if Major
Item
If not major, agendized for
Council meeting
Council Agenda Item Template
recommended adjustments:
- add: Define the Problem
-Include Criteria Considered &
-Rationale for Recommendatio
-Make Equity its own category
Sample red-lined template in
item
Some Councilmembers
expressed concern about the
yearly April deadline for Major
items because it would create
stale items and/or limit ability
to respond to the concerns of
the moment. CM reminded
public and Council that this
process is just for the 15 -20
Major items drafted each
year.

Guideline Format drives
development of Council, City
Manager or Commission
proposals
All Major Items, regardless of
where originated follow the
prescribed process
Council is encouraged to
consult with staff during
proposal development but
may wait until during the
Committee process
CAO must provide preliminary
review prior to initial submittal
Council Streamlines Existing
Backlog of staff involved
items through Policy
Committees' review and
recommendations to Council. N/A
Built around June Budget Adoption
Divided into Seasons with deadlines for
each phase
Major Item Definition
- Cannot be operationalized
over time with existing
resources
- Displaces an existing
prioritzed item
- Not implementable with
existing resources
- Unable to sustain
enforcement activities
- Subject to legal challenge
and/or pre-emption
- Additional/new FTE on a
temporary or permanent basis
- Additional or new
infrastructure or technology
costs
Any law, program, or policy
that represents a significant
change or addition to existing
law, program, or policy and/or
is likely to call for or elicit
significant study, analysis, or
input from the community,
staff or Council colleagues,
and/or is likely to require
significant new resources or
staffing to implement. N/A Definition required
Major Item Determination
A & R in consultation with CM
EXCEPTIONS:
- Grant deadlines
- Public Safety Issues
- Declared local emergencies
If exceptions granted,
projects "in process" must be
identified and delayed
Major Item Determination
Checklist
recommended adjustments:

Define "smaller" and "less
impactful" and state how that is
determined.
(see definition above)
Can originate from
Coucilmembers, City Manager
(often as referral responses) or
Commissions
A & R makes determination if a
submittal is a Major Item - can be
sent back to originator for more
information and compliance with
Guildelines
Should be determined by
Policy Committees, not
Agenda Committee, via
objective determination.

No determination criteria
given. N/A N/A
Submittal Season: Year round submittal
September 30 cut off for consideration
through process
Submittals reviewed by A & R for Major
Item Determination and compliance with
Guidelines
Major Item Deadline A & R agenda prior to April 30
to be considered in legislative
year
Agendized at A & R on rolling
basis
none provided none provided
120 days maximum, which
includes the Implementation
Conference. N/A

LIMITS NUMBER OF MAYOR ITEM

SUBMITTALS
Councilmember limited to submitting 1
major legislative item or set of
amendments to existing ordinances/yr
Mayor limited to submitting 2 major
legislative items or set of amendments
to existing ordinances/yr

DEADLINE TBD
September 30 for next fiscal year
consideration
Item
Date
Item Distinction/ Process

Systems Realignment Matrix - Updated 10-3-2023

JM LM LM JM LM LM JM JM
City Manager's System's
Realignment Proposal Droste Response
Council Feedback from
Work Session Hahn Proposal Harrison Proposal 2021 Council Feedback Droste BERIPE Plan Hahn/City Clerk Proposal to A & R 4/26/2021 5/18/2021 5/18/2021 6/15/2021 6/15/2021 6/15/2021 3/14/2023 10/10/2023 Item
Date
Policy Committee
Review
Referred by A & R
Reviewed for completeness
and alignment with Strategic
Plan goals.

Commission review.

Once approved for
consideration moves to
Implementation Conference
Policy Committee Ranking
Form
recommended adjustments:
-Use score rather than rank
NOTE:

CM presentation no longer
recommends using the Ranking
Form See Implementation
Conference
A & R makes determination if
a proposal meets information
in Guidelines prior to sending
on to Committees - Author
has right to appeal
Committees plan a timeline
for hearing over multiple
meetings and identify
stakeholders and experts to
provide input. Committee
meetings to discuss proposal
should be taken in order of
the required components of
the Guidelines
Staff agendized to engage in
every discussion and
provides budget resources
needs for Launch and
Policy Committees send their
recommendation and
finalized Implementation
report to A & R for
scheduling at Council. N/A N/A
Committee Season: October 1 - March 1
A & R - October: will require special
meetings. determines completeness
based on Major Items Guildelines
edits must be completed by 3rd Friday
in October in order to move to
Committees
Committees determine order of
hearings, create calendar, group like
items together, understand staffing
impacts, follow Enhanced Review
Process
Implementation
Conference
CM or designee, CAO,
Department Head or
designee
Collaborate with author to
detail fiscal and operational
impacts. Implementation
Conference outcomes to be
incorporated into Concil
Report
(see detail in 4.26.21
proposal, p3)
Implementation Conference
Worksheet
recommended adjustments:
-Reduce amount of redundant
components and specify what
impact means.
-Include similar additions as
Council Item Template.
-See sample redlined template
in the item
Timing for conference: Earlier
timing, perhaps just after
referred to policy committee,
before the Committee takes it
up.

Staff analysis: Former Auditor
in her 2018 presentation
talked about importance of
Council needing a staff
analysis, resource analysis
and opportunity costs in their
items. Councilmember noted
incredible importance for
Council to have this info
before passing items. At the
same time, don't want staff to
spend too much time on an
item that doesn't pass.

Tension here.

Definitions: Council needs to
be comfortable with them.

The Policy Committee would
facilitate an Implementation
Conference hearing(s) with
City staff, the author, and
Committee members in order
to prepare an
Implementation Report. This
happens during the Policy
Committee Review. N/A N/A N/A
Implementation
Conference Deadline August 31
No calendar deadline No calendar deadline
No calendar deadline.

Rolling basis. N/A N/A N/A
Initial Prioritization
July 31.

Policy Committees make recs
Submitted to City Council Sunset current RRV process
Committee to "score" each
proposal
Prioritized on rolling basis.

Upon Council adoption, the
budget aspect of the item
would proceed to either the
June or November budget
process. N/A N/A
ONE TIME clearing of backlog on
current list of projects
Council Approval and
Final Prioritization
October Council Calendar
Council approval,
prioritization, assign fiscal
year for implementation,
identify removal of items that
new initiatives will replace
If Council does not approve,
item can be reintroduced the
following year
November 30 deadline for all
major item actions
Sunset current RRV process
Committee to "score" each
proposal
Author revises proposal to
include required
changes/clarifications and
resources required for
Launch and Implemention
Council approves before item
goes through budget
process. N/A
Council prioritizes all new legislative
submittals through RRV process.

Year 1 ONLY: Combine new legislative
submittals and outstanding/incomplete
items for prioritization through RRV
process. Council and staff should
determine what can be reasonably
accomplished by staff based on RRV
outcome and delete those projects that
did not rise to top of priorities and
cannot be accomplished.

Year 2 and ongoing: Only new
legislative submittals will be prioritized
Council Season: Feb 1 - April 30
CAO must confirm compliance with
Ordinances
Prioritization: Council and Committee
prioritize and send to Budget Commitee
Item Distinction/ Process

Systems Realignment Matrix - Updated 10-3-2023

JM LM LM JM LM LM JM JM
City Manager's System's
Realignment Proposal Droste Response
Council Feedback from
Work Session Hahn Proposal Harrison Proposal 2021 Council Feedback Droste BERIPE Plan Hahn/City Clerk Proposal to A & R 4/26/2021 5/18/2021 5/18/2021 6/15/2021 6/15/2021 6/15/2021 3/14/2023 10/10/2023 Item
Date
Budget & Strategic
Planning
December/January
Staff to incorporate approved
items into Budget/workplan
ranked by priority
January - March
Council and Staff revise the
budget based on department
presentations to BC
May/June
Budget hearings, adjustments
and adoption
Budget Implementation
Conference:
approves moving toward
implementation or
implementation is declined to
proceed
Council approved items go
through the next budget
process. N/A
(see note above)
Budget referrals and allocations must be
explicitly tied to previously established
or approved policy program,
planning/strategy document and/or
external funding opportunity related to
one of these.

No budget referral can directly fund a
specific organization or event.

Organizations recieving City funding
must submit application that includes
civic goals/purposes, previous funding
history and quantitative/qualitative
results/outcomes. Funding greater than
$20,000 must include data on number
of persons served and other outcomes.

Budget Season: May 1 - June 30
Council prioritization to Budget
committee not binding. Budget
Committee makes recommendations to
full Council
Funded Council approved items move to
Implementation
Unfunded Council approved items
rollover to future funding opportunities
Implementation
N/A
July (Month 1 of new fiscal year)
Implementation Lead and Team
assigned
Meeting with Authors for clarity,
timelines, challenges
Implementation Team prepared Launch
and Operational Plans
Tools
Council Item template
outlining required information
Major Item checklist
Implementation Conference
Worksheet Major Item Determination Checklist Policy Committee Ranking Form Implementation Conference Worksheet Guildelines for
Proposals/Council Items
Alternateive Systems
Alignment Proposal
flowchart. N/A
Major Items Guidelines Format
Enhanced Review Process
Consolidated Yearly
Cycle
Major Item Deadline: April
30 Implementation Conference
Deadline: August 31
Council Prioritization
Deadline: July 31
Council Approval Deadline:

November 30
Budget Cycle: January - none addressed N/A none addressed Rolling basis rather than
yearly cycle. N/A
Based on "to be established" deadline
to align with RRV process
Submittal Season: Year round with
August 1 deadline for next fiscal year
consideration
Committee Season: Sept 1 - January
30 A & R and council committee review
Coucil Season: Feb 1 - April 30
Budget Season: May 1 - June 30
Consensus
Variable Differences
Outstanding Questions
1 - Different timelines for different types of items (some staggered, some ongoing) 1 - What impact does this have on the RPP process? What needs to change? What limits revisions to a systems redesign process? Item Distinction/ ProcessRecommendations
1 - Staff input in legislative drafting is important

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

BACKGROUND MATERIAL

The following documents were previously submitted to the City Council for consideration, and are being provided with this item as background material.

The City Manager has removed staff’s Systems Alignment Proposal from consideration. It is included in this attachment for reference and context.

Attachments:

March 14, 2023 Council Meeting

1. Bureaucratic Effectiveness and Referral Improvement and Prioritization Effort (BE RIPE) a. Report – Submitted by Councilmember Droste

June 15, 2021 Council Meeting

2. Systems Alignment Proposal
a. Supplemental Material – Submitted by Councilmember Hahn b. Supplemental Material – Submitted by Councilmember Harrison c. Report – Submitted by City Manager

May 18, 2021 Council Meeting

3. Systems Alignment Proposal
a. Supplemental Material – Submitted by Councilmember Droste b. Presentation – Submitted by City Manager
c. Report – Submitted by City Manager

Lori Droste
Councilmember, District 8
Action Calendar
March 14, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Lori Droste
Subject: Bureaucratic Effectiveness and Referral Improvement and Prioritization Effort (BE RIPE)
Recommendation
In order to ensure that the City focuses on high-priority issues, projects, and goals and affords them the resources and funding such civic efforts deserve, the City Council should consult with the City Manager’s Office to develop and adopt a suite of revisions to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order that would implement the following provisions:

1. Beginning in 2023, Councilmembers shall submit no more than one major legislative proposal or set of amendments to any existing ordinance per year, with the Mayor permitted to submit two major proposals, for a maximum of ten major Council items per year.

2. In 2023 and all future years, Councilmembers shall be required to submit major items before an established deadline. Council shall then prioritize any new legislative items as well as any incomplete major items from the previous year using the Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) process. This will help establish clear priorities for staff time, funding, and scheduling Council work sessions and meetings. For 2023 alone, the RRV process should include outstanding/incomplete Council items from all previous years. In 2024 and thereafter, the RRV process should only incorporate outstanding/incomplete major items from the prior year. However, Councilmembers may choose to renominate an incomplete major policy item from an earlier year as their single major item.

3. During deliberations at a special worksession, Council retreat, and/or departmental budget presentations, Council and the City Manager should develop a work plan that establishes reasonable expectations about what can be accomplished by staff given the list of priorities as ranked by RRV. Council should also consult with the City Manager and department heads, particularly the City Attorney’s office, Planning Department, and Public Works Department on workload challenges (mandates outside Council priorities, etc.), impacts, reasonable staff output expectations, and potential corrective actions to ensure that mandated deadlines are met, basic services are provided, and policy proposals are effectively implemented.

4. Budget referrals and allocations from City Council must be explicitly related to a previously established or passed policy/program, planning/strategy document, and/or an external funding opportunity related to one of these. As a good government practice, councilmembers and the Mayor may not submit budget referrals which direct funds to a

specific organization or event. Organizations which receive City funding must submit at least annually an application detailing, at a minimum: the civic goal(s)/purpose(s) for which City funds are used, the amount of City funding received for each of the preceding five years, and quantitative or qualitative accounting of the results/outcomes for the projects that made use of those City funds. Organizations receiving more than $20,000 in City funds should be required to provide quantitative data regarding the number of individuals served and other outcomes.

5. Ensuring that any exceptions to these provisions are designed to ensure flexibility in the face of an emergency, disaster, or urgent legal issue/liability and narrowly tailored to be consistent with the goals of enhanced efficiency, effectiveness, fairness, and focus.

Policy Committee Recommendation
On February 14, 2023, the Agenda and Rules Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Hahn/Arreguin) to send the item to the City Council with a Qualified Positive Recommendation to refer the relevant concepts of the original item to the Agenda & Rules Committee for consideration under the existing committee agenda item regarding enhancements to the City’s legislative process. Vote: All Ayes.

Current Situation and Its Effects
Over the past few years (excluding the COVID-19 state of emergency), City Council has grappled with potential options to reduce the legislative workload on the City of Berkeley staff.

While a significant portion of this workload is generated from non-legislative matters and staffing vacancies, it is important to recognize that staff also continue to struggle to keep up with Council directives while still accomplishing the City’s core mission or providing high quality public infrastructure and services.

Background and Rationale
Berkeley faces an enormous staffing crisis due in part to workload concerns; as such, Council should take steps to hone its focus on legislative priorities. November 2022’s Public Works Off- Agenda Memo offers a benchmark for problems faced by City departments. Public Works staff struggles to complete its top strategic plan projects, respond to audit findings, and provide basic services, in addition to fulfilling legislative priorities by Council. While the “Top Goals and Priorities” outlined by Public Works is tied to 130+ directives by the City Council, it is not reasonable to assume that all will be implemented.

The challenges faced by the Public Works department are not an anomaly. Other departments share the same challenges. In addition to needing to ensure that the City can adopt a compliant state-mandated Housing Element, process permits, secure new grant funding, mitigate seismic risks, and advance our Climate Action Plan, Planning Department staff have been tasked with addressing multiple policy proposals from the City Council. The sheer number of referrals also impacts the ability of staff in the City Attorney’s office to vet all ordinances, protect the City’s interests, participate in litigation, and address the City’s other various legal needs.

Best Practices
A number of nearby, similarly-sized cities were contacted to request information about how these cities approach Councilmember referrals and prioritizations processes. Cities contacted

included Richmond, Vallejo, Santa Clara, Concord, and Sunnyvale. Of these cities, Santa Clara, Concord, and Sunnyvale replied.

Santa Clara
Overall, Santa Clara staff indicated that—similar to Berkeley—the Council referrals and prioritization process is not especially formalized, with additional referrals being made outside of the prioritization process.

Each year, the Council holds an annual priority setting session at which the Council examines and updates priorities from the previous year and considers what progress was made toward those priorities. The prioritization process takes place in February so that any priorities that rise to the top may be considered for funding ahead of the budget process. In any given year, some priorities may go unfunded and even holding those priorities over to a second year is not necessarily a guarantee of funding.

Despite conducting this annual prioritization exercise, Councilmembers in Santa Clara often still do bring forward additional referrals outside of this process. Part of this less restricted approach in Santa Clara’s 030 (“zero thirty”) policy, which allows members of the the City Council to add items to the Council agenda with sufficient notice and even allows members of the public to petition to have items added to a special section of the Council agenda.

Despite the overally looseness of Santa Clara’s approach. Council members still rely upon staff to provide direction with respect to what priorities are or are not feasible based upon available funding and staff bandwidth.

Concord
According to Concord City staff, although Concord—like Berkeley and Santa Clara—does have a process for Councilmembers to request items be added to Council agendas, Councilmembers generally agree not to add referrals outside of the formal priority-setting process.

Concord City staff only work on “new” items/policies that are mandated by law, recommended by the City Manager, and have been recommended for review/work of some kind by a majority (three of the five members) of the City Council.

In general, Councilmembers agree to not add work items outside of the Council’s formal priority setting process. The Concord City Council has a once-a-year goal setting workshop each spring where the City plans its Tier 1 and Tier 2 priorities for the year (or sometimes for a 2-year cycle).

Most Councilmembers abide by this process and refrain from bringing forward additional items. However any Councilmember may put forward a referral outside of the process and use the method outlined below.

Outside of the prioritization process, Councilmembers can request that their colleagues (under Council reports at any Council meeting) support placing an item on a future Council meeting agenda for a discussion. The Concord City Attorney has advised councilmembers that they can make a three sentence statement, e.g. “I would like my colleagues’ support to agendize [insert item]” or “to send [insert item] to a Council standing committee for discussion.” Followed by:
“This is an important item to me or a timely item for the Council because [insert reasoning]. Do I have your support?” The other Councilmembers then cannot engage in any detailed discussion or follow up, but may only vote yes or no to agendizing the item.

If two of the Councilmember’s colleagues (for a total of 3 out of 5) agree to the request to have the item agendized for a more detailed discussion by Council, then the item will be added to a future agenda for fuller consideration. An additional referral outside the prioritization process is suggested perhaps once every month in Concord, but the Concord City Council usually does not provide the majority vote to agendize these additional items.

Sunnyvale
Of all the cities surveyed, Sunnyvale has the most structured approach for selecting, rating, and focusing on City Council priorities. “Study issues” require support from multiple councilmembers before being included in the annual priority setting, and then must go through a relatively rigorous process to rise to the top as Council priorities. And, perhaps most importantly, policy changes must go through the priority setting process to be considered. The Sunnyvale City Council’s Policy 7.3.26 Study Issues reads, in part:

Any substantive policy change (large or relatively small) is subject to the study issues process (i.e. evaluated for ranking at the Council Study Issues Workshop).

Policy related issues include such items as proposed ordinances, new or expanded service delivery programs, changes to existing Council policy, and/or amendments to the General Plan. Exceptions to this approach include emergency issues, and urgent policy issues that must be completed in the short term to avoid serious negative consequences to the City, subject to a majority vote of Council.

If a study issue receives the support of at least two Councilmembers, the issue will go to staff for the preparation of a study issue paper. Council-generated study issues must be submitted to staff at least three weeks ahead of the priority-setting session, with an exception for study issues raised by the public and carried by at least two Councilmembers, if the study issues hearing takes place less than three weeks before the priority setting.

At the Annual Study Issues Workshop, the Council votes whether to rank, defer, or drop study issues. If a majority votes to drop the issue, it may not return the following year; if the issue is deferred, it returns at the following year’s workshop; and if a majority votes to rank an issue, it proceeds to the ranking process. Sunnyvale’s process uses “forced ranking” for “departments” with ten or fewer issues and “choice ranking” for departments with eleven or more issues. (The meaning of “departments” and the process for determining the number of issues per department are not elucidated within the policy.) Forced ranking involves assigning a ranking to every policy within a given subset, while choice ranking only assigns a ranking to a third of policies within a given subset, with the others going unranked.

After the Council determines which study issues will be moving forward for the year based on the rankings, the City Manager advises Council of staff’s capacity for completing ranked issues.

However, if the Council provides additional funding, the number of study issues addressed may be increased.

In 2022, Sunnyvale had 24 study issues (including 17 from previous years and only 7 new ones) and zero budget proposals. Although Sunnyvale does consider urgency items outside the prioritization process, this generally happens only 1 to 3 times per year and usually pertains to highly urgent items, such as gun violence.

Status Quo and Its Effects
Council currently uses a reweighted range proportional representation voting method to determine which priorities represent both a) a consensus and b) district/neighborhood concerns.

This process allows Council to coalesce around a particular common area of concern; but if there is a specific neighborhood or district issue that is not addressed by Council consensus, it also allows for that district’s councilmember’s top priority to be elevated in the ratings even without broad consensus, so long as there are not multiple items designated as that councilmember’s “top” item. More information about this process can be found here. This system was established in 2016 due to the sheer amount of referrals by Council and the lack of cohesive direction on which of the 100+ referrals the City Manager should act upon.

Subsequent to this effort, Council created a “short-term referral” pool which was intended to be light-lift referrals that could be accomplished in less than 90 days. However, that designation was always intended to be determined by the City Manager, not Council, with respect to what was operationally feasible in terms of the 90 day window. The challenge with Council determining what is a short-term referral is that it is not always realistic given other duties that the staff has to attend to and inappropriate determinations can stymy work on other long term priorities if staff have to drop everything they are doing to attend to an “short-term” or “emergency” referral.

An added challenge is that the City Auditor reported in 2018 that the City of Berkeley’s Code Enforcement Unit (CEU) had insufficient capacity to enforce various Municipal Code provisions.

This was due to multiple factors, including understaffing—some of which have since improved.

Nevertheless, the City Auditor wrote,
“Council passes some ordinances without fully analyzing the resources needed for enforcement and without understanding current staffing capacity. In order to enforce new ordinances, the CEU must take time away from other enforcement areas. This increases the risk of significant health and safety code violations going unaddressed. It also leads to disgruntled community members who believe that the City is failing to meet its obligations. This does not suggest that the new ordinances are not of value and needed. Council passes policy to address community concerns. However, it does mean that the City Council routinely approves policy that may never result in the intended change or protections.” Subsequent to that report, an update was published in September of 2022. A staffing and resource analysis for Code Enforcement is still needed to ensure that the laws Council passes can be implemented.

Fiscal Impacts
These reforms are likely to result in significant direct savings related to reduced staff time/overtime as well as potential decreases to costs associated with the recruitment/retention of staff.

Alternatives Considered
Alternatives were considered using effectiveness and efficiency as the evaluative criteria for referrals. One missing criterion that will be necessary in developing this process will be operational considerations so the City of Berkeley can continue to deliver basic services in an efficient manner.

All-Council determination
Council could vote as a body on the top 10 legislative priorities. The drawback of this method is that it, by default, eliminates any remaining priorities that have been passed by Council. It also eliminates “minority” voices which may disproportionately impact neighborhood- specific concerns as the remainder of the Council may not value district-specific concerns outside of their council district.

Councilmember parameters
Councilmembers could select their top two legislative priorities (as a primary author) for the year and the Mayor could select four legislative priorities for the year for a total of 10 legislative priorities per year. These “legislative priorities” would not include resolutions of support, budget referrals for infrastructure or traffic mitigations or other non-substantive policy items…..

Status Quo Sans Short-Term Referrals
The status quo of rating referrals is the fairest and most equitable if Council wishes to continue to pass the same quantity of referrals; however, it does not address the overall volume and that certain legislative items skip the prioritization queue due to popularity or perceived community support. Council enacts ordinances that fall outside of the priority setting process and designates items as short-term referrals. This loophole has made this process a bit more challenging. One potential option is to continue the prioritization process but eliminate the short- term referral option unless it is undeniably and categorically an emergency or time-sensitive issue.

Contact Person
Councilmember Lori Droste (legislative aide Eric Panzer) [email protected]
Phone: 510-981-7180
Attachments
Update on Public Works’ Goals, Projects, Measures, and Challenges

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

November 15, 2022

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Re: Update on Public Works’ Goals, Projects, Measures, and Challenges This memo shares an update on the department’s Performance Measures and FY 2023 Top Goals and Projects, and identifies the department’s highest priority challenge. I am proud of this department’s work, its efforts to align its work with City Council’s goals, and the department’s dedication to improving project and program delivery.

Performance Measures
The department’s performance measures were first placed on the department’s website (https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/about-us/departments/public-works) in 2020.

They are updated annually in April. Progress continues in preventing trash from reaching the Bay, reducing waste, increasing bike lane miles, reducing the City fleet’s reliance on gas, increasing City-owned electric chargers, expanding acres treated by green infrastructure, and reducing the sidewalk repair backlog. Challenges remain with the City’s street condition and safety.

Top Goals and Projects
Public Works’ top goals and projects are also on the department’s website (https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/about-us/departments/public-works).

Department goals are developed annually. This year, after reviewing the 130+ directives from open City Council referrals, FY 2023 adopted budget referrals, audit findings, and strategic plan projects, staff matched existing resources with City Council’s direction and the ability to deliver on this direction while ensuring continuity in baseline services.

The FY 2023 Top Goals and Projects is staff’s projection of the work that the department has the capacity to advance this fiscal year. This list is intended to be both realistic and a stretch to achieve. More than tthree-quartersof the work on the FY 2023 Top Goals and Projects is tied to the existing 130+ directives from City Council referrals, budget referrals, audit findings, and strategic plan projects. The remainder are initiatives internal to the department aimed at increasing effectiveness and/or improving baseline services.

Public Works conducts quarterly monitoring of progress on the goals and projects, and status updates are shared on the department’s website using a simple status reporting

November 15, 2022
Re: Update on Public Works’ Goals, Projects, Measures, and Challenges

procedure. Each goal or project is coded green, yellow, or red. A project coded green is either already completed or is on track and on budget. A project in yellow is at risk of being off track or over budget. A project in red either will not meet its milestone for this fiscal year or is significantly off track or off-budget. Where a project or goal has multiple sub-parts, an overall status is color-coded for the numbered goal and/or project, and exceptions within the subparts are identified by color-coding. Quarter 1’s status update is here. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarter results will be posted at the same location.

Challenge
Besides the volume of direction, the most significant challenge in delivering on City Council’s directions is the department’s high vacancy rate. The Public Works Department is responsible for staff retention and serves as the hiring manager in the recruitment and selection process. Both retention and hiring contribute to the department’s vacancy rate, and the department collaborates closely with the Human Resources Department to reduce the rate. Over the last year, the vacancy rate has ranged from 12% to 18%, and some divisions, such as Equipment Maintenance (Fleet), Transportation,1 and Engineering, have exceeded 20%. While the overall vacancy rate is lower than in Oakland and San Francisco, it is higher than in Public Works Departments in Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, and San Leandro.

The high vacancy rate obviously reduces the number of services and projects that staff can deliver. It leaves little room for new direction through the course of the fiscal year and can lead to delays and diminished quality. It also detracts from staff morale as existing staff are left to juggle multiple job responsibilities over long periods with little relief. The department’s last two annual staff surveys show that employee morale is in the lowest quarter of comparable public agencies and the vacancy rate is a key driver of morale.

Attachment 1 offers an excerpted list of programs and projects that the department is unable to complete or address in this fiscal year due to the elevated vacancy rate and/or the volume of directives.

Attachment 1: Selected list of program, project, referral, and audit finding impacts

cc: Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
LaTanya Bellow, Deputy City Manager
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Matthai Chakko, Assistant to the City Manager

1 Three of the City’s five transportation planner positions will be vacant by December 3. Before January 1, 2023, the City Manager will share an off agenda memo that explains the impact of transportation -specific vacancies on existing projects and programs.

November 15, 2022
Re: Update on Public Works’ Goals, Projects, Measures, and Challenges

Attachment 1: Selected list of program, project, referral, and audit finding impacts

Project and Program Impacts
• Major infrastructure planning processes are 6+ months behind schedule, including comprehensive planning related to the City’s Zero Waste goal, bicycle, stormwater/watershed, sewer, and streetlight infrastructure. • Some flashing beacon installations have been delayed for more than 18 months, new traffic maintenance requests can take 2+ months to resolve, and the backlog of neighborhood traffic calming requests stretches to 2019. • The City may lose its accreditation status by the American Public Works Association because of a lack of capacity to gain re-accreditation. • Some regular inspections and enforcement of traffic control plans for the City’s and others’ work in the right of way are missed.
• Residents experience missed waste and compost pickups as drivers and workers cover unfamiliar routes and temporary assignments.
• Illegal dumping, ongoing encampment , and RV-related cleanups are sometimes missed or delayed.
• The backlog of parking citation appeals has increased. • Invoice and contracting approvals can face months-long delays. • The Janitorial Unit has reduced service levels and increased complaints. • Maintenance of the City’s fleet has declined, with preventative maintenance happening infrequently, longer repair response times, and key vehicles being unavailable during significant weather events.

Prior Direction Deferred or Delayed
• Referral: Expansion of Paid Parking (DMND0003994)
• Referral: Long-Term Zero Waste Strategy (DMND0001282) • Referral: Residential Permit Parking (PRJ0016358)
• Referral: Parking Benefits District at Marina (DMND0003997) • Referral: Prioritizing pedestrians at intersections (DMND0002584) • Referral: Parking Districts on Lorin and Gilman (DMND0003998) • Budget Referral: Durant/Telegraph Plaza, 12/14/2021
• Referral: Traffic Calming Policy Revision (PRJ0012444) • Referral: Public Realm Pedestrianization Opportunities (PRJ0019832) • Referral: Long-Term Resurfacing Plan (PRJ0033877)
• Referral: Street Sweeping Improvement Plan (DMND0002583) • Audit: Leases: Conflicting Directives Hinder Contract Oversight (2009) • Audit: Underfunded Mandate: Resources, Strategic Plan, and Communication Needed to Continue Progress Toward the Year 2020 Zero Waste Goal (2014) • Audit: Unified Vision of Zero Waste Activities Will Help Align Service Levels with Billing and Ensure Customer Equity (2016)

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL

for Supplemental Packet 2

Meeting Date: June 15, 2021

Item Number: 3

Item Description: Systems Alignment Proposal

Submitted by: Councilmember Sophie Hahn

This Supplemental offers suggestions for a legislative process better aligned with the goal of creating and supporting meaningful and effective change. Our current system is strengthened by (1) supporting the completeness of Major Items as introduced by Authors by requiring adherence to the existing Guildelines, and (2) significantly strengthening the Committee process - to support robust analysis and community/stakeholder consultation and ensure items moving forward to Council include realistic estimates of resources required related to launch and implement new programs and policies.

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Author)
Subject: Systems Alignment Proposal

COMMENTS ON SYSTEMS REALIGNMENT

My Frame for Systems Realignment: Systems Aligned to Support Change

We are in a time of rapid change both locally and globally. The impacts of climate change, globalization, and inequality; growing threats to democracy; and the rise of a new generation of leaders illustrate that change is both a fact and an imperative.

Berkeley has been and should continue to be on the cutting edge of that change, and our legislative processes as well as our City organization must be designed to do more than just manage the status quo, with change viewed as a threat, cost, or nuisance. Our systems must be aligned to stimulate, support, and implement meaningful change across all sectors - quickly.

With that framing in mind, I believe the legislative process in Berkeley should be designed to support Councilmembers and the Mayor in producing and passing legislation that addresses important local concerns as well as value-based issues with both local and broader impact.

Some legislation may simply strengthen the City of Berkeley as an organization - improving the basic functions and services we provide to our community. Other legislation is designed to address city, community, regional, national, and sometimes global needs, values and priorities.

Because of the City’s commitment to progressive and democratic principles and its role as a leader and innovator across many sectors, legislation will often push the envelope, which I believe requires a nimble, can-do City organization. While logistics, staffing, costs and other elements of feasibility and implementation are key to the ultimate success of any new policy or program, I view the exploration of these questions as a supporting rather than driving force for legislation; internal feasibility under the status quo should not be an end unto itself.

Systems Aligned to Support Excellence and Effectiveness in Change:

While I believe change is an imperative and innovation should be core to our City systems, I also know that not every idea brought forward is ultimately optimal, relevant, or feasible. We are much more than an incubator for ideas and concepts - we serve a real community and must balance a wide variety of needs and viewpoints with every decision we make. I believe our systems must therefore be aligned to ensure new programs and policies are thoroughly researched, revised, and vetted for Berkeley - to meet the needs of our community without overwhelming the City organization. If the Council has priorities for which funds or capacity are not currently available, we must identify resources to build capacity.

To achieve these goals in this frame, I envision a process wherein major items of legislation that begin with the well-researched and articulated proposals of one or a few councilmember/mayor- authors are progressively reviewed and improved with input from stakeholders, members of the public, City staff and Council colleagues.

The end result should be high quality, relevant, thoughtfully tailored and right-sized programs and policies accompanied by realistic assessments of the resources required for successful launch and implementation. City staff, with their subject matter expertise and knowledge of operations play a uniquely important role in contributing to legislative success, and should actively partner throughout the process, with progressively increased levels of input and participation as legislation is moved forward.

The adoption of Guidelines for legislative items and the implementation of the Committee system provide a good foundation. By clarifying expectations and improving the value we derive from our existing processes we can avoid bogging things down with too many steps.

The following are my suggestions for a legislative process better aligned with the goal of creating and supporting meaningful and effective change. Our current system is strengthened by (1) supporting the completeness of Major Items as introduced by Authors by requiring adherence to the existing Guildelines, and (2) significantly strengthening the Committee process - to support robust analysis and community/stakeholder consultation and ensure items moving forward to Council include realistic estimates of resources required related to launch and implement new programs and policies.

Proposed Systems Alignment Improvements for Major Items:

PROCESS ELEMENT CONTENT NOTES

MAJOR ITEM

SUBMISSION
Strongly encourage Authors to present Major Items in the full Guidelines format, which prompts for deep research, analysis and consultation

Define Major Item Any law, program, or policy that represents a significant change or addition to existing law, program, or policy, and/or is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis, or input from the community, staff, or Council colleagues, and/or is likely to require significant new resources or staffing to implement .

Major items are, essentially, “Policy Committee
Track” items (see Rules) that are routed to a
Policy Committee because they are substantial.

The adoption of a definition for Major Items
clarifies a practice that is already in place.

Some items are not “Major” because they
propose less significant changes or additions to
existing law, programs or policies. In addition,
some Major Items may be routed directly to the
City Council due to urgency (“Time Critical
Track”). All of this is already reflected in the
Rules governing Policy Committees.

Major Item Routing Major items may originate with Councilmembers, the City Manager (often as referral responses), or Commissions. Major Items generally should be routed to a Committee to be reviewed by Committee members and, if necessary, revised, with input from stakeholders, the public, and City staff.

Currently, only Councilmember/Mayor items are
subject to review by Policy Committees. The
Rules should be amended to require all Major
Items, regardless of where they originated, to be
reviewed in Committee unless they fall under
the Time Critical Track or another exception.

Make Guidelines
Mandatory for
presentation of Major
Items for review
Council/Mayor and Commission authors of Major Items should present their items in accordance with the Guidelines at Appendix B of the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order. Authors should make a good faith effort to undertake the research, analysis and consultation necessary to complete all sections in substance.

Need to specify format for “non-Major” items.

Staff Consultation is
encouraged, but not
required at the initial
Councilmembers and the Mayor are encouraged to consult with Staff before presenting Major Items, but may choose to engage with staff later, through the Committee process.

Staff should keep confidential and seek to
support the positive development of ideas and
initiatives of electeds who reach out for initial

development of a
legislative item.
input. Concerns, if any, should be addressed
with a problem-solving lens.

City Attorney
Consultation
Authors should submit Major Items for preliminary review by the City Attorney to determine if there are any legal implications - which may need to be addressed before the item is submitted or could be developed/addressed later. The author should state in the section on consultation that the City Attorney has been consulted.

Not all items have legal implications. The City
Attorney’s role at this juncture would be to
identify whether there are legal considerations,
or not. If there are, the Author can work with the
City Attorney’s office to determine if the issues
can be avoided/addressed, or if the legislation
may not be possible/advisable.

Agenda Committee
makes an initial
determination of whether
an Item is “Major” and will
be referred to a
Committee, with input
from the Author(s).

This tracks the current practice - except that with an adopted definition of a Major Item the determination to send an item to Committee will be made according to more clearly articulated, objective standards.

Per the existing rules, proclamations,
sponsorships, ceremonial and similar items;
Time Critical Items; and “Policy Track” items
that are complete and have minimal impacts are
currently not referred to Committees. This
practice will be unchanged.

The Agenda Committee
may require a Major
Item not presented
and/or fully rendered
according to the
Guidelines to be more
amply developed before
being sent to Committee.

Authors of Major Items should do substantial research, analysis, and consultation before sending them to a Committee for further input and development.

The Agenda Committee should be authorized to request that a major item not presented according to the Guidelines, or not substantially meeting the requirements, be further developed by the Author(s) before being sent to Committee.

Analysis should go beyond diagnosing the
problem to be solved and focus on explaining
and understanding the specific
solutions/policies/programs being proposed, as
well as alternatives considered.

Appeal/Override of
Agenda Committee
recommendation to revise
Major Item before
submission to a
Committee
Authors should be offered the opportunity to discuss an Agenda Committee recommendation to rework a Major Item at the time the recommendation is made. If, after discussion, the lead author disagrees with the Agenda Committee’s request for further elaboration according to the Guidelines, the item may be referred to a Committee “as is” with a note that the Agenda Committee had requested the item be revised.

Authors should have a means to appeal a
decision of the Agenda Committee to send an
item back to the author for revision/expanded
research, analysis or consultation and still move
their items forward if they disagree with the
request.

Major Items that are
Complete go to
Committee (or items that
are incomplete but
subject to an override)
Per existing rules, Major Items will be routed to a policy committee unless an exception applies.

Exceptions are already listed in the Rules.

MAJOR ITEM

COMMITTEE REVIEW
Clarify and significantly improve process and substance of Major Item review @ Committee, including development of a preliminary launch and implementation plan and associated costs

Committee hears Major
Item more than once -
First hearing includes
development of a plan for
review
As a general matter, Committees should plan to schedule Major Items to be heard more than once. At the first hearing, the Committee should discuss the level of analysis and consultation envisioned, identify specific stakeholders and questions Commitee members would like to explore, and sketch a process for moving the item forward over several Committee meetings.

Depending on how complex and significant the
Major Item appears to be, the Committee can
plan out its process of review and consultation.

Committee reviews
specific elements of the
proposed Major Item
The Guidelines require, under bullets 5-9, (5) full background on the problem/issue to be addressed, (6) the existing
regulatory/legal framework, (7) potential alternative solutions to address the identified concern, (8) consultation with stakeholders, and (9) a rationale for the recommendation.

Each of these sections should be specifically agendized for discussion (can all be same day, but should be individually considered) to ensure robust consideration of the legislation as proposed.

By requiring the Committee to focus on each of
these elements as a baseline review,
Committee members are encouraged to do a
deep dive into the basis, rationales and
alternatives for the Major Item.

Committee identifies
and does specific
outreach to
Stakeholders and
Experts
The “public” is always welcome at Committee Meetings. In addition to general public notice, the Committee in its first meeting to review a Major Item should identify stakeholders and experts who may have valuable input. If needed, those individuals/groups should be invited by the Committee to share their perspectives.

Staff can support outreach to ensure identified stakeholders and experts are aware of the opportunity to comment.

Sectors/individuals that are supported or
otherwise impacted by new policies and
programs are well positioned to provide useful
comments and input for the Committee. Subject
matter experts may also be helpful to hear from.

Staff input is agendized
and includes
preliminary review of
Launch and
Implementation
Staff is encouraged to provide input and answer questions throughout the Committee process. Staff should be encouraged to volunteer comments and Committee Chairs should call on staff to ensure time is provided for their comments throughout the process. In addition, a specific time for staff input should be agendized.

The Staff presentation should include preliminary review of staffing and budget/resource needs for both Launch and Implementation.

Launching a new program or policy and running
it are two different undertakings. Staff should
specify what will need to be in place to LAUNCH
(development of regulations, preparation of
informational mailings, website updates, back-
end systems, funding, etc. ) and to
RUN/IMPLEMENT new programs and policies
over the long run.

Manage/reduce Staffing
of Committees
With a better articulated “plan” for Committee review of Major Items, staffing of meetings can be more closely managed to reduce waiting time for staff members/City Attorney when not needed for one or another matter.

Only need Clerk + Staff Lead - Chair can work
with Staff Lead to bring other Staff into
discussions on as-needed basis. The City
Attorney may be able to be on standby for
advice when presence is not required.

Major Item moves forward
to Council (all
recommendations)
Lead Author must revise/update item to include information about resources required for Launch and Implementation of the Major Item, and to reflect any other changes, before submission to City Council.

Major Item gets passed
by Council
Goes to Budget Implementation Conference, or vote no and it’s over

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]

REVISED AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2

Meeting Date: June 15, 2021

Item Number: 3

Item Description: Systems Alignment Proposal

Submitted by: Councilmember Harrison

The attached item includes Councilmember Harrison’s comments about the proposed Systems Alignment Proposal as well as an alternative proposal.

It is in the public interest that the Council consider this alternative proposal as part of the Mayor’s development of a revised proposal for discussion and adoption at a later date.

Kate Harrison
Councilmember District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-6903 E-Mail:

[email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmember Harrison

Subject: Comments and Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal

COMMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

At the October 2019 Council retreat, the Council and the City Manager discussed various approaches to better align the legislative process to budget and implementation resources. These considerations are important and merit Council consideration and possible action. However, the proposed solution from the City Manager would also limit the voice of the public and the Council by restricting the time period for Council referrals to only four months per year.

At a Worksession on May 18, 2021 dedicated to the Systems Alignment proposal, the Council heard overwhelming public comment strongly opposed to such an approach.

A better solution lies in reexamining and modifying certain elements of the Policy Committee process as opposed to overhauling fundamental elements of Council duties.

This Supplemental discusses the shortcomings of the proposal in greater detail and advances an alternative and simpler approach to “Systems Alignment” achieving the original objective of the October 2019 retreat without sacrificing and abdicating fundamental values and responsibilities.

A. The Proposed Systems Alignment Proposal Unduly Limits Council Duties and Responsibilities Under the City Charter

The City Charter provides that the City Council is the “governing body of the municipality” and “shall exercise the corporate powers of the City, and… be vested with all powers of legislation in municipal affairs adequate to a complete system of local government.”

However, the proposal subjects “new significant legislation” to a labyrinth of new bureaucratic processes that will invariably and unduly limit the democratic organ of city government—the City Council—which is directly answerable to the will of the people.

Comments and Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal
2 The following list provides a non-comprehensive overview/discussion of the ways the current Systems Alignment Proposal could violate the letter and spirit of the Charter:

• The proposal limits Council from submitting “new significant legislation” to four months out of the year, effectively making the Council only responsive to the people’s “significant” needs on a part-time basis as any legislation that misses the deadline is inactive for the remainder of the year. Not only does this violate the necessity of providing the Council with “all powers of legislation in municipal affairs,” but it appears to contradict the voter’s will pursuant to Measure JJ, wherein they reaffirmed the scope and appropriate renumeration of Council’s myriad legislative and oversight responsibilities.

• The determination of which legislation will be subject to additional scrutiny and processes is based on subjective findings by the Agenda Committee in consultation with the City Manager. This is in contrast to alternative approaches, such as those adopted in other cities, which rely upon objective measures such as the consideration of a piece of legislation’s budgetary or staffing implications informed by thorough discussion and investigation by Policy Committees. Furthermore, pursuant to the Council’s historic rules of procedures, subjective judgements of legislation are appropriately the purview of the Council as a whole, not subcommittees. The current proposal adopts an inherently conservative and subjective framework that judges all legislation by whether it “represents a significant change or addition to existing law, program, or policy, or is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis, or input from staff.” Legislation meeting that definition is then subjected to lengthy bureaucratic processes of more than a year.

In short, the proposed framework stands in contrast to the current Policy Committee system, whereby subcommittees are tasked with improving the quality, thoroughness and comprehension of legislation, as opposed to a subjective consideration and determination of whether a given policy change is merited largely within the narrow confines of considering limited budget and staff resources.

• Under the Charter, the Council is responsible for adopting a biannual budget.

However, the proposal limits Council’s ability to adopt significant new legislation with budget implications at only one of the two primary budget processes per year.

• Legislative consultation with City staff is absolutely necessary. But the proposal encourages authors to “initially consult[] with the City Manager or city staff regarding their proposed Major Item and [note] the substance of those conversations, and initial staff input” before the item is even introduced. This system could potentially create an inappropriate layer of staff power over Council legislative prerogative, a division that the Charter is very clear about.

• The proposal requires that items align with Strategic Plan goals. While these goals are important and represent a snapshot of Council and City Staff’s vision for the city, they do not necessarily represent the totality of the people’s will as expressed

Comments and Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal
3 through their elected representatives at any given time.

• The Council is artificially constrained from acting upon legislation receiving an unfavorable review at the Policy Committee level. Council is reduced to a choice between proceeding through the next phase, or to vetoing a matter for the remainder of the legislative calendar if a policy committee forwards a negative recommendation. Currently, under the committee system, items not acted upon in committee withing 120 days are forwarded to the Council. In this way, the proposal violates the Charter by imposing unreasonable hurdles to the exercise of “all powers of legislation in municipal affairs adequate to a complete system of local government.”

• The proposal states that all significant legislation must be submitted by April 30, and City Council Policy Committees must complete review of all Major Items assigned to them no later than June 30 of each year. This raises the question of what the Council is engaged in for the majority of the year?

• Implementation Conferences, while a good idea, are currently crafted in a way that they will delay items unnecessarily and remove discussion of budgetary impacts from the substantive discussion by policy committees. Furthermore, the proposal imposes an artificial limit with respect to holding Implementation Conferences to once per year, which will further constrain the Council’s legislative obligations.

• After the implementation conference, Policy Committees are required to provide an additional subjective consideration of major items through prioritization. This is late in the life of an item. Additionally, under this proposal, the Council is expected to once again rank significant items as part of the RRV process (behind closed doors), despite the items having already endured the lengthy Systems Alignment process and final Council approval.

• When an item fails to receive Council approval, the author is barred from resubmitting it until the following year.

B. Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal

This item presents a simpler and less disruptive Systems Alignment proposal that conforms to the existing Council and Policy Committee processes and prioritizes research and investigation of items with significant budgetary and staff implications in order to better inform Council’s decision-making process as opposed to hard limits on legislation:

1. To address the backlog of outstanding items that may impact staff resources and availability to implement Council and other citywide priorities, the Council should immediately direct Policy Committees to review all such referrals and items in staff’s queue for which implementation work has not yet begun.

Comments and Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal
4 Upon this review, Policy Committees would be tasked with making a recommendation to the full Council to modify or reconsider certain items in the queue.

Next, the Council should schedule worksessions (outside of the RRV process) to consider Policy Committee recommendations in a public forum and prepare a Resolution potentially dispensing with and/or reprioritizing items in the queue.

In totality, this process would contribute to streamlining the existing queue, and facilitate staff resources for implementation and development of other new and existing legislative items. In sum, through revisiting the existing queue, Council can continue to conduct substantial legislative work throughout the year.

2. The Council should revise Policy Committee process with respect to the budget and legislative implementation.

Specifically, to address potential incongruity between Council items with significant budget implications, the Council should modify its Rules of Procedure to task Policy Committees (not the Agenda Committee) with making an initial and objective determination of whether a prospective item has significant budget and/or staffing impacts (See Attachment 1 for a detailed flowchart of the Alternative Proposal):

o Upon an insignificant budget determination, the item and any related budget referral would proceed through the normal Policy Committee track process on a maximum 90-day timeline.

o Upon a significant determination, the item would be placed on a different Policy Committee track such that the Policy Committee would have a maximum of 120 days to research and investigate the budget and staffing implications of the item, any related budget referral, and policy implications, in order to inform Council’s ultimate consideration. As part of the 120 day process, the Committee would facilitate an Implementation Conference hearing(s) with City staff, the author, and Committee members in order to prepare an Implementation Report.

o Once the Committee has made its policy recommendation and finalized its Implementation Report, the item would proceed to the Agenda Committee for scheduling at Council.

o Upon Council adoption of items with either significant or insignificant budget/staffing implications, the budget aspect of the item would proceed to either the June or November budget process pursuant to Council- established deadlines for consideration of budget items. For example, the

Comments and Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal
5 Council could establish deadlines of May and October for the respective budget processes. Therefore, the Budget Committee would only consider budget items that were passed ahead of the respective deadlines. Those that miss the deadline or are ultimately unfunded would be automatically carried over to the next budget process.

This alternative proposal would achieve the important goal of aligning Council items with significant budget and staff impacts with legislation in an objective way that is not detrimental to the Council’s obligations under the Charter.

It is in the public interest that the Council consider this alternative proposal as part of the Mayor’s development of a revised proposal for discussion and adoption at a later date.

CONTACT
Councilmember Kate Harrison
[email protected] | 510-981-7140

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Flowchart of Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal

Alternative Systems Alignment Proposal

Item submitted per existing
Council submission deadlines
Agenda Committee
Non-policy
Committee Track
Policy Committee / Budget
Track
Committee makes initial determination of
budget/staffing (implementation) impacts
Council Meeting Policy Committee
Significant Insignificant

Normal Policy Committee
track (up to 90 Days) with
Budget Referral (if applicable)
Policy Committee track (up to 120
Days) with Committee facilitated
Implementation Conference
Committee issues policy
recommendation and
implementation report
Agenda Committee
Council
Budget Committee
Recommendation
Proceeds based on the June or November Budget
Process Deadlines
Council Budget Adoption
Funded Unfunded
Referred to
next budget
process

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
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: David White, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Systems Alignment Proposal

RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposal for systems alignment and provide edits and suggestions in order to compile Council feedback for the purpose of drafting a revised proposal for adoption.

SUMMARY
The City Council discussed the Systems Alignment proposal at a Worksession on May 18, 2021. The item was continued to June 15 to allow Councilmembers to submit suggestions and changes to the original plan. The Mayor will consolidate the input from the Council and the public and return with a revised proposal for discussion and adoption at a later date.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
While the recommendation of this report would not entail fiscal impacts, if adopted, the proposal would have budgetary effects. Broadly speaking, the proposal is designed to better ensure adequate financial and staffing resources are identified and approved with any adopted significant legislation1 (Major Item).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This report proposes a process to integrate various systems (e.g., budget, Strategic Plan, prioritization of referrals, etc.) to ensure that resources are appropriately allocated, to focus the organization and employees on those priorities established by the City Council and City Manager, and to enhance legislative and budget processes. Ultimately, aligning systems will help ensure our community’s values as reflected in the policies of our City Council are implemented completely and efficiently, with increased fiscal prudence, while supporting more meaningful service delivery. In light of the economic and financial impacts of COVID-19 and resource constraints, it is imperative to improve 1 New significant legislation is defined, with some explicit exceptions, as “any law, program, or policy that represents a significant change or addition to existing law, program, or policy, or is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis, or input from staff, Councilmembers or members of the public”. See Council Rules of Procedure, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _City_Council/City%20Council%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf.

03

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
vetting and costing of new projects and legislative initiatives to ensure success. In addition, the purpose of this proposal will align our work with the budget process.

The proposed changes outlined in this memorandum will better guide and inform budget development, clarify tradeoffs by identifying operational impacts, and develop a more effective and time-efficient path to implementation. These changes support a clear and full realizing of City Council policies, programs, and vision. The major features of the proposal are:
 Changing the order of the legislative process to ensure that Major Items (defined below) passed by Council are funded, as well as folded into staff workplans and staffing capacity,
 Making the City Council Rules of Procedure Appendix B guidelines mandatory,  Ensuring that Major Items that are adopted by City Council are vetted and clearly identify the resources needed for implementation,
 Consolidating and simplifying reporting and tracking of Major Items, and  Creating a deadline for each year’s Major Items that allows for alignment with prioritization, the Strategic Plan, and the budget process.

Additionally, the proposed Systems Alignment would advance the City’s Strategic Plan goal to provide an efficient and financially-health City government.

PROPOSED PROCESS
The proposed process outlined in this memorandum replaces the current system of referrals (short and long term, as well as Commission referrals), directives, and new proposed ordinances, that is, all Major Items, regardless of “type” or origin will be subject to this process.

Step 1: Major Item Determination
The systems alignment proposal outlines a process for Major Items.

Defined in Council Rules of Procedure
Major Items are “new significant legislation” as defined in Appendix D of the City Council Rules of Procedure:

Except as provided below, “new significant legislation” is defined as any law, program, or policy that represents a significant change or addition to existing law, program, or policy, or is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis, or input from staff, Councilmembers or members of the public.

The exceptions to the definition of new significant legislation and process state:

New significant legislation originating from the Council, Commissions, or Staff related to the City’s COVID-19 response2, including but not limited to health and 2 If this proposal is adopted, “COVID-19” should be replaced with “declared emergency response” in the exception language.

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
economic impacts of the pandemic or recovery, or addressing other health and safety concerns, the City Budget process, or other essential or ongoing City processes or business will be allowed to move forward, as well as legislative items that are urgent, time sensitive, smaller, or less impactful.

The Agenda & Rules Committee, in consultation with the City Manager, will make the initial determination of whether something is a Major Item, using the Major Item Determination Checklist (see attachment 1). At any time in the process, if evidence demonstrates that the initial determination of the proposal as a Major Item proves incorrect, then it is no longer subject to this process. Additionally, if any legislation it originally deemed not to be a Major Item, the author or City Manager may appeal to the Agenda and Rules Committee or to the full Council and present evidence to the contrary.

Required Conformance and Consultation
All Major Items must use the agenda guidelines in Appendix B of the Council Rules, which require more detailed background information and analysis. The Agenda and Rules Committee can send the item back to the author if it is not complete and/or does not include all of the information required in Appendix B. The author must make a good faith effort to ensure all the guideline prompts are completed in substance not just in form.

Major Items must include a section noting whether the author has initially consulted with the City Manager or city staff regarding their proposed Major Item and the substance of those conversations, and initial staff input.

Required Submission Date
A Major Item must be submitted in time to appear on the agenda of an Agenda & Rules Committee meeting occurring no later than April 30 of every year. Any item submitted after that deadline, that does not meet an exemption, will be continued to the following year’s legislative process.

Major Items will be referred by the Agenda & Rules committee on a rolling basis.

Step 2: Policy Committee Review
A Major Item, once introduced and deemed complete and in conformance by the Agenda and Rules Committee, will be referred to one of City Council’s Policy Committees (i.e., Health, Life Enrichment, Equity and Community, Public Safety, etc.), for review, recommendation, and high-level discussion of implementation (i.e., ideas, rough cost estimates, benefits, etc.). Per the Council Rules of Procedure,3 the Policy 3 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _City_Council/City%20Council%20Rules%20of%20Procedure%20-%20Feb%2011%202020%20- %20FINAL.pdf

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
Committee will review the Major Item and the completed Major Item Determination Checklist to confirm Agenda & Rules initial determination that the Major Item is complete in accordance with Section III.B.2 and aligns with Strategic Plan goals. If the Major Item receives a positive or qualified positive recommendation, then it will go to an Implementation Conference (See step 3, Vetting and Costing).

If the Major Item receives a negative or qualified negative recommendation, then it will be returned to the Agenda and Rules Committee to be placed on a City Council Agenda. When heard at a City Council meeting, the author can advocate for the Major Item to be sent to an Implementation Conference. If the Major Item does not receive a vote by the majority of City Council at this step, it becomes inactive for that year’s legislative calendar but may be reintroduced for the next year’s calendar.

City Council Policy Committees must complete review of all Major Items assigned to them no later than June 30 of each year.

Step 3: Implementation Conference (Vetting and Costing) At an Implementation Conference, the primary author will meet with the City Manager or designee, City Manager-selected staff subject matter experts, and the City Attorney or designee.

Identifying Fiscal, Operational and Implementation Impacts The intended outcome of an Implementation Conference is a strong analysis containing all of the considerations and resources necessary to support implementation should Council choose to approve the Major Item.

The Implementation Conference is an informal meeting where the primary author can collaborate with the City Manager, City Attorney, and staff to better define the Major Item and identify more detailed fiscal and operational impacts, as well as implementation considerations. The information discussed during the Implementation Conference will be summarized in the Council Report as part of newly required sections (see attachment 2), in conformance with Appendix B:
 Initial Consultation, which
o Lists internal and external stakeholders that were consulted, including whether item was concurrently submitted to a Commission for input, o Summarizes and confirms what was learned from consultation, o Confirms legal review addressing any legal or pre-emption issues, ensuring legal form,4
 Implementation, Administration, and Enforcement, which o Identifies internal and external benefits and impacts, and 4 While consultation with the City Attorney is mentioned in Appendix B, the legal review and “confirmations” recommended in this proposal is a more specific and robust requirement.

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
o Considers equity implications, launch/initiation of Major Item and its ongoing administration, and
 Fiscal & Operational Impacts, which
o Summarizes any operational impacts,
o Identifies necessary resources, including specific staff resources needed and costs.5
As part of the Implementation Conference, staff will provide a high level work plan, indicating major deliverables/milestones and dates. This information can be collected and recorded using the Implementation Conference Worksheet (see attachment 2).

Implementation Conferences will be date certain meetings held in July.

Revising the Major Item
After the Major Item’s author revises the original Council Report based on information from the Implementation Conference, the Major Item will be submitted to the Council agenda process. If additional full time equivalent employee(s) (FTE) or fiscal resources are needed, the Major Item must include a referral to the budget process and identify the amount for implementation of the policy or program.

Step 4: Initial Prioritization
At their first meetings in September, Policy Committees must complete the ranking of the Major Items which were referred to them and also completed the Implementation Conference. The Policy Committees will provide these rankings in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. The Policy Committees prioritization will use the Policy Committee Ranking Form (see attachment 3) to standardize consideration of Major Items across Policy Committees. The Policy Committee priority rankings will be submitted to the City Council when the Council is considering items to move forward in the budget and Strategic Plan process.

Step 5: City Council Approval and Final Prioritization
Under this proposal, all Major Items that the City Council considers for approved prioritization must have:

1. Received a City Council Policy Committee review and recommendation,

2. Received a City Council Policy Committee prioritization,

3. Completed the Implementation Conference, and

4. Been placed on the Agenda for a regular of special Council meeting in October for approval and inclusion in the RRV process.
5 Appendix B does require a Fiscal Impacts section, but the inclusion of operational impacts and specific noting of required staff resources and costs recommended in this proposal is a more specific and robust requirement.

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
At the designated Council meeting in October, staff will provide the Council with a list of all approved Major Items, including the initial prioritization by Policy Committee. The Council will consider each Major Item for approval. All approved Major Items then will be added to the RRV process (i.e., with other items, referrals, etc) and ranked. The RRV ranking will begin in late October. These rankings will be adopted by Council and used to inform the development of the draft budget. Approved and ranked Major Items have multiple opportunities to be approved for funding, when the biennial budget or mid- cycle budget is adopted in June or when the Annual Appropriations Ordinances are adopted in May and November.

If a Major Item does not receive the endorsement of City Council at this step, it becomes inactive for that year’s legislative calendar and may be reintroduced for the next year’s calendar.

City Council must complete its Major Items approval, and RRV process no later than the final meeting in December of each year.6 This ensures that staff is able to develop the budget starting from and based on Council priorities.

Step 6: Budget & Strategic Plan Process
The Council’s rankings are also forwarded to the Budget and Finance Committee for consideration as part of budget development. If the proposal is not ultimately funded in the biennial budget, mid-cycle budget or the Annual Appropriations Ordinance (mid-year budget amendment), then it does not move forward that year and will be added to a list of unfunded proposals for the future budget process.

During December and January, city staff will prepare budget proposals that incorporate the ranked City Council Major Items, Strategic Plan, and work plan development. In the late winter/early spring, the City Manager and Budget Office will present the draft budget to Council. This will be followed by department presentations to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee. From late March and through early May, Council and staff will refine the budget. Council will hold budget hearings in May and June, with adoption of the budget by June 30. Although the legislative process (i.e., Policy Committee review, Implementation Conference, Prioritization) is annual, staff recommends the budget process remain biennual. A significant mid-cycle budget update can easily accommodate additions to or changes in priorities arising through the legislative process.

The proposed process is depicted in Figure 1 and the proposed launch calendar in Figure 2.
6 Due to noticing requirements, an RRV process completed by November 30 may not appear on a City Council Agenda for adoption until January.

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
Figure 1, Proposed Process7
Commission , Council, or
Staff Item
Agenda Committee
Review
Major Item
Agendized for Policy
Committee
Positive
Recommendation
Implementation
Conference
Policy Committee
Prioritization
Agendized for City
Council
Approved
RRV
Incorporated into Budget
& Strategic Plan Process
Not Approved
Inactive for a
year
Commission
Review/Input
Negative
Recommendation
Agendized for
Full Council
Not a Major
Item
Agendized for City
Council
7 Major Items that are ordinances will need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Once adopted, ranked, and, if requiring resources, budgeted, the ordinance will need to be given an effective date and scheduled for first and second readings at Council.

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 Figure 2, Proposed Launch

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 Next Steps
Staff will reach out to legislative aides for input and the City Manager will meet individually with Councilmembers to discuss this proposal. Staff will incorporate Council input from the worksession, and from subsequent input< into a resolution and return to Council with a final Systems Alignment item for adoption by July 2021.

Benefits
The addition of an Implementation Conference will ensure that Major Items considered by Council are properly resourced, improving our City’s responsible management of fiscal resources. Analysis from the Implementation Conference will help Council to balance and consider each Major Item within the context of related programs and potential impacts (positive and negative). When considered holistically, new policy implementation can be supportive of existing work and service delivery.

Since the proposed process places the City Council prioritization of Major Items immediately before budget preparation, the Prioritization will guide and inform budget development, including components such as the Strategic Plan and work plans. Fixing the sequencing of the process is a key benefit. Currently, with prioritization occurring in May and June, the budget process is nearing completion when City Council’s priorities are finally decided. This leads to inconsistencies between adopted priorities and budgeting for those priorities.

Under the current process, an idea may go into prioritization, proceed to the short term referral list or referred to the budget process. However, the resulting Major Item may not have addressed operational considerations. Adding such items to a department’s work at any given time of the year may lead to staff stopping or slowing work on other prioritized projects in order to develop and implement new Major Items. Also, it may be difficult for staff to prioritize their projects: is stopping/slowing of work that is already underway in order to address new items the preference of the full Council? Also, because consideration of implementation currently occurs after the adoption of a Major Item, features of the adopted language may unintentionally constrain effective implementation, complicating and slowing progress on the Major Item and hindering the effectiveness of the new program or regulation.

With the proposed process, a Major Item does not go through prioritization until there is an opportunity for staff to identify operational considerations. Finally, since implementation only occurs after operational considerations are reported, and funds are

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
allocated, the resulting Major Item should move more quickly from idea to successful completion.

BACKGROUND
In October 2019, City Council held a half-day worksession to discuss systems realignment and provide direction on potential changes to the city’s legislative process.

The purpose of the meeting was to develop recommendations for how various systems (e.g., budget, Strategic Plan, RRV, etc) could better work together to ensure that the organization is able to focus on the priorities established by the City Council. The City Manager took direction from that meeting and worked with department directors and the Budget Office to create this proposal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
By improving efficiency, ensuring adequate resources, and strengthening implementation, this proposal would increase the speed and full adoption of new significant legislation, including sustainability work.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley is unique in comparison to many cities. It considers and approves many more policies, often at the cutting edge, than a typical city and especially for a city of its size. This proposal is a hybrid, incorporating city processes while mirroring State and Federal legislative processes which accommodate a larger number of policies and items in a given cycle. The disadvantage of this proposal is that it introduces additional steps, such as the implementation conference. The advantages of this proposal, are:
 Ensuring adopted legislation is adequately resourced, in terms of both staffing and budget;
 Providing adequate context for Council to balance and consider items in relation to potential positive and negative impacts; and
 Strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of policy implementation.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
At the Council retreat in October 2019, a variety of approaches and ideas were discussed and considered. Additionally, the original version of this proposal was substantively revised through the Policy Committee process.

If the Council takes no action on this item, the existing process will continue to result in inadequately resourced adopted legislation and inefficient and complicated implementation.

CONTACT PERSON
David White, Deputy City Manager, (510) 981-7012

Systems Alignment Proposal CONSENT CALENDAR
June 15, 2021
(continued from May 18, 2021)
Attachments:
1: Major Item Determination Checklist
2: Council Report Template and Implementation Conference Worksheet 3: Policy Committee Ranking Form
4: Vice Mayor Droste Supplemental

Major Item Determination Checklist
Item Name:

Item Author:

Is this a Major Item?
Yes No
  Item represents a significant change to existing law, program, or policy.   Item represents a significant addition to existing law, program, or policy.   Item is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis or input from staff, Councilmembers, or members of the public

Is this eligible for an Exemption?
Yes No
  Item is related the City’s COVID-19 response.
  Item is related to the City Budget process.
  Item is related to essential or ongoing City processes or business.   Item is urgent.
  Item is time-sensitive.
  Item is smaller.
  Item is less impactful.

Agenda Committee Determination:
 Major Item  Exempted
Indicate name and date below.

Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Policy Committee Confirmation:
 Determination Confirmed  Sent back to be agendized for full Council consideration Indicate name and date below.

Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________

[First Lastname]
Councilmember District [District No.]
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-[XXXX] ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-[XXXX] E-Mail: [e-mail address]
[CONSENT OR ACTION]

CALENDAR
[Meeting Date (MM dd, yyyy)]
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: [Councilmember (lastname)]
Subject: [Brief Report Title (No underline and not all caps.)]

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution…
or Support …
or write a letter to ___ in support of ________…
or other recommendation….

FINANCIAL FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS IMPLICATIONS
This section must include operational impacts, identify any staff resources (full time exempt employee/FTE) required, and financial costs.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
This section must describe benefits and impacts to both internal and external stakeholders. It should also consider equity; the launch or initiation of the item; and its ongoing administration once implemented.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
For items that relate to one of the Strategic Plan goals, include a standard sentence in the Current Situation and Effects or Background section:
[Insert project name] is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to [pick one:]
 provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.  provide an efficient and financially-health City government.  foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy.  create affordable housing and housing support service for our most vulnerable community members.
 create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.  champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.
 be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

[Title of Report] CALENDAR
Macrobutton NoMacro [Meeting Date (MM dd, yyyy)]

 be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily- accessible service and information to the community.
 attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce.

BACKGROUND

INITIAL CONSULTATION
This section should list the external and internal stakeholders, indicate whether the item was submitted to a commission for input, and summarize what was learned from consulting with stakeholders.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember [First Lastname] Council District [District No.] 510-981-[XXXX] Attachments: [Delete if there are NO Attachments]
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: [Title or Description of Exhibit]
Exhibit B: [Title or Description of Exhibit]
2: [Title or Description of Attachment]
3: [Title or Description of Attachment]

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

SHORT TITLE OF RESOLUTION HERE
WHEREAS, (Whereas' are necessary when an explanation or legislative history is required); and
WHEREAS, (Insert Additional 'Whereas Clauses' as needed); and WHEREAS, enter text here; and
WHEREAS, enter text here; and
WHEREAS, (The last "Whereas" paragraph should contain a period (.) .

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that (Action to be taken) - ends in a period (.).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (for further action if needed; if not delete) - ends in a period (.).

Exhibits [Delete if there are NO exhibits]
A: Title of the Exhibit
B: Title of the Exhibit

Implementation Conference Worksheet
Item Name:

Item Author:

AUTHOR SECTION
The author of the item may complete this section to help record required information for the report.

Descriptive title:

Is this for Consent, Action, or Information Calendar?
Recommendation:

Summary statement:

Background (history, circumstances and concerns to be addressed by the item):

Plans, programs, policies and/or laws were taken into consideration:

Actions/alternatives considered:

Internal stakeholders consulted:

Name/date of Commission(s) item submitted to for input:

List of external stakeholders consulted:

Summary of what was learned from consulting stakeholders:

Rationale for recommendation:

Internal Benefits of Implementation:

Internal Impacts of Implementation:

External Benefits of Implementation:

External Impacts of Implementation:

Equity Considerations:

Launch and Implementation Milestones (see staff section) Environmental Impacts:

Operational Impacts:

Staff Resources Needed:

Number of FTE/hours:

Type of staff resource needed:

Costs:

Amount(s):

Funding Source:

STAFF SECTION
Staff may complete section to provide required information for the report.

Estimated Launch/implementation Deliverables/Dates:

Month/Year Deliverable
Estimated Administration Deliverables/Dates:

Month/Year Deliverable
Legal Consultation:
 Confirmed
Name/Date ______________________________________________ Staff Consultation:
 Confirmed
Name(s)/Date(s) __________________________________________

Policy Committee Ranking Form
Starting on the right, think about and then indicate whether each consideration is high (H), medium (M) or low (L). Then rank the list of priorities. The highest priority would be “1”, the next highest “2” and so on.

Considerations
H high M medium L lowPriority
1 is highest Major Item Name Major Item Author Staff
Resources
Cost Benefits/
Savings
Policy Committee Determination:

Indicate name and date below.

Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________

Lori Droste
Vice Mayor District 8

SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 3

Meeting Date: May 18, 2021

Item Number: 2

Item Description: Systems Realignment
Submitted by: Vice Mayor Lori Droste

Subject: Comments on Systems Realignment

Lori Droste
Vice Mayor District 8
To: Mayor and Council
From: Vice Mayor Lori Droste
Subject: Comments on the Systems Realignment
P. 13- what is “smaller” and “less impactful” and how is that determined? P. 14- the council item template should include a problem definition and frontload the evidence (background, consultation, review) and include criteria considered. Strategic plan alignment, fiscal and operational impacts, environmental sustainability can be embedded under this heading. I would also argue that “Benefit” or “Effectiveness” should be included in Criteria Considered. Also, equity and administrative feasibility are separate criteria to be considered.

Council is not involved in enforcement so I recommend that it be eliminated. Furthermore, as currently written the Current Situation and Its Effects describes the Strategic Plan goals and not the status quo situation.

General Template Outline:
1) Recommendation
2) Problem Statement
3) Background and Consultation
4) Current Situation and Its Effects
5) Criteria Considered (new heading)
a) Benefit or Effectiveness (new)
b) Fiscal Considerations
c) Strategic Plan Alignment (pick a goal)
d) Environmental Sustainability
e) Equity
f) Operational and Administrative Considerations (moved operational considerations to a separate category)
6) Rationale for Recommendation (new)
P. 15 Implementation Conference Worksheet
I recommend reducing the amount of redundant components in the implementation conference worksheet and specifying what “impact” means. Does it mean benefit? Does it mean tradeoff? In either case, I believe it is covered by other elements of this worksheet.

P. 19- There is no description of how policy committee members’ rankings will be aggregated.

Furthermore, the “ranking” is orthogonal and could be completely contradictory to the staffing, benefit, and costs. Scoring legislative items instead of ranking them will allow for easier prioritization. A cardinal voting system like this is more expressive, accurate and easier to understand. It also lessens vote splitting.

[CONSENT OR ACTION] CALENDAR [Meeting Date (MM dd, yyyy)] To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: [Councilmember (lastname)] Subject: [Brief Report Title (No underline and not all caps.)] RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution… or Support … or write a letter to ___ in support of ________… or other recommendation….

PROBLEM STATEMENT
This section should identify the problem with specifics and enough context to explain why it merits public amelioriation.
(Background and Evidence Should be Provided At the Beginning) BACKGROUND AND INITIAL CONSULTATION This section should list the external and internal stakeholders, indicate whether the item was submitted to a commission for input, and summarize what was learned from consulting with stakeholders.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This section should explain the status quo and how it attempts to address the defined problem.

CRITERIA CONSIDERED
● FINANCIAL FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS IMPLICATIONS This section must include operational impacts, identify any staff resources (full time exempt employee/FTE) required, and financial costs.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT This section must describe benefits and impacts to both internal and external stakeholders. It should also consider equity; the launch or initiation of the item; and its ongoing administration once implemented. Equity should be a standalone category separate from administrative feasibility. Rename this section Operational and Administrative Considerations
● CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS For items that relate to one of the Strategic Plan goals, include a standard sentence in the Current Situation and Effects or Background section: [Insert project name] is a Strategic Plan AlignmentPriority Project, advancing our goal to [pick one:]
○ provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities. ○ provide an efficient and financially-health City government. ○ foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy. ○ create affordable housing and housing support service for our most vulnerable community members.
○ create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city. ○ champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

○ be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.
○ be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community.
○ attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce. ● ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This section should describe how the author landed on the recommendation using the criteria considered. This section can also describe other alternatives considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember [First Last Name] Council District [District No.] 510-981-[XXXX] Attachments: [Delete if there are NO Attachments]
1: Resolution Exhibit A: [Title or Description of Exhibit] Exhibit B: [Title or Description of Exhibit] 2: [Title or Description of Attachment]
3: [Title or Description of Attachment]

Implementation Conference Worksheet
Descriptive Title
Consent Action or Information
Recommendation
Problem Statement
Background, etc
Plans, etc.

Current Situation and Its Effects
Actions/Alternatives Considered
Stakeholders Consultation and Results
Internal Stakeholders Consulted
Name/date of Commission(s) item submitted to for input
List of external stakeholders consulted
Summary of what was learned from consulting stakeholders Rationale for Recommendation should go at the end after evaluative criteria Policy Benefit
Internal Benefits of Implementation:

Internal Impacts of Implementation:

External Benefits of Implementation:

External Impacts of Implementation:

Equity Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Operational Impacts
Strategic Plan Goal Alignment
Staff Resources Needed (Number of FTE/hours, Type of staff resource needed):

Costs (Amount(s), Funding Source):

Rationale for Recommendation (after analysis)

Lori Droste
Vice Mayor District 8

SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 3

Meeting Date: May 18, 2021

Item Number: 2

Item Description: Systems Realignment

Submitted by: Vice Mayor Lori Droste

Subject: Comments on Systems Realignment

Lori Droste
Vice Mayor District 8

To: Mayor and Council
From: Vice Mayor Lori Droste
Subject: Comments on the Systems Realignment

P. 13- what is “smaller” and “less impactful” and how is that determined?

P. 14- the council item template should include a problem definition and frontload the evidence (background, consultation, review) and include criteria considered. Strategic plan alignment, fiscal and operational impacts, environmental sustainability can be embedded under this heading. I would also argue that “Benefit” or “Effectiveness” should be included in Criteria Considered. Also, equity and administrative feasibility are separate criteria to be considered.

Council is not involved in enforcement so I recommend that it be eliminated. Furthermore, as currently written the Current Situation and Its Effects describes the Strategic Plan goals and not the status quo situation.

General Template Outline:
1) Recommendation
2) Problem Statement
3) Background and Consultation
4) Current Situation and Its Effects
5) Criteria Considered (new heading)
a) Benefit or Effectiveness (new)
b) Fiscal Considerations
c) Strategic Plan Alignment (pick a goal)
d) Environmental Sustainability
e) Equity
f) Operational and Administrative Considerations (moved operational considerations to a separate category)
6) Rationale for Recommendation (new)

P. 15 Implementation Conference Worksheet
I recommend reducing the amount of redundant components in the implementation conference worksheet and specifying what “impact” means. Does it mean benefit? Does it mean tradeoff? In either case, I believe it is covered by other elements of this worksheet.

P. 19- There is no description of how policy committee members’ rankings will be aggregated.

Furthermore, the “ranking” is orthogonal and could be completely contradictory to the staffing, benefit, and costs. Scoring legislative items instead of ranking them will allow for easier prioritization. A cardinal voting system like this is more expressive, accurate and easier to understand. It also lessens vote splitting.

[CONSENT OR ACTION] CALENDAR [Meeting Date (MM dd, yyyy)]

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: [Councilmember (lastname)]

Subject: [Brief Report Title (No underline and not all caps.)]

RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution… or Support … or write a letter to ___ in support of ________… or other recommendation….

PROBLEM STATEMENT
This section should identify the problem with specifics and enough context to explain why it merits public amelioriation.

(Background and Evidence Should be Provided At the Beginning) BACKGROUND AND INITIAL CONSULTATION This section should list the external and internal stakeholders, indicate whether the item was submitted to a commission for input, and summarize what was learned from consulting with stakeholders.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This section should explain the status quo and how it attempts to address the defined problem.

CRITERIA CONSIDERED
● FINANCIAL FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS IMPLICATIONS This section must include operational impacts, identify any staff resources (full time exempt employee/FTE) required, and financial costs.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT This section must describe benefits and impacts to both internal and external stakeholders. It should also consider equity; the launch or initiation of the item; and its ongoing administration once implemented. Equity should be a standalone category separate from administrative feasibility. Rename this section Operational and Administrative Considerations

● CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS For items that relate to one of the Strategic Plan goals, include a standard sentence in the Current Situation and Effects or Background section: [Insert project name] is a Strategic Plan AlignmentPriority Project, advancing our goal to [pick one:]
○ provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities. ○ provide an efficient and financially-healt h City government. ○ foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy. ○ creat
e affordable housing and housing support service for our most vulnerable community members.
○ create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city. ○ champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

○ be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.
○ be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community.
○ attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce. ● ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This section should describe how the author landed on the recommendation using the criteria considered. This section can also describe other alternatives considered.

CONTA

CT PERSON
Councilmember [First Last Name] Council District [District No.] 510-981-[XXXX] Attachments: [Delete if there are NO Attachments]
1: Resolution Exhibit A: [Title or Description of Exhibit] Exhibit B: [Title or Description of Exhibit] 2: [Title or Description of Attachment]
3: [Title or Description of Attachment]

Implementation Conference Worksheet
Descriptive Title
Consent Action or Information
Recommendation
Problem Statement
Background, etc
Plans, etc.

Current Situation and Its Effects
Actions/Alternatives Considered
Stakeholders Consultation and Results
Internal Stakeholders Consulted
Name/date of Commission(s) item submitted to for input
List of external stakeholders consulted
Summary of what was learned from consulting stakeholders Rationale for Recommendation should go at the end after evaluative criteria Policy Benefit
Internal Benefits of Implementation:

Internal Impacts of Implementation:

External Benefits of Implementation:

External Impacts of Implementation:

Equity Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Operational Impacts
Strategic Plan Goal Alignment
Staff Resources Needed (Number of FTE/hours, Type of staff resource needed):

Costs (Amount(s), Funding Source):

Rationale for Recommendation (after analysis)

SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT

PROCESS PROPOSAL FOR VETTING & PRIORITIZING MAJOR ITEMS

THE TEAM
Dave White Paul Buddenhagen Farimah FaizBrown
Mark Numainville Rama Murty Melissa McDonough
Jesse Arreguín Sophie Hahn Susan Wengraf

AGENDA & RULES COMMITTEE
Dee Williams-Ridley

BACKGROUND
Council Retreat

AUG SEP OCT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
Agenda & Rules
Committee Input
Executive Team Proposal
Development
Staff Directors &
Managers Retreat
2019 2020 2021

OBJECTIVES
 Align timing of Council approval and resource (budget) allocation  Communicate resource needs (and any tradeoffs) well
 Ensure Council priorities are resourced and implemented

STATE OR FEDERAL MODEL
Item introduced. Referred to
relev
ant
committee.

Committee holds
hearing & makes
amendments.

Committee kills
item.

Reports item
back to floor.

OR
Process repeats
in opposite
chamber.

Item passed or
rejected.

Governor/
President signs
or vetoes

HYBRID MODEL
Item introduced. Referred to
relev
ant
committee.

Committee holds
hearing & requests
amendments.

Committee kills
item.

Reports item
back to floor.

OR
Process repeats
in opposite
chamber.

Item passed or
rejected.

Governor/
President signs
or vetos

PROPOSED MODEL
Policy Committee
recommendation/prioritization.

Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determination.

Reports item to
Council.

OR
Item passed or
rejec
ted.

Recommends to
Implementation
Conference.

RRV Ranking Budget Process

IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE?
 What: Strong analysis and collaborative consultation  Identify costs\benefits
 Identify resource needs
 Outline high level work plan
 Who:
 Commission Input (e,g, Chair or Vice Chair)
 Staff & Legal
 External Stakeholders
 How:
 Ensure you’ve done your due diligence with the above
 Meet with staff/legal

VETTING IS TIME WELL SPENT!
Cousin Janice
 Researched online, in magazines
 Talked to friends, designer, contractor
 Obtained supplies
 Contractor starts work
 Moved out for weeks
 Loves the result
Friend Cathy
 Talked to contractor
 Contractor starts work
 Waited for suppliesContractor stops work
 Supplies arriveContractor restarts work
 Moved out for months
 Still refining the result

WHY PRIORITIZE AT POLICY COMMITTEE?

A QUICK NOTE ON FORMS
 Major Item Determination Checklist
 Implementation Conference Worksheet
 Policy Committee Ranking Form
 Revised Report T emplate

POLICY COMMITTEE RANKING FORM

IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE WORKSHEET

POLICY COMMITTEE RANKING FORM

REVISED REPORT TEMPLATE

Commission, Council, or Staff Item
Agenda Committee Review
Major Item
Agendized for
Policy Committee
Positive Recommendation
Implementation Conference
Policy Committee Prioritization
Agendized for City Council
Approved
RRV
Incorporated into Budget & Strategic Plan Process
Not Approved
Inactive for a year
Commission Review/Input
Negative Recommendation
Agendized for
City Council
Not a Major Item
Agendized for
City Council

PROPOSED PROCESS

FLOW CHART
If Ordinance, Set
Effective Date for
Pending FY

Commission, Council, or Staff Item
Agenda Committee Review
Major Item
Agendized for
Policy Committee
Positive Recommendation
Implementation Conference
Policy Committee Prioritization
Agendized for City Council
Approved
RRV
Incorporated into Budget & Strategic Plan Process
Not Approved
Inactive for a year
Commission Review/Input
Negative Recommendation
Agendized for
City Council
Not a Major Item
Agendized for
City Council

PROPOSED PROCESS

FLOW CHART
If Ordinance, Set
Effective Date for
Pending FY

Commission, Council, or Staff Item
Agenda Committee Review
Major Item
Agendized for
Policy Committee
Positive Recommendation
Implementation Conference
Policy Committee Prioritization
Agendized for City Council
Approved
RRV
Incorporated into Budget & Strategic Plan Process
Not Approved
Inactive for a year
Commission Review/Input
Negative Recommendation
Agendized for
City Council
Not a Major Item
Agendized for
City Council

PROPOSED PROCESS

FLOW CHART

Commission, Council, or Staff Item
Agenda Committee Review
Major Item
Agendized for
Policy Committee
Positive Recommendation
Implementation Conference
Policy Committee Prioritization
Agendized for City Council
Approved
RRV
Incorporated into Budget & Strategic Plan Process
Not Approved
Inactive for a year
Commission Review/Input
Negative Recommendation
Agendized for
City Council
Not a Major Item
Agendized for
City Council

PROPOSED PROCESS

FLOW CHART

PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION

PHASE-IN OF SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT
New
Process
Adopted
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determinations
Begin
Implementation
Conferences
RRV
FY23
AAO
FY22
Biennial
Budget
Adopted
Policy Committee
Prioritizations of
Major Items
Council
Retreat
2021
Policy Committee
Recommendations
Begin
2022
Staff
incorporate
RRV
(w
ith Major Items)
into
Mid-Cycle Budget
2023
City Council
Approves
Major Items

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

LAST DATE TO

RECEIVE
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determination
AAO
FY 22

LAST DATE TO

RECIEVE
Policy Committee
Recommendations
RRV
FY24
AAO
FY23
Council
Retreat
Mid-Cycle
Budget
Adopted

LAST DATE TO

RECEIVE
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determination
AAO
FY 23

LAST DATE TO

RECIEVE
Policy Committee
Recommendations

PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION

PHASE-IN OF SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT
New
Process
Adopted
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determinations
Begin
Implementation
Conferences
RRV
FY23
AAO
FY22
Biennial
Budget
Adopted
Policy Committee
Prioritizations of
Major Items
Council
Retreat
2021
Policy Committee
Recommendations
Begin
2022
Staff
incorporate
RRV
(w
ith Major Items)
into
Mid-Cycle Budget
2023
City Council
Approves
Major Items

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

LAST DATE TO

RECEIVE
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determination
AAO
FY22

LAST DATE TO

RECIEVE
Policy Committee
Recommendations
RRV
FY24
AAO
FY23
Council
Retreat
Mid-Cycle
Budget
Adopted

LAST DATE TO

RECEIVE
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determination
AAO
FY 23

LAST DATE TO

RECIEVE
Policy Committee
Recommendations

PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION

PHASE-IN OF SYSTEMS ALIGNMENT
New
Process
Adopted
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determinations
Begin
Implementation
Conferences
RRV
FY23
AAO
FY22
Biennial
Budget
Adopted
Policy Committee
Prioritizations of
Major Items
Council
Retreat
2021
Policy Committee
Recommendations
Begin
2022
Staff
incorporate
RRV
(w
ith Major Items)
into
Mid-Cycle Budget
2023
City Council
Approves
Major Items

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

LAST DATE TO

RECEIVE
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determination
AAO
FY22

LAST DATE TO

RECIEVE
Policy Committee
Recommendations
RRV
FY24
AAO
FY23
Council
Retreat
Mid-Cycle
Budget
Adopted

LAST DATE TO

RECEIVE
Agenda & Rules
Major Item
Determination
AAO
FY 23

LAST DATE TO

RECIEVE
Policy Committee
Recommendations

SEQUENCING & TIMING
Existing

1. Idea

2. Committee Consideration

3. Council Approval

4. Costing

5. Budget development

6. RRV
Proposed

1. Idea

2. Committee Consideration

3. Vetting & Costing

4. Council Approval

5. RRV

6. Budget development
Uncertain Timeline Certain Timeline

WHAT’S DIFFERENT
Mandatory Guidelines
Implementation Conferences
Policy Committee Prioritization
Moving the RRV process
New required forms and processes

SO, HOW DO WE MAKE THIS HAPPEN?
 Adopting aligned timeline and new process
 Incorporating vetting and costing (i.e., implementation conferences)  Prioritizing vetted Major Items (prioritize, assign fiscal year, identify projects to remove to accommodate new Major Items)  Revising City Council Rules of Procedure and Order
 Making Appendix B guidelines mandatory
 Addressing adopted, open referrals
 Addressing Council items under consideration

BENEFITS
Ensures continuous improvements
Provides adequate context and impacts of items to enhance Council decision-making Identifies appropriate and necessary resources so that adopted items are adequately resourced Aligns processes to ensure efficient implementation/realization of Council items Increases collaboration among and between stakeholders

NEXT STEPS
Legislative aide roundtable
City Manager and Councilmember One-on-Ones
Revise and return item in July

THANK YOU.

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

WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: David White, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Systems Alignment Proposal

RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution for adoption of the Systems Alignment proposal as described in this document and incorporating direction and input received from City Council during the worksession.

SUMMARY
This report proposes a process to integrate various systems (e.g., budget, Strategic Plan, prioritization of referrals, etc.) to ensure that resources are appropriately allocated, to focus the organization and employees on those priorities established by the City Council and City Manager, and to enhance legislative and budget processes. Ultimately, aligning systems will help ensure our community’s values as reflected in the policies of our City Council are implemented completely and efficiently, with increased fiscal prudence, while supporting more meaningful service delivery. In light of the economic and financial impacts of COVID-19 and resource constraints, it is imperative to improve vetting and costing of new projects and legislative initiatives to ensure success. In addition, the purpose of this proposal will align our work with the budget process.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
While the recommendation of this report would not entail fiscal impacts, if adopted, the proposal would have budgetary effects. Broadly speaking, the proposal is designed to better ensure adequate financial and staffing resources are identified and approved with any adopted significant legislation1 (Major Item).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed changes outlined in this memorandum will better guide and inform budget development, clarify tradeoffs by identifying operational impacts, and develop a more effective and time-efficient path to implementation. These changes support a clear and 1 New significant legislation is defined, with some explicit exceptions, as “any law, program, or policy that represents a significant change or addition to existing law, program, or policy, or is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis, or input from staff, Councilmembers or members of the public”. See Council Rules of Procedure, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _City_Council/City%20Council%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf.

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
full realizing of City Council policies, programs, and vision. The major features of the proposal are:
 Changing the order of the legislative process to ensure that Major Items (defined below) passed by Council are funded, as well as folded into staff workplans and staffing capacity,
 Making the City Council Rules of Procedure Appendix B guidelines mandatory,  Ensuring that Major Items that are adopted by City Council are vetted and clearly identify the resources needed for implementation,
 Consolidating and simplifying reporting and tracking of Major Items, and  Creating a deadline for each year’s Major Items that allows for alignment with prioritization, the Strategic Plan, and the budget process.

Additionally, the proposed Systems Alignment would advance the City’s Strategic Plan goal to provide an efficient and financially-health City government.

PROPOSED PROCESS
The proposed process outlined in this memorandum replaces the current system of referrals (short and long term, as well as Commission referrals), directives, and new proposed ordinances, that is, all Major Items, regardless of “type” or origin will be subject to this process.

Step 1: Major Item Determination
The systems alignment proposal outlines a process for Major Items.

Defined in Council Rules of Procedure
Major Items are “new significant legislation” as defined in Appendix D of the City Council Rules of Procedure:

Except as provided below, “new significant legislation” is defined as any law, program, or policy that represents a significant change or addition to existing law, program, or policy, or is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis, or input from staff, Councilmembers or members of the public.

The exceptions to the definition of new significant legislation and process state:

New significant legislation originating from the Council, Commissions, or Staff related to the City’s COVID-19 response2, including but not limited to health and economic impacts of the pandemic or recovery, or addressing other health and safety concerns, the City Budget process, or other essential or ongoing City processes or business will be allowed to move forward, as well as legislative items that are urgent, time sensitive, smaller, or less impactful. 2 If this proposal is adopted, “COVID-19” should be replaced with “declared emergency response” in the exception language.

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
The Agenda & Rules Committee, in consultation with the City Manager, will make the initial determination of whether something is a Major Item, using the Major Item Determination Checklist (see attachment 1). At any time in the process, if evidence demonstrates that the initial determination of the proposal as a Major Item proves incorrect, then it is no longer subject to this process. Additionally, if any legislation it originally deemed not to be a Major Item, the author or City Manager may appeal to the Agenda and Rules Committee or to the full Council and present evidence to the contrary.

Required Conformance and Consultation
All Major Items must use the agenda guidelines in Appendix B of the Council Rules, which require more detailed background information and analysis. The Agenda and Rules Committee can send the item back to the author if it is not complete and/or does not include all of the information required in Appendix B. The author must make a good faith effort to ensure all the guideline prompts are completed in substance not just in form.

Major Items must include a section noting whether the author has initially consulted with the City Manager or city staff regarding their proposed Major Item and the substance of those conversations, and initial staff input.

Required Submission Date
A Major Item must be submitted in time to appear on the agenda of an Agenda & Rules Committee meeting occurring no later than April 30 of every year. Any item submitted after that deadline, that does not meet an exemption, will be continued to the following year’s legislative process.

Major Items will be referred by the Agenda & Rules committee on a rolling basis.

Step 2: Policy Committee Review
A Major Item, once introduced and deemed complete and in conformance by the Agenda and Rules Committee, will be referred to one of City Council’s Policy Committees (i.e., Health, Life Enrichment, Equity and Community, Public Safety, etc.), for review, recommendation, and high-level discussion of implementation (i.e., ideas, rough cost estimates, benefits, etc.). Per the Council Rules of Procedure,3 the Policy Committee will review the Major Item and the completed Major Item Determination Checklist to confirm Agenda & Rules initial determination that the Major Item is complete in accordance with Section III.B.2 and aligns with Strategic Plan goals. If the Major Item receives a positive or qualified positive recommendation, then it will go to an Implementation Conference (See step 3, Vetting and Costing). 3 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _City_Council/City%20Council%20Rules%20of%20Procedure%20-%20Feb%2011%202020%20- %20FINAL.pdf

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
If the Major Item receives a negative or qualified negative recommendation, then it will be returned to the Agenda and Rules Committee to be placed on a City Council Agenda. When heard at a City Council meeting, the author can advocate for the Major Item to be sent to an Implementation Conference. If the Major Item does not receive a vote by the majority of City Council at this step, it becomes inactive for that year’s legislative calendar but may be reintroduced for the next year’s calendar.

City Council Policy Committees must complete review of all Major Items assigned to them no later than June 30 of each year.

Step 3: Implementation Conference (Vetting and Costing) At an Implementation Conference, the primary author will meet with the City Manager or designee, City Manager-selected staff subject matter experts, and the City Attorney or designee.

Identifying Fiscal, Operational and Implementation Impacts The intended outcome of an Implementation Conference is a strong analysis containing all of the considerations and resources necessary to support implementation should Council choose to approve the Major Item.

The Implementation Conference is an informal meeting where the primary author can collaborate with the City Manager, City Attorney, and staff to better define the Major Item and identify more detailed fiscal and operational impacts, as well as implementation considerations. The information discussed during the Implementation Conference will be summarized in the Council Report as part of newly required sections (see attachment 2), in conformance with Appendix B:
 Initial Consultation, which
o Lists internal and external stakeholders that were consulted, including whether item was concurrently submitted to a Commission for input, o Summarizes and confirms what was learned from consultation, o Confirms legal review addressing any legal or pre-emption issues, ensuring legal form,4
 Implementation, Administration, and Enforcement, which o Identifies internal and external benefits and impacts, and o Considers equity implications, launch/initiation of Major Item and its ongoing administration, and
 Fiscal & Operational Impacts, which
o Summarizes any operational impacts,
4 While consultation with the City Attorney is mentioned in Appendix B, the legal review and “confirmations” recommended in this proposal is a more specific and robust requirement.

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
o Identifies necessary resources, including specific staff resources needed and costs.5
As part of the Implementation Conference, staff will provide a high level work plan, indicating major deliverables/milestones and dates. This information can be collected and recorded using the Implementation Conference Worksheet (see attachment 2).

Implementation Conferences will be date certain meetings held in July.

Revising the Major Item
After the Major Item’s author revises the original Council Report based on information from the Implementation Conference, the Major Item will be submitted to the Council agenda process. If additional full time equivalent employee(s) (FTE) or fiscal resources are needed, the Major Item must include a referral to the budget process and identify the amount for implementation of the policy or program.

Step 4: Initial Prioritization
At their first meetings in September, Policy Committees must complete the ranking of the Major Items which were referred to them and also completed the Implementation Conference. The Policy Committees will provide these rankings in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. The Policy Committees prioritization will use the Policy Committee Ranking Form (see attachment 3) to standardize consideration of Major Items across Policy Committees. The Policy Committee priority rankings will be submitted to the City Council when the Council is considering items to move forward in the budget and Strategic Plan process.

Step 5: City Council Approval and Final Prioritization
Under this proposal, all Major Items that the City Council considers for approved prioritization must have:

1. Received a City Council Policy Committee review and recommendation,

2. Received a City Council Policy Committee prioritization,

3. Completed the Implementation Conference, and

4. Been placed on the Agenda for a regular of special Council meeting in October for approval and inclusion in the RRV process.

At the designated Council meeting in October, staff will provide the Council with a list of all approved Major Items, including the initial prioritization by Policy Committee. The Council will consider each Major Item for approval. All approved Major Items then will be added to the RRV process (i.e., with other items, referrals, etc) and ranked. The RRV ranking will begin in late October. These rankings will be adopted by Council and 5 Appendix B does require a Fiscal Impacts section, but the inclusion of operational impacts and specific noting of required staff resources and costs recommended in this proposal is a more specific and robust requirement.

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
used to inform the development of the draft budget. Approved and ranked Major Items have multiple opportunities to be approved for funding, when the biennial budget or mid- cycle budget is adopted in June or when the Annual Appropriations Ordinances are adopted in May and November.

If a Major Item does not receive the endorsement of City Council at this step, it becomes inactive for that year’s legislative calendar and may be reintroduced for the next year’s calendar.

City Council must complete its Major Items approval, and RRV process no later than the final meeting in December of each year.6 This ensures that staff is able to develop the budget starting from and based on Council priorities.

Step 6: Budget & Strategic Plan Process
The Council’s rankings are also forwarded to the Budget and Finance Committee for consideration as part of budget development. If the proposal is not ultimately funded in the biennial budget, mid-cycle budget or the Annual Appropriations Ordinance (mid-year budget amendment), then it does not move forward that year and will be added to a list of unfunded proposals for the future budget process.

During December and January, city staff will prepare budget proposals that incorporate the ranked City Council Major Items, Strategic Plan, and work plan development. In the late winter/early spring, the City Manager and Budget Office will present the draft budget to Council. This will be followed by department presentations to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee. From late March and through early May, Council and staff will refine the budget. Council will hold budget hearings in May and June, with adoption of the budget by June 30. Although the legislative process (i.e., Policy Committee review, Implementation Conference, Prioritization) is annual, staff recommends the budget process remain biennual. A significant mid-cycle budget update can easily accommodate additions to or changes in priorities arising through the legislative process.

The proposed process is depicted in Figure 1 and the proposed launch calendar in Figure 2.
6 Due to noticing requirements, an RRV process completed by November 30 may not appear on a City Council Agenda for adoption until January.

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
Figure 1, Proposed Process7
Commission , Council, or
Staff Item
Agenda Committee
Review
Major Item
Agendized for Policy
Committee
Positive
Recommendation
Implementation
Conference
Policy Committee
Prioritization
Agendized for City
Council
Approved
RRV
Incorporated into Budget
& Strategic Plan Process
Not Approved
Inactive for a
year
Commission
Review/Input
Negative
Recommendation
Agendized for
Full Council
Not a Major
Item
Agendized for City
Council
7 Major Items that are ordinances will need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Once adopted, ranked, and, if requiring resources, budgeted, the ordinance will need to be given an effective date and scheduled for first and second readings at Council.

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 Figure 2, Proposed Launch

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 Next Steps
Staff will reach out to legislative aides for input and the City Manager will meet individually with Councilmembers to discuss this proposal. Staff will incorporate Council input from the worksession, and from subsequent input< into a resolution and return to Council with a final Systems Alignment item for adoption by July 2021.

Benefits
The addition of an Implementation Conference will ensure that Major Items considered by Council are properly resourced, improving our City’s responsible management of fiscal resources. Analysis from the Implementation Conference will help Council to balance and consider each Major Item within the context of related programs and potential impacts (positive and negative). When considered holistically, new policy implementation can be supportive of existing work and service delivery.

Since the proposed process places the City Council prioritization of Major Items immediately before budget preparation, the Prioritization will guide and inform budget development, including components such as the Strategic Plan and work plans. Fixing the sequencing of the process is a key benefit. Currently, with prioritization occurring in May and June, the budget process is nearing completion when City Council’s priorities are finally decided. This leads to inconsistencies between adopted priorities and budgeting for those priorities.

Under the current process, an idea may go into prioritization, proceed to the short term referral list or referred to the budget process. However, the resulting Major Item may not have addressed operational considerations. Adding such items to a department’s work at any given time of the year may lead to staff stopping or slowing work on other prioritized projects in order to develop and implement new Major Items. Also, it may be difficult for staff to prioritize their projects: is stopping/slowing of work that is already underway in order to address new items the preference of the full Council? Also, because consideration of implementation currently occurs after the adoption of a Major Item, features of the adopted language may unintentionally constrain effective implementation, complicating and slowing progress on the Major Item and hindering the effectiveness of the new program or regulation.

With the proposed process, a Major Item does not go through prioritization until there is an opportunity for staff to identify operational considerations. Finally, since implementation only occurs after operational considerations are reported, and funds are

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
allocated, the resulting Major Item should move more quickly from idea to successful completion.

BACKGROUND
In October 2019, City Council held a half-day worksession to discuss systems realignment and provide direction on potential changes to the city’s legislative process.

The purpose of the meeting was to develop recommendations for how various systems (e.g., budget, Strategic Plan, RRV, etc) could better work together to ensure that the organization is able to focus on the priorities established by the City Council. The City Manager took direction from that meeting and worked with department directors and the Budget Office to create this proposal.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
By improving efficiency, ensuring adequate resources, and strengthening implementation, this proposal would increase the speed and full adoption of new significant legislation, including sustainability work.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City of Berkeley is unique in comparison to many cities. It considers and approves many more policies, often at the cutting edge, than a typical city and especially for a city of its size. This proposal is a hybrid, incorporating city processes while mirroring State and Federal legislative processes which accommodate a larger number of policies and items in a given cycle. The disadvantage of this proposal is that it introduces additional steps, such as the implementation conference. The advantages of this proposal, are:
 Ensuring adopted legislation is adequately resourced, in terms of both staffing and budget;
 Providing adequate context for Council to balance and consider items in relation to potential positive and negative impacts; and
 Strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of policy implementation.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
At the Council retreat in October 2019, a variety of approaches and ideas were discussed and considered. Additionally, the original version of this proposal was substantively revised through the Policy Committee process.

If the Council takes no action on this item, the existing process will continue to result in inadequately resourced adopted legislation and inefficient and complicated implementation.

CONTACT PERSON
David White, Deputy City Manager, 510-981-7012

Systems Alignment Proposal WORKSESSION
May 18, 2021
Attachments:
1: Major Item Determination Checklist
2: Council Report Template and Implementation Conference Worksheet 3: Policy Committee Ranking Form

Major Item Determination Checklist
Item Name:

Item Author:

Is this a Major Item?
Yes No
  Item represents a significant change to existing law, program, or policy.   Item represents a significant addition to existing law, program, or policy.   Item is likely to call for or elicit significant study, analysis or input from staff, Councilmembers, or members of the public

Is this eligible for an Exemption?
Yes No
  Item is related the City’s COVID-19 response.
  Item is related to the City Budget process.
  Item is related to essential or ongoing City processes or business.   Item is urgent.
  Item is time-sensitive.
  Item is smaller.
  Item is less impactful.

Agenda Committee Determination:
 Major Item  Exempted
Indicate name and date below.

Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Policy Committee Confirmation:
 Determination Confirmed  Sent back to be agendized for full Council consideration Indicate name and date below.

Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________

[First Lastname]
Councilmember District [District No.]
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-[XXXX] ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-[XXXX] E-Mail: [e-mail address]
[CONSENT OR ACTION]

CALENDAR
[Meeting Date (MM dd, yyyy)]
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: [Councilmember (lastname)]
Subject: [Brief Report Title (No underline and not all caps.)]

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution…
or Support …
or write a letter to ___ in support of ________…
or other recommendation….

FINANCIAL FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS IMPLICATIONS
This section must include operational impacts, identify any staff resources (full time exempt employee/FTE) required, and financial costs.

IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
This section must describe benefits and impacts to both internal and external stakeholders. It should also consider equity; the launch or initiation of the item; and its ongoing administration once implemented.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
For items that relate to one of the Strategic Plan goals, include a standard sentence in the Current Situation and Effects or Background section:
[Insert project name] is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to [pick one:]
 provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.  provide an efficient and financially-health City government.  foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy.  create affordable housing and housing support service for our most vulnerable community members.
 create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.  champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.
 be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

[Title of Report] CALENDAR
Macrobutton NoMacro [Meeting Date (MM dd, yyyy)]

 be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily- accessible service and information to the community.
 attract and retain a talented and diverse City government workforce.

BACKGROUND

INITIAL CONSULTATION
This section should list the external and internal stakeholders, indicate whether the item was submitted to a commission for input, and summarize what was learned from consulting with stakeholders.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember [First Lastname] Council District [District No.] 510-981-[XXXX] Attachments: [Delete if there are NO Attachments]
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: [Title or Description of Exhibit]
Exhibit B: [Title or Description of Exhibit]
2: [Title or Description of Attachment]
3: [Title or Description of Attachment]

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

SHORT TITLE OF RESOLUTION HERE
WHEREAS, (Whereas' are necessary when an explanation or legislative history is required); and
WHEREAS, (Insert Additional 'Whereas Clauses' as needed); and WHEREAS, enter text here; and
WHEREAS, enter text here; and
WHEREAS, (The last "Whereas" paragraph should contain a period (.) .

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that (Action to be taken) - ends in a period (.).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (for further action if needed; if not delete) - ends in a period (.).

Exhibits [Delete if there are NO exhibits]
A: Title of the Exhibit
B: Title of the Exhibit

Implementation Conference Worksheet
Item Name:

Item Author:

AUTHOR SECTION
The author of the item may complete this section to help record required information for the report.

Descriptive title:

Is this for Consent, Action, or Information Calendar?
Recommendation:

Summary statement:

Background (history, circumstances and concerns to be addressed by the item):

Plans, programs, policies and/or laws were taken into consideration:

Actions/alternatives considered:

Internal stakeholders consulted:

Name/date of Commission(s) item submitted to for input:

List of external stakeholders consulted:

Summary of what was learned from consulting stakeholders:

Rationale for recommendation:

Internal Benefits of Implementation:

Internal Impacts of Implementation:

External Benefits of Implementation:

External Impacts of Implementation:

Equity Considerations:

Launch and Implementation Milestones (see staff section) Environmental Impacts:

Operational Impacts:

Staff Resources Needed:

Number of FTE/hours:

Type of staff resource needed:

Costs:

Amount(s):

Funding Source:

STAFF SECTION
Staff may complete section to provide required information for the report.

Estimated Launch/implementation Deliverables/Dates:

Month/Year Deliverable
Estimated Administration Deliverables/Dates:

Month/Year Deliverable
Legal Consultation:
 Confirmed
Name/Date ______________________________________________ Staff Consultation:
 Confirmed
Name(s)/Date(s) __________________________________________

Policy Committee Ranking Form
Starting on the right, think about and then indicate whether each consideration is high (H), medium (M) or low (L). Then rank the list of priorities. The highest priority would be “1”, the next highest “2” and so on.

Considerations
H high M medium L lowPriority
1 is highest Major Item Name Major Item Author Staff
Resources
Cost Benefits/
Savings
Policy Committee Determination:

Indicate name and date below.

Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________
Per Committee Member_____________________