27Vision 2050 Program Plan
3.2 Work Prioritization and Phasing
The Vision 2050 program is planned to be
implemented over 30 years in approximately three,
10-year phases. Due to the work’s complexity and
volume, an understandable prioritization process
is needed to sequence the work. The Program Plan
uses a scoring system based on these components
and weighting:
› Envision criteria, 60% weighting
› Community input criteria, 40% weighting
The Vision 2050 report recommended the use of
multi-criteria decision-making and suggested using
the Envision criteria as prioritization tool. Envision
is a program that is organized by the Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure and provides an objective
framework of criteria designed to help identify
ways in which sustainable approaches can be used
to plan, design, construct, and operate individual
infrastructure projects.
The Envision framework includes 64 sustainability
and resilience indicators organized around five
categories: quality of life, leadership, resource
allocation, natural world, and climate and resilience.
Envision is now widely applied to civil infrastructure
projects akin to LEED certification. This criteria is
given a weighting of 60%.
The other criteria comprises community input
from the surveys, online feedback and community
meetings. What the community wants for Berkeley
is important and this criteria is given a weighting of
40%. The resulting criteria and score sheet is shown
on Table 2.
Envision Criteria (Weight 60%)
Community Input Criteria (Weight 40%)
TABLE 2:
PRIORITIZATION SCORE CARD
28 July 2022
Each asset category was rated using the score sheet,
and initial scoring was completed by managers
in the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and
Waterfront departments. A summary of the scoring
results is shown on Table 3. This rating is intended as a general guideline for resource allocation. It does
not dictate when the works gets done as there may
be other project requirements.
For planning purposes, the work can be placed
in three priority groups as shown in Table 3. This
can serve as a start for the planning of a 30-year
program. More details of the 3-phase program will
be developed by the program team, should voters
approve new funding for the program. Ultimately,
the City Council will select the projects to fund and
their timing.
The Program Plan’s goal is to ensure all of these
asset categories become Priority 1 well before
2050. Asset categories in Priorities 1 and 2 are most
aligned to resilience and sustainability measures in
the criteria and are closest to being able to move
into construction. Many of the asset categories
in Priorities 2 and 3 require more public process,
planning, and/or engineering, some of which may
be supported by a revenue measure or measures.
Some of these asset categories, such as sewer, have
sufficient, dedicated funding sources that make
them unnecessary to prioritize for new
revenue funding.
When sufficient funding mechanisms and the project
team are in place, the work of selecting projects will
begin. The process will be carried out separately for
each 10-year program phase. The project selection
process is shown on Figure 10. This process is
being used successfully on the second phase of the
Measure T1 program. Projects that are identified as
high priority for implementation within each 10-year
phase will move forward to final acceptance after
staff analysis, community and Commission input, and
City Council review and approval. The prioritization
of the projects will use the scorecard shown on Table
2, or as updated at the time.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY SCORING
Priority Asset Category by Score
1 Streets
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan projects
Sidewalks
2 Undergrounding
Stormwater
Parks
Trees
Waterfront
3 Traffic Controls, Streetlights,
and Parking
Transit projects
Civic center
City buildings
Transfer station
Sewer
29Vision 2050 Program Plan
Figure 10: Project Approval Process
30 July 2022
04 THE PLAN’S FUNDING,
RESULTS, AND TAX IMPACT
This section describes a high-level funding approach to achieving resilient and sustainable infrastructure by 2050, the various sources of funds available for this work, results that could be delivered, and a review of the tax impacts on residents for implementing a Vision 2050 program. 30 July 2022
31Vision 2050 Program Plan
4.1 Funding Sources
Achieving a resilient and sustainable infrastructure
by 2050 will require new revenue from a variety of
sources, including new voter-approved measures.
Adjustment to user fees and rates that are dedicated
to certain services will be another important source
of infrastructure funding. For example, Berkeley’s
sewer system is operated and maintained through
user fees charged to customers. Through financial
analysis, staff have determined that the $194
million needed in the city’s sewer systems can be
addressed in the next decade or so with cost-of-
living adjustments to existing rates. Other services
have dedicated funding sources (or rates), but
that funding falls short. This is true of the city’s
stormwater fee and a special parcel tax for parks
and trees. Other sources of funds include grants
(federal, state, and other), developer fees, city funds (including the General Fund), and property owner
fees, e.g., 50/50 sidewalk repairs.
Figure 11 shows the anticipated funding sources
that will be available to complete each of the four
Program outcomes and deliver sustainable and
resilient infrastructure by 2050. This is a high-level
projection with many assumptions yet to be proven,
but is offered to show a funding path to the Vision
2050 destination and its dependence on a variety of
revenue sources.
Figure 11: Vision 2050 Funding Sources
32 July 2022
4.2 Funding Alternatives
For the November 2022 ballot, two types of
infrastructure revenue measures are being
considered: a General Obligation Bond (or
Infrastructure Bond) and Parcel Tax.
General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds) are paid
by an ad valorem property tax based on taxable
property assessed value and can only be used
to fund capital improvements (no maintenance,
operations or services). GO Bonds are considered
the most secure type of municipal debt and carry
the lowest interest rates given the taxing power
for repayment of the debt service. GO Bonds can
also be structured to match the life expectancy of
the infrastructure improvements and be issued in
independent series as required based on project
costs and timing. This phasing can allow for a better
alignment of infrastructure utilization and repayment
of the debt. Also, bond measures are generally
considered progressive forms of taxation since they
are based on the assessed value of properties.
The city has historically managed its GO Bond
program for each authorization (Measures G, S, I,
FF, M, T1 and O) through the issuance of individual
bond series calculated to meet the capital funding
requirements of the projects. Bonds were issued
in amounts that minimized the impact on the tax
rate required to make debt service payments. Since
1992, the city has maintained annual tax rates below
original projections represented to voters for each
of the GO Bond authorizations.
A Parcel Tax is a property tax that generates
annual special revenues for capital, operations,
maintenance and services. State law provides for
a number of different tax formulas for levies to all
properties (residential and commercial) including
per parcel, building square footage or land use.
A parcel tax cannot be based on property value.
A parcel tax based on building square feet is
generally considered a progressive form of taxation
since larger properties pay more than smaller
properties, exemptions for seniors and low-income
property owners are allowed.
Given the scale of the infrastructure need, the
Program Plan assumes two 2022 Revenue Measures.
First, a parcel tax of $0.30 per building square foot
for 14 years, raising approximately $25 million
annually, that is dedicated to streets, sidewalks, and
traffic safety as described under Outcome Number
1. Second, an infrastructure bond of $300 million
with $150 million to address affordable housing for
low-income persons and the unhoused and $150
million to improve resilience to climate change,
wildfire prevention and protection, and to improve
other select public infrastructure, as described in
Outcome Numbers 2, 3, and 4.
These measures fund the community’s top priorities
voiced in the public outreach: affordable housing,
street repair, and resilience to climate change.
Multiple measures provide more flexible sources
of funding that could address maintenance needs
in addition to capital improvements. Street repair,
sidewalk repair, and traffic safety are also top needs
identified by online survey respondents, and is
supported by the city’s prioritization using the
Vision 2050/Envision scorecard. These measures
would significantly reduce the city’s risk related to
infrastructure unfunded liabilities, and improve the
City’s streets for all users.
33Vision 2050 Program Plan
TABLE 4
FUNDING MECHANISMS
Type GO Bond Parcel Tax
TAX BASIS Assessed Value (AV) Building square footage
USE OF FUNDS Capital only Capital + Maintenance
TAX PROGRESSIVITY Progressive Progressive
EXEMPTIONS None Low income/senior
PROS Relative tax burden decreases as
total AV increases
Fixed payments with cost of living
adjustments, funds capital and
maintenance
CONS
Cannot pay for maintenance
or operations
Does not adjust for future costs
Increases tax burden if building
square footage increases
Why is affordable housing included in these possible revenue measures? The Vision 2050 Framework focused on infrastructure, not affordable housing. However, on April 27, 2021, City Council approved exploring revenue measures that addressed both infrastructure and affordable housing, given both were top priorities for residents. Housing and infrastructure are connected. Ensuring affordable housing in a city such as Berkeley reduces greenhouse gas emissions because it affords lower and middle-income residents an opportunity to live closer to where they work, which means less emissions getting to work. At the same time, ensuring affordable housing is an important tool for ensuring a diverse and equitable city, which is an important priority of our community and City Council.
34 July 2022
Per Section 4.1, these results assume:
› The City continues its track record of
successfully leveraging state, federal, and
regional grants.
› City Council allocates a total of $15 million
to annual paving from non-revenue measure
sources in order to ensure proper ongoing
maintenance of the City’s streets, as
accomplished for FY 2024.
› Parcel tax revenue of $25M annually is
distributed roughly two-thirds to paving
condition and one-third to traffic safety
and sidewalks.
› GO bond revenue is distributed roughly 60%
to climate change, resiliency, and wildfire
protection projects; and 40% to public realm
and other infrastructure projects.
These investments would:
› Improve streets to good paving condition and
repave 97% of street mileage across the City.
› Implement 100% of adopted traffic safety plans
(bike/ped) and achieve Berkeley’s vision of a
low-stress bike network
› Begin to underground the City’s evacuation
routes to enable emergency responders’
ingress and evacuating residents’ egress in the
event of a wildfire, earthquake, or other disaster
› Complete selected sea level rise projects at
the Waterfront
› Replace and improve Aquatic Park, storm drain,
and green infrastructure citywide to prevent
pollution from reaching the Bay and improve
the City’s resiliency from climate-infused storms
› Assist in advancing the city’s park and public
realm projects, e.g., Waterfront, Civic
Center Renovation, and San Pablo Park pool
Results
35Vision 2050 Program Plan
Property tax rates for Berkeley property owners are
comparable to neighboring cities. After accounting
for ad valorem taxes, city voter-approved taxes and
assessments, school district taxes, and other fixed
charges, FY 2021 tax rates in Berkeley (1.58%) were
on par with Oakland (1.54%) and lower than in
Albany (1.89%).
The city’s prior bond issuances include Measure
FF (neighborhood libraries), Measures G, S, and I
(public safety, main library/seismic retrofit, animal
shelter), Measure O (affordable housing), Measure
M (streets and watershed), and Measure T1
(infrastructure and public facilities). Debt service
from prior bond measures constitutes only 3.2% of
the average property owner’s tax bill.
The city has a current debt service of $52.90 per
$100,000, which is low compared to nearby cities
and their school districts, as shown in the table
below. Even after implementation of a $300M GO
bond, the city’s debt service will continue to be
lower than nearby cities and school districts.
The city has historically maintained low GO Bond
tax rates as shown in Figure 12. This represents
the previously approved bond measures including
the remaining bonds for Measures T1 and O to be
issued over the next four years.
If voters approved a $300 million GO bond, the
average tax required for the new bond authorization
will be $27 per $100,000 of assessed value.
Assuming the existing GO bond authorization
capacity are issued as scheduled, the cumulative
debt service on all GO Bonds will increase through
2036, and then begin to decrease as prior bonds are
paid off.
4.3 Review of Tax Implications
TABLE 5
EXISTING DEBT SERVICE
AND TAX IMPACT
2021/22 Tax Rates Total GO Bond
Tax Burden
Per $100,000 $52.90
Average Tax
(based on assessed
property value of
$647,972)
$342.78
TABLE 6
DEBT SERVICE COMPARISON
City or District
Debt Service per
$100,000 of
Assessed Value
City of Oakland $201.10
Albany School District $195.00
Berkeley School District $145.10
City of Albany $130.30
Oakland School District $120.20
City of Berkeley plus
$300M bond
$79.75
(average)
City of Berkeley
(current)
$52.90
(average)
36 July 2022
Figure 12: Historical & Projected Property Tax
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF TAX IMPACTS
$300M
GO Bond + Parcel Tax
Tax Rate ($100,000 A.V.)
Avg Bond =
Parcel =
$27
30 cents per sq. ft.
Tax (Avg Home: $647,972;
1,900 sq ft)
Avg Bond =
Parcel =
Total =
$166
$570
$736
Assuming average developed property size of 1,900 square feet, a parcel tax of 30 cents per square foot would add $570 annually to the average property owner’s tax bill, which is comparable to the annual cost of refuse service based on a 32-gallon cart.
Below is a summary of the tax impacts on an average property, assumed to be an average valued house at $647,972 (assessed value) with 1,900 sq ft.
37Vision 2050 Program Plan
Infrastructure spending has other benefits. It creates
jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation has
found that for every $1 billion in infrastructure
investment, 13,000 jobs are created. In a place like
Berkeley, which follows both state law on public
works expenditures and local law via a Community
Workforce Agreement, this means jobs that pay
prevailing wages and benefits.
Infrastructure spending also can add art to our
public spaces. If 1 percent of a revenue measure is
dedicated to local public art, as was the case with
Measure T1, or City Council commits an annual
General Fund allotment of a similar amount, then
Berkeley’s public spaces will get more public art.
Public art plays an integral role in improving our
community’s wellbeing by creating inspired spaces
that reflect the unique character of our city. Public art breathes life into the built environment, engages the
community with creative art experiences, and fosters
a sense of belonging.
4.4 Other Benefits of Infrastructure Spending
Art Installation at Civic Center Garage
Statue of William Byron Rumford
Art Installation at Shattuck & Center
Figure 13: Public Art in Berkeley
38 July 2022
05 PROGRAM DELIVERY
The City has well-established capital project divisions in the Public Works Department and Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Departments, delivering a wide range of infrastructure projects. Given this major 30-year program to rebuild infrastructure, this section looks ahead on how the City will deliver the program, evaluating the City’s current capabilities, sharing information on other cities’ approaches to implementing large capital programs, and recommending actions to implement the Vision 2050 program. 38 July 2022
39Vision 2050 Program Plan
5.1 Current Organization and Measure T1 Implementation
Capital projects are delivered by the Engineering
and Transportation Divisions in the Public Works
Department, and Capital Projects Division of the
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department. Most
of this work is based on regular, annual contributions
from special funds, including ratepayer funds (sewer,
stormwater, and streetlight) and a parks-focused
parcel tax.
As shown in the table below, capital investments
have more than doubled in the last decade.
This growth has largely been driven by Measure T1
and the large project to rebuild Tuolumne Camp.
In November of 2016, Berkeley voters passed
Measure T1, authorizing the city to sell $100 million
of General Obligation Bonds to repair, renovate,
replace, or reconstruct portions of the city’s
aging infrastructure.
The City of Berkeley has managed all T1 projects
internally with a team that includes administrative,
financial, and project management staff from the
Public Works and Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront
Departments. Five full-time equivalent positions
were allocated across 11 staff within PW and PRW.
One of the five FTEs is a T1 Associate Management
Analyst. While projects are managed by city staff, the
planning, design, and construction management of
projects are largely completed by consultants.
As a part of preparing this Program Plan, interviews
were conducted with the T1 Management Team and
project managers to learn what has worked well and
how things can be done better in the future.
Positive outcomes of T1 implementation:
› The City has completed nearly all of the
39 projects in Phase 1. Phase 2 projects
are approved and are on track to be
completed by 2026
› Interdepartmental collaboration has been very
effective with regular meetings and
open communications
› Community messaging has been regular and
recurring, with ongoing updates to the website
and email distribution lists, periodic reporting
to Council, and a January 2022 informational
brochure mailed to residents
› The program team has been able to staff up
and retain staff during the program
› Staff costs have been kept to a minimum, i.e.,
less than 12% of project costs
› Meetings are held at the conclusion of each
project to discuss challenges, successes, and
lessons learned
› The project teams have largely been able to
keep up with the project schedules
Year Capital Program
2010 $41.6 million
2020 $114.5 million
40 July 2022
Ideas for future improvements:
› Reduce the time it takes to hire staff
› Increase IT and legal support to match the
program size
› Add consultants to help with certain tasks in
project management
› Improve tools to aid in project management
› Streamline contracting policies, including bid
protest procedures and purchasing policies
It is important to note there will be overlap with
the T1 team completing the Phase 2 projects
and the Vision 2050 team ramping up. The future
organization will need to account for this to ensure
the success of both programs.
5.2 Research on Other Programs
The City and its consultants conducted interviews
with three cities implementing large capital
programs. Interview topics included organization,
tools, implementation, and accountability.
Successes, challenges, and lessons learned were
discussed with each group, too. Table 8 summarizes
the cities and their programs.
TABLE 8
CITIES INTERVIEWED AND THEIR CAPITAL PROGRAMS
City Program Description Budget and Staff
City of Oakland
› Measure KK’s funding allocations are a) $350 million for streets and roads, b) $150 million for facilities and c) $100 million for anti-displacement and affordable housing
› CIP projects are delivered through Public Works (PW) and Transportation (OakDOT). PW delivers non-transportation projects, such as sewer, drainage, and parks. OakDOT delivers transportation projects through two divisions: a) Great Streets (large projects) and b) Safe Streets (street repairs)
› Program management is primarily done with City staff with some consultant support. There are about 20 dedicated staff members for program management
› Staffing vacancies have been as high as 25%
$87M / 20 employees =
~$4.4M per employee.
41Vision 2050 Program Plan
City of Oakland (cont.)
› Oakland’s PCI was 53 in 2019 and increased to 58 in 2021.
They are using $100 M of Measure KK funds over 3 years to improve 350 miles of street surface
› Measure KK has a 9 member Public Oversight Committee.
The members were appointed by the Mayor and report to
the City Council
City of Sunnyvale
› The Public Works Engineering Division delivers all capital projects through four groups: a) special projects, b) project design, c) construction management, and d) land development
› The special projects group manages very large capital projects, e.g., $1 billion wastewater treatment plant re-build. Consultants handle the day-to-day project management but do not have monetary authority › There are 8 staff in the project design group, who manage the smaller on-going capital projects
› The City uses e-Builder software
› Staffing vacancies are a problem
› City Council’s target PCI is 80. Their current PCI is about 76 $176.5M / 30 employees
= ~$5.9M per employee.
City of San Diego
› The City delivers capital projects through two departments: a) Capital Projects and b) Strategic Capital Projects. Capital Projects perform projects that are $5 to 20 million in size, the work is long-term and they have about 700 staff. The Strategic Capital department works on projects over $100 million in size, the work requires special expertise, there are about 50 staff and there is a high reliance on consultants › The current 5-year CIP has a funding need of $8.4 billion › The City uses OCI (overall condition index) instead of PCI. The City’s target for OCI is 70
› Staff vacancies range from 15 – 20%
› A State of CIP Report is provided to City Council twice per year › San Diego is a participant is a California multi-agency benchmarking group
$830M / 750 employees
= ~$1.1M per employee
42 July 2022
While Berkeley uses City staff for project
management and consultants for planning, design,
and construction management, by comparison, the
larger programs are managed by a combination
of City staff and consultants. Berkeley’s 5 full
time equivalent employees are handling $45
million projects at present, a higher ratio than
these other cities. City staff make all financial
decisions, manage City processes, and complete
repeatable tasks. Consultants assist City staff with
a wide variety of tasks involving project planning,
design, construction management, and execution,
and provide necessary specialized expertise
and knowledge. Some program teams include a
dedicated group who administer grant funding.
Challenges experienced during large program
implementation include difficulty in recruiting and
retaining a talented workforce, having sufficient
administrative and support services, and having
effective and efficient hiring and on-boarding
processes, including a continuous
recruitment process.
These issues could be addressed in part by
including dedicated financial and recruiting staff
that are funded through the revenue measure, and
developing program-specific hiring policies
and procedures.
The recommendations presented in the section
below build off the successes and lessons learned
from implementation of Measure T1 and the
City’s regular capital program, and from the three
cities we interviewed and researched. These
recommendations will help in delivering a more
significant investment in the city’s infrastructure:
› Responsible organization – A Vision 2050
program management team should be formed
and report to the Public Works Director for the
first phase of improvements, given this phase’s
focus is likely within the right of way, which is
Public Works’ responsibility. This team would
be multi-discipline, meaning the team would
be responsible for implementing all aspects
of the Vision 2050 program, including projects
outside of the normal purview of Public Works.
In future phases, as determined by future Vision
2050 priorities, this program management team
could report either to Directors of Public Works
or Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront, a Deputy
City Manager, or the City Manager.
› Multiple Benefits – The Vision 2050 Framework
recommended infrastructure improvements that
have multiple benefits. Given this Plan’s initial
focus on streets and traffic safety, the program
management team will ensure projects are
delivered that, to the extent feasible, combine
paving, traffic safety, and green infrastructure
improvements. Recent annual paving projects
demonstrated progress in this regard, as they
have included paving, green infrastructure,
and various traffic safety features such as
traffic circles, traffic diverters, and pedestrian
islands. Given this plan prioritizes the co-
benefits of street paving and traffic safety,
staff have modeled how to meet both goals
simultaneously. By dedicating two-thirds of
streets-focused investments to paving and one-
third to traffic safety, this Plan’s goals can be met
in ten years or so.
› Program management team and
staffing – The City should initiate a recruitment
for a new full-time position, Vision 2050
5.3 Recommendations for Vision 2050 Implementation
43Vision 2050 Program Plan
Program Manager. The manager should have
an administrative support person and project
managers (the number to be determined
prior to implementation). The City team would
ideally include dedicated staff in lieu of 3-year
limited term positions, given the duration of the
work. In addition, the city team should include
both an in-house construction inspector and a
project coordinator to assist with time-intensive
tasks such as compiling budget data, preparing
public outreach materials, and coordinating
meetings. Outreach support should be included
on this team as well. The Program Manager
should also have a mix of staff and consultant
support in a blended team. Consultant support
may include: a) preparation of a project
management manual, b) project cost tracking,
c) performance indicator tracking, and d)
management of special projects.
› Engineering functions – As discussed above,
the engineering and capital delivery divisions
in the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and
Waterfront Departments will continue to
deliver ongoing projects. These include
aspects of street paving, sidewalk repairs,
sewer rehabilitation, and park and
playground improvements.
› Special projects – Projects that are not
normally handled by the City’s engineering
divisions should be managed by the program
management team or assigned to a consultant.
Examples of these projects may include utility
undergrounding, seismic improvement to
public buildings, public realm projects, etc
› Supporting departments – Advanced
planning needs to be held with the City’s
procurement, legal, human resources and
information technology departments.
Challenges experienced during large program
implementation include difficulty in recruiting
and retaining a talented workforce and having
effective on-boarding processes. In addition,
the City’s procurement procedures need
updating and improvement. The ideal Vision
2050 organization may include dedicated
recruitment and financial staff, as well as new
policies that are developed specifically for the
program. For example, the City of Oakland
cut 500 staff hours and months from project
timelines by reducing the number of project
and procurement approvals.
› Tools, software and procedures – An
evaluation of current and new tools will be
made for delivering the program. This will
include: a) procurement tools for goods and
services, b) project scheduling and tracking
software, c) document management,
and d) reporting.
44 July 2022
06 SUPPORTING STRATEGIES
This section describes the performance monitoring, oversight and reporting and on-going maintenance that will be a part of implementing a successful Vision 2050 program.
44 July 2022
45Vision 2050 Program Plan
6.1 Performance Indicators
TABLE 9
VISION 2050 KEY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
1. Streets are Safer, More Sustainable, Improved to a Good Condition, and Maintained Paving condition % of sidewalks in safe condition
Three year average of severe injuries/fatalities % of Bicycle, Pedestrian, and ADA Transition Plans implemented
% of 2020 pavement surface converted to pervious surface Public satisfaction with right of way % of commute trips by solo occupant vehicle % of trips by walking, micro mobility or transit
2. Infrastructure is Resilient, Protects the Environment, and is Adapted to Climate Change Impacts Citywide GHG reductions % of public buildings fossil-fuel free Citywide natural gas consumption % of automobiles that are EV citywide % of Stormwater and GI plans implemented % of sea level rise, undergrounding, and evacuation route projects completed
% of target acres treated by Green Infrastructure % of 2022 vacant street tree sites planted % of public buildings seismically retrofitted
3. Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Improve our Quality of Life % of Backlog Addressed Annually Diversity of the Urban Forest # of Street Trees/Tree Canopy Ratio Public satisfaction at Parks and open spaces
4. Public Facilities are Safe and Provide Community Placemaking % of public realm/placemaking opportunities implemented % of Backlog Addressed % of ADA Transition Plan implemented in buildings Public satisfaction in public spaces % of public buildings with battery storage
A large complex program like Vision 2050 can benefit from identifying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to track progress. An initial list of KPIs is shown on Table 9 and are organized around the four Vision 2050 outcome objectives. The indicators go beyond the traditional tracking of cost and schedule progress and incorporate indicators that reflect sustainability and resilience goals.
It will be important to update these KPIs at the beginning of each phase of this thirty-year program, and more frequently in some areas, in order to incorporate changing conditions, new technologies, and new priorities.
46 July 2022
6.2 Equity
6.3 Reporting and Oversight
Incorporating equity into infrastructure is a core
value of the Vision 2050 Framework, and is
something Berkeley residents want. Three-fourths
of voters said an infrastructure measure should
incorporate equity.
Poorly maintained infrastructure is inherently
inequitable, as it is more detrimental to Berkeley’s
most vulnerable residents. Those with mobility
impairments can find potholes, deficient sidewalks,
failing hand rails, or out-of-service elevators as
insurmountable challenges. Those on bikes or
walking, instead of in vehicles, are more at risk of
death or serious injury on streets with potholes,
failing pavement markings, and lacking traffic safety
controls. As reported by the city auditor, low-income
residents who depend on their automobile to get
to work face greater risk from the estimated annual
$1,049 repair bill attributable to poorly maintained
streets. The state of our parks, recreation and senior
centers has a serious impact on the programs and
services delivered to children of color and lower
income seniors.
In implementing equity into Vision 2050,
Berkeley will build on recent progress. The City’s
transportation plans prioritize projects in historically underinvested neighborhoods in Berkeley, including
improvements like bus bulbouts and dedicated
bus lanes which help lower income residents more
likely to use transit. Many capital projects approved
in Measure T1 implementation advanced equity.
These projects include the African American Holistic
Resource Center, South Berkeley Senior Center,
the Martin Luther King Jr. Youth Services Center,
and public restrooms citywide approved as part of
Measure T1, Phase 2. In addition, Phase 1 projects
such as paving and park improvements at San Pablo
Park and 10 play structures in West Berkeley also
advance equity.
A Vision 2050 program team will prepare a Program
Management Manual. The manual will include the
performance indicators and a format for reporting
progress. Typically, performance monitoring reports
are prepared on a semi-annual basis. The reports will
be provided to Council and will be available to the
public via the Vision 2050 website.
To ensure accountability, independent oversight
for the revenue measures will be provided by two
of the City’s Commissions: Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Parks, Recreation, and Waterfont.
These Commissions will review expenditures
for conformance with the measure’s purposes,
propose how future revenue measures proceeds are
spent, and monitor progress toward Vision 2050’s
outcomes and performance indicators.
47Vision 2050 Program Plan
6.4 Lifecycle Maintenance
Asset Management is an important concept in
which the city’s infrastructure systems are managed
throughout the life cycle from ‘cradle to grave.’
Taking an asset management approach was
a key part of the City Council adopted Vision
2050 recommendations.
A Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) was
recently submitted to City Council and the Council
adopted an Asset Management Policy. The SAMP
develops policy guidance, reviews the city’s
current maintenance practices, and prepares a
roadmap of key initiatives for implementing a full
Asset Management Program (AMP) in Berkeley’s
Public Works and Parks, Recreation & Waterfront
Departments. Critical systems that we depend on
every day are simply wearing out. Recent budgets
were inadequate for infrastructure capital and
maintenance needs, let alone modernizing them. An
AMP is needed to manage our infrastructure assets
throughout their useful life.
The city retained a consultant to assess the city’s
current asset management practices against a
global standard benchmark on Asset Management
in six areas: asset strategy and planning, asset
management decision-making, lifecycle delivery,
asset information, organization and people, and risk
assessment. Based on the benchmark, Berkeley’s
average assessment was in the ‘developing’ level of
asset management implementation and comparable
to many U.S. cities, but not nearly good enough.
The consultant worked with city staff to develop
a ‘Roadmap’ of key initiatives in the next two
years to implement an effective AMP .
The components include:
› Prepare an Asset Management policy for City
Council’s adoption
› Form an Asset Management team, consisting of
a team leader and two program staff
› Form an AM Steering Committee to guide the
program implementation
› Provide consultant support
› Prepare the strategies, procedures and analyses
to implement an AMP
The SAMP conducted an asset-by-asset review of
annual infrastructure maintenance funding and
found that some asset categories such as streets
and city buildings had insufficient maintenance
funding by a wide margin, while other assets like
sewer and streetlights had adequate maintenance
funding. Assets such as stormwater have sufficient
maintenance funding now. However, climate change
and green infrastructure might make current funding
commitments insufficient in future years.
48 July 2022
6.5 General Fund Support for Infrastructure Maintenance The level of General Fund contribution for public
infrastructure in the last 12 years has remained flat
in nominal terms. Given escalating annual costs,
this led to a decline in General Fund support for
infrastructure. A common theme from community
engagement has been to grow General Fund
support for infrastructure and, at the very least, that revenue from any new measures not replace existing
General Fund commitments to infrastructure.
In recognition of the need for more infrastructure
funding, the City Council has revamped its capital
budget and allocated an additional $14M+ for
street maintenance, $5M+ for the Waterfront and
Parks, and $4M+ for other infrastructure. If these
investments become a new “floor” for the City’s
infrastructure, the City will be on track to achieve a
resilient and sustainable infrastructure by 2050.
The FY 2022 CIP in Brief was the beginning of
melding Vision 2050 into the City’s capital budget
49Vision 2050 Program Plan
07 APPENDICES
A. Acknowledgements
City of Berkeley
Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Ray Yep, Vision 2050 Implementation Team Member (volunteer) Margo Schueler, Vision 2050 Implementation Team Member (volunteer) Gordon Wozniak, Vision 2050 Implementation Team Member (volunteer) Andrew Brozyna, Deputy Director, Public Works
Christina Erickson, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Farid Javandel, Deputy Director, Public Works
Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Public Works
Input from the Leadership Teams in the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Departments
Consultant Team
V.W. Housen and Associates:
Dave Richardson, Principal
Daniel Windsor
Josh Uecker
Stephanie Hubli
Vivian Housen, Project Manager
Morgan DeAngelis, Project Engineer
Woodward & Curran:
50 July 2022
B. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Terminology Definition
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AMP Asset Management Program
Asset categories A logical grouping of similar assets or equipment types used to categorize, organize, and manage the asset portfolio.
Asset management
Data driven planning that improves operational, maintenance and capital forecasting of potential needs, and optimization of investments to realize the greatest value from assets while operating over their lifecycle.
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Berkeley
Council City Council of Berkeley
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
Envision
Developed by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure and Harvard University, Envision provides industry-wide sustainability metrics for all types and sizes of infrastructure to help users assess and measure the extent to which their project contributes to conditions of sustainability across the full range of social, economic, and environmental indicators.
KPI Key Performance Indicator
General obligation bond
A General Obligation bond is a common type of municipal bond that is secured by a government’s pledge to use legally-available resources, including tax revenues, to repay bondholders.
Parcel tax
The parcel tax is a tax on parcels of real property collected as part of a property tax bill.
Unlike the property tax, the parcel tax cannot be based on property value. To impose a parcel tax, governments must win support from two-thirds of voters.
PCI Pavement Condition Index, which is a scale of 0 to 100 (with 100 being the best) that indicates the condition of an asphalt street surface.
Program plan A structured approach to organizing a long term complex array of subcomponents. The plan typically describes the project components, schedule, outcomes, funding, and reporting.
SAMP
Strategic Asset Management Plan. This is a high level plan that reviews an organization’s policies, assesses its maturity on maintenance, and develops a roadmap to implement a lifecycle maintenance management program.
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Vision 2050
An initiative of Berkeley’s Mayor Jesse Arreguin to take a long term approach to improving Berkeley’s aging infrastructure. The approach incorporates sustainability and resiliency and anticipating a future world with climate impacts.
WMP Watershed Management Plan
51Vision 2050 Program Plan
C. Reference Documents
1. Information on Vision 2050 can be found on its website: BerkeleyVision2050.org.
2. R
eference documents referenced in this program plan can be found on the City of Berkeley website (BerkeleyCA.gov) using the search feature
3. Informa
tion on Berkeley’s Measure T1 program can be found on its website:
BerkeleyCA.gov/your-government/our-work/ballot-measures/measure-t1.
4. Informa
tion on the Envision process can be found on the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure’s website: SustainableInfrastructure.org.
MEET YOUR COUNCILMEMBERS
MAYOR DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2
JESSE ARREGUIN RASHI KESARWANI TERRY TAPLIN
Term Expires 11/30/2024 Term Expires 11/30/2022 Term Expires 11/30/2024 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5
BEN BARTLETT KATE HARRISON SOPHIE HAHN
Term Expires 11/30/2024 Term Expires 11/30/2022 Term Expires 11/30/2024 DISTRICT 6 DISTRICT 7 DISTRICT 8
SUSAN WENGRAF RIGEL ROBINSON LORI DROSTE
Term Expires 11/30/2024 Term Expires 11/30/2022 Term Expires 11/30/2022 VISION TO REALITY A March to 2050 A CIP IN BRIEF • 2021 JULY 2022VISION 2050 PROGRAM PLAN
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
January 20, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Discuss Vision 2050, Infrastructure Priorities, Stakeholder and Community Engagement, and City’s Bonding Capacity; and Seek Direction on November 2022 Revenue Measure(s)
SUMMARY
This report provides an update on Vision 2050 and its recommended exploration of an infrastructure-focused revenue measure or measures for the November 2022 ballot. It includes results of recent stakeholder and community engagement, comparisons of revenue measure options, and an update on the City’s bonding capacity; and seeks City Council’s direction on revenue measure options for the November 2022 ballot.
City Council adopted the principles, strategies, and actions laid out in the Vision 2050 Framework in September 2020, after a resident-led, volunteer effort to develop a long- term plan centered on resiliency and sustainability. Strategy Four of the Vision 2050 Framework identified inadequate funding of the City’s infrastructure and recommended action to address this need through new revenue. The City Manager formed a Vision 2050 implementation team and, as a result of this team’s work, City Council approved a project in FY 2022 to explore a significant revenue measure or measures focused on infrastructure, including affordable housing. In Fall and Winter 2020, staff hired a consulting team, conducted a scientific survey (topline results in Attachment 1), opened and closed an online community survey, held more than 20 stakeholder meetings, performed financial analysis on the measure alternatives, and made progress on the study of the City’s bond capacity.
Staff seeks City Council’s direction on several questions that will drive the next actions on the project:
1. Is the November 2022 election the right time to include an infrastructure-focused revenue measure or measures?
2. If yes, should it be one infrastructure-focused measure or multiple measures? And what should be the approximate dollar amount of the measure(s)?
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
3. What should the top infrastructure spending priorities be for the measure(s)? And should affordable housing and traditional infrastructure both be addressed in such measure(s)?
In addition, staff seeks to learn what City Council would like to see incorporated in the upcoming Vision 2050 Program Plan for which public input will be solicited in March and April.
With direction from City Council, staff will proceed to draft a Vision 2050 Program Plan, engage Commissions and the public on the draft Program Plan, conduct a follow-up scientific survey of voters in April, and return to City Council in May with a proposed Program Plan and language for revenue measure(s) for City Council to consider placing on the November 2022 ballot.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Most of Berkeley’s streets, sidewalks, sewers, parks, playgrounds and public buildings were built over 75 years ago and need repair. However, local revenues have not kept pace with the need for investments to maintain and/or update aging infrastructure or promote sustainability and housing affordability. This underinvestment has led to an estimated $1.2 billion in deferred maintenance as shared with the City Council during the development of the FY 2022 budget.1 (An updated estimate will will be reported to City Council as part of the Program Plan in May 2022.)
Studies show that $1 spent in early maintenance of infrastructure, such as streets, can save $7 in later, more expensive repairs. This explains why delays in addressing deferred maintenance in the City’s streets will quadruple the cost of addressing these needs by 2050.
The $1.2 billion in citywide infrastructure needs is an undercount, as this estimate does not include significant affordable housing need, nor does it include many needs related to new or improved infrastructure, such as utility undergrounding, bicycle and pedestrian improvements recommended in adopted City plans, some improvements that make the City’s infrastructure more sustainable and resilient, or costs to transform the City’s public spaces and commons.
Nevertheless, this size and scale of these infrastructure needs is very important, as they show the challenge ahead. This challenge exists despite proactive steps taken to address these needs in the last decade. Local voters approved the first phase of upgrades to local infrastructure through the passage of Measure M ($30M) in 2012, the Parks Tax increase in 2014, Measure T1 in 2016 ($100M), and Measure O in 2018 1 Attachment 2 provides the infrastructure needs reported to City Council at the March 16, 2021 session on Unfunded Liability Obligations and Unfunded Infrastructure Needs. In response to questions raised in stakeholder meetings, staff have added a second page to explain how these infrastructure needs were derived.
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
($135M). Together, these measures have provided additional resources to address affordable housing and the repair and improvement of Berkeley's aging infrastructure, including sidewalks, storm drains, parks, streets, senior and recreation centers, watershed and other City facilities.
While marking important progress, these measures have not been large enough to address this size of the infrastructure and affordable housing need. A measure or measures on the November 2022 ballot would secure a dedicated funding source to support local infrastructure and affordable housing, and accelerate the City’s path toward sustainability and resilience as envisioned in the Vision 2050 Framework.
Scientific Survey of Berkeley Voters. A random, representative sample of 500 Berkeley voters were surveyed regarding their infrastructure priorities in October 2021 via telephone and text-to-online technology using professional interviewers. The survey had a margin of error of +/- 4.4%, and top line survey results are found in Attachment 1. It elicited respondents’ infrastructure priorities, and support or opposition to an infrastructure-focused general obligation (or “infrastructure”) bond, parcel tax, or sales tax increase.
The survey found that voters’ top priorities included:
Increasing affordable housing for low-income and homeless residents (79% rated as “important”),
Upgrading storm drains, green infrastructure, and watersheds to keep pollution from the Bay (79% important);
Developing climate change resiliency, including protecting against sea level rise, wildfires and drought (78% important),
Undergrounding utilities to reduce the risk of wildfire (73% important), and Repairing deteriorating streets (73% important).
This survey found broad support for an infrastructure-focused revenue measure, but support fell short of the two-thirds necessary to pass a revenue measure dedicated to infrastructure, whether an infrastructure bond, parcel tax, or sales tax. Voters’ support and opposition did not differ much between the larger-sized measures and the smaller- sized measures. The “No” vote (between 27-32%) common to these measures is higher than previous pre-placement surveys, and the undecided vote is smaller than previous surveys.
The survey also found that three-fourths of this representative group of voters believe an infrastructure measure should address equity, and a majority support a definition of equity where infrastructure benefits are provided first (or more) to lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color that have been historically underfunded.
Revenue Measure Options. The survey tested three revenue measure options:
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
General Obligation (or Infrastructure) Bond: debt issued to fund capital improvements that is repaid over the bond duration by property tax revenues.
Funds from a bond measure may only be used for capital investments and cannot be used for maintenance, operations, or services. Bond measures are generally considered among the most progressive forms of taxation since they are based on the assessed value of properties.
Parcel Tax: a form of property tax typically based on the square footage of one parcel. Funds from a parcel tax measure are flexible and can be used for both capital, operations, maintenance, and services. The tax is based on the improved square footage of properties. It is generally considered a progressive form of taxation since larger properties pay more than smaller properties, and exemptions for seniors and low-income property owners are allowed.
OPTIONS FOR FUNDING MECHANISMS
TYPE Bond2 Parcel Tax3 Sales Tax4
AMOUNT $27 per
$100,000 AV
$54 per
$100,000 AV
$0.15 per
square foot
$0.30 per
square foot
$0.05 per
$1.00
ESTIMATED
TOTAL FUNDING
$250 million $500 million $12M/yr or
$250 million
if bonded
$25M/yr or
$500 million if
bonded
$9M/yr, $110
million if
bonded
AVG. ANNUAL
PROPERTY
OWNER COST
$200 $400 $300 $600 Varies
TAX BASIS Assessed Value (AV) Building square footage Taxable purchases
USE OF FUNDS Capital only Capital + Maintenance Capital + Maintenance
TAX
PROGRESSIVITY Progressive Progressive Least
Progressive
EXEMPTIONS None Low income/senior Essential
purchases
PROS Relative tax burden lessens as AV
increases
Fixed payments, funds both
operations/mtce and capital
Visitors pay
share
CONS Cannot pay for maintenance or
operations
Relative tax burden stays
flat if citywide square
footage does not increase
Impact on
low-income
residents
2 These calculations assume four equal issuances over the first eight years and an interest rate of 4%.
The average assessed value is for a single-family home of $647,972. 3 These calculations assume 83,073,012 taxable square feet and an average single-family home of ~2,000 square feet.
4 These calculations assume $6.5 million of the additional $9 million in revenue would be available for bonding.
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
Sales Tax: this is a consumption tax on the sale of goods and services for which the City has State permission to raise one half-cent per dollar more. Funds from a sales tax measure are flexible and can be used for capital, maintenance, operations, and services. Sales taxes are generally considered a less progressive form of taxation since low-income residents spend a larger portion of their incomes on taxable purchases than higher income populations. However, essential purchases like groceries and prescription medicine are exempt from sales tax and the cost is paid by anyone who shops locally, not just residents.
Stakeholder and Community Engagement. Staff held meetings with 20+ community organizations and the following Commissions: Community Environmental Advisory, Disability, Disaster and Fire, Energy, Parks and Waterfront, Public Works, and Transportation. These meetings were an opportunity to share more about the City’s infrastructure needs, solicit input on possible revenue measures, answer questions, and highlight an online community survey that was opened in October 2021 and closed on January 12, 2022.
From the 20+ meetings with various stakeholders, the following issues and themes emerged:
Request for more explanation of the $1.2B in infrastructure need General belief that November 2022 was the right time for an infrastructure- focused measure
Importance of trees, biodiversity, and green space in investment priorities Desire to see an integrated approach to infrastructure investments Some concern that a “fix-it-first” approach to infrastructure did not align well with ambition of Vision 2050 or the City’s climate and resilience strategy Sales tax was not preferred given the impact on low-income residents Some concern over voters’ (mis)trust of the City’s financial management Varying opinions on whether affordable housing and traditional infrastructure should be included in one measure, split between two, or dealt with in different elections
Support for equity in any measure
Some concerns about the tax burden of an infrastructure bond versus parcel tax on new(er) property owners versus long-time owners
Request for better understanding of results from affordable housing investments Request that federal, state, and regional grant funding be leveraged Some interest in a parcel tax given its ability to fund both capital improvements and ongoing maintenance
Concern that ongoing maintenance be adequately funded to ensure whatever is constructed is properly maintained
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
For the online survey, a total of 1,024 responses were received. For the most part, the results from the online survey aligned with the scientific survey. However, the online survey afforded additional insight. For example, respondents were asked to rank their top three priorities for a potential measure from a list of infrastructure priorities. More so than the scientific survey, street repair stood out as a clear top priority followed by affordable housing. The top five ranked priorities are listed below, with percentages indicating the number of respondents who ranked the particular item as top priority:
1. 28.5% – Street Repair
2. 19.2% – Affordable Housing
3. 8.3% – Bike Lanes/Safety
4. 7.5% – Climate Change Resiliency
5. 6.8% – Pedestrian Safety
When respondents were asked to rank the urgency of various infrastructure priorities, repairing deteriorating streets stood out as a top priority, with housing and other infrastructure priorities considered urgent but less so. Respondents ranked the priorities on a five-point scale, with one the most urgent and five the least urgent, and the numbers in parentheses refer to the average rating of each item:
1. Repairing deteriorating streets (1.96)
2. Improving traffic safety (2.25)
3. Upgrading storm drains, green infrastructure, and our watersheds to keep pollution from the Bay (2.35)
4. Repairing sidewalks to improve pedestrian safety and ADA accessibility (2.37)
5. Undergrounding utilities to help reduce the risk of wildfire (2.40)
6. Climate change resiliency including protecting against sea level rise, wildfires, and drought (2.42)
7. Planting and caring for trees (2.52)
8. Increasing affordable housing for low-income and homeless residents (2.57)
9. Expanding bike lanes and improving bike safety (2.62)
10.Upgrading traffic signals, pavement markings, and street signs (2.66) Bond Capacity Study. The Finance Department has engaged the Government Finance Officers Association to initiate a study of the City’s bond capacity. Initial findings from that study will be shared during the staff presentation at the January 20th Work Session.
Vision 2050 Program Plan. After gaining City Council’s direction, staff will develop a Program Plan and return to City Council for approval of this plan, along with proposed measure(s) for November 2022. The Program Plan will lay out a long-term program to address Berkeley’s infrastructure needs through 2050, address this and future revenue measures, describe the impacts of infrastructure investments, identify an organizational approach to delivering on funded projects, and recommend a process for developing and approving projects funded by this and future revenue measures. While this plan will
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
not be binding and will be flexible enough to adapt as infrastructure needs evolve, it will provide a blueprint for future action. Other issues the Program Plan may address include:
Ensuring capital improvements are properly maintained, and where maintenance is not properly funded for a particular infrastructure asset, recommend actions to address the shortfall.
Reconciling immediate repair needs in the City’s infrastructure, especially the City’s street condition, with the re-envisioning of the public commons/space suggested in Vision 2050.
Explaining how these investments will promote sustainability, and address climate change and resilience.
Exploring an approach where property owners’ tax burden stays level between 2023 and 2050, while still addressing significant infrastructure need.
November 2022 Election and Measure Options
The November 2022 election may include state, county, school, special district or additional City measures. Staff believe the ballot will not include a Berkeley Unified School District measure. Staff will request City Council’s placement of an Article 34 measure, which is required by the California Constitution in order to develop affordable housing projects with state or local public financing. Such an approval has occurred in at least four previous elections and has had strong support. More information about state, regional, and Alameda County measures will be available in the spring or summer. Needless to say, there is a lot of uncertainty leading up to the November 2022 election given ongoing challenges with inflation, employment, and the global pandemic.
With that context and the findings from community and stakeholder engagement to date, staff seek direction among four possible revenue measure options.
Option #1, $500M Infrastructure Bond. Such as measure could have the following investment priorities:
$200 Million - Street repair and traffic safety
$150 Million - Affordable housing for low-income and homeless residents $75 Million - Climate change, sea level rise, wildfire prevention and protection $75 Million - Other public infrastructure improvements5 5 Other Public Infrastructure Improvements could include one-time projects, e.g., Old City Hall, Veterans Memorial Building, Waterfront and Marina, etc.
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
This option funds voters’ top priorities—affordable housing, street repair, and climate change—and invests most in street repair, as it is the top and most urgent need identified by online survey respondents. This option overall is large enough to address a significant portion of the City’s infrastructure needs. Investments in affordable housing at this range would generate up to 660 new affordable units, pave more than 120 street miles, and improve traffic safety. If City Council direct staff to pursue a measure of this size and type, the Program Plan will provide more detail on how these funds may be spent and results attained.
Option #2, Multiple Measures. These measures could include:
A parcel tax of $12M annually (or $250M if bonded against) to address street repair and traffic safety.
An infrastructure bond of $150M to address affordable housing for low-income persons and the unhoused.
An infrastructure bond of $100M to address climate change, wildfire prevention and protection, and other public infrastructure.
This option also funds voters’ top priorities and provides more flexible sources of funding that could address maintenance needs. Results from these investments are likely to track the results from Option #1. However, each of these measures would have to separately meet the two-thirds threshold for approval, which is likely to be more difficult than one measure meeting the two-thirds threshold.
Options #3, Variants of the above options. City Council could direct staff to develop Options #1 or #2 but with different funding mechanisms, e.g. Option #1 but with a similarly-sized parcel tax in lieu of infrastructure bond, at different funding levels (lower or higher amounts), or with different investment priorities, e.g., more or less for affordable housing, street repair, etc.
Option #4, None of the above. City Council could choose to delay this discussion until a future election; ask for other measure options, such as the sales tax, to be developed further; or direct staff to consider an option not yet considered.
BACKGROUND
Vision 2050 is a City Council-supported, resident-engaged initiative to address Berkeley’s $1.2+ billion in infrastructure needs. With voter approval of Measure R, Vision 2050 was defined as engaging residents and experts in developing a 30-year plan to identify and guide implementation of climate-smart, technologically-advanced, equitable and efficient infrastructure to support a safe, vibrant and resilient future for Berkeley.
On April 27, 2021, City Council approved a referral to the City Manager to “explore various options for a future city bond measure in November 2022 to support the growing
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
need for infrastructure investment, including street repaving, Complete Streets infrastructure that promotes bike and pedestrian safety, restoration of public buildings and facilities, and affordable housing citywide.” The adopted FY 2022 budget included a $400,000 project to execute on this project after which the City Manager convened a working team of residents and City staff to assist with Vision 2050 implementation.
The table below summarizes activities both completed and anticipated for the potential revenue measure(s).
Month Activities
Sep. 2021 Begin various analyses and start drafting outreach materials. Establish contracts with TBWBH Props and Measures and V.W.
Housen & Associates for Vision 2050 Implementation Services.
Oct. 2021 Conduct community survey #1.
Begin virtual stakeholder meetings.
Nov. 2021 Continue virtual stakeholder meetings.
Dec. 2021 Continue virtual stakeholder meetings.
Jan. 2022 Hold January 20 work session to gain City Council direction.
Feb. 2022 Informational mailer to residents with invitation for input at March and April public meetings.
Mar. 2022 Present draft Program Plan to Commissions and large area public meetings for feedback.
Apr. 2022 Continue Program Plan meetings.
May 2022 Conduct community survey #2.
Present survey results and seek City Council’s approval on Vision 2050 funding measure(s) and Program Plan.
Aug. 2022 Last date to submit measure(s) to County Registrar of Voters.
Nov. 2022 Election
After the January 20 work session, the interdepartmental team will incorporate City Council’s direction. In March and April, the team will present a draft Program Plan to Commissions and obtain public feedback through five large area virtual meetings that combine two City Council districts per meeting, similar to the public meetings held during the T1, Phase 2 process. Then staff will return to City Council on May 31 with the results of this public engagement, a draft Program Plan, and proposed revenue measure(s) that have been reviewed by the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Progress on overall implementation of Vision 2050 has continued. This includes completion of short-term items, such as convening a Vision 2050 team, preparing an implementation plan, participating in Council workshops, and submitting a Vision 2050 budget. There are also a number of other items underway, including development of a
Discuss and Seek Direction on Potential November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) WORKSESSION January 20, 2022
Strategic Asset Management Plan. This work is described in more detail in the November 16, 2021, Council report.6
As indicated in this 16-page information guide, progress on implementation of T1 continues. During Phase 1 (2017-2022), $40M was spent on 39 different projects, leveraging an additional $23M from grants and special funds to deliver $63M in infrastructure improvements. T1, Phase 1 projects resulted in seismically safe, solar- equipped, and accessible community buildings, repaving some of the City’s most neglected streets, new green infrastructure, replaced play structures, increased resilience through improvements that reduce water consumption, a renovated Rose Garden, and an Aquatic Park with much improved water quality. This phase’s planning projects included the San Pablo Park Community Center and new pool, the Willard Clubhouse, citywide restrooms, and the community space/restroom at the Tom Bates Sports Complex. Phase 2 (2021-2026) is currently underway and includes an additional $60M on various projects, including South Berkeley buildings, citywide restrooms, paving, and sidewalk repairs. The John Hinkel Park project, which includes repairs to the creek, lower picnic area, play area and amphitheater, is the first T1, Phase 2 project to be under construction and will be complete in late Spring of 2022.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Implementing Vision 2050 would result in more resilient public infrastructure that creates fewer greenhouse gases, and reduces conflict between our built and natural environment. More affordable housing in Berkeley would reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by employees finding lower cost housing farther away from employment centers and requiring longer commutes.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
If a potential revenue measure or measures are placed on the ballot and subsequently approved by voters, the City would receive additional funds from increased tax revenues. One goal for any potential revenue measure or measures is to ensure any resulting increased tax burden is held steady over the long term.
CONTACT PERSON
Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager, (510) 981-7000
Liam Garland, Director, Public Works, (510) 981- 6300
Attachments:
1: Topline of October 2021 Scientific Survey Results
2: Prior Estimate of Infrastructure Need and Methodology 6 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/11_Nov/Documents/2021-11- 16_Item_08_Vision_2050.aspx
City of Berkeley Community Survey
Live Phone and Text-to-Online
October 12 – 17, 2021
FINAL WEIGHTED TOPLINES
N=500 Likely Nov 2022 General Election Voters
Splits: A/B, C/D, E/F
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Region
Council District 5/6/8 ................................ ................. 42 46 41 Council District 3/4/7 ................................ ................. 29 27 27 Council District 1/2 ................................ .................... 29 26 32
Party Registration
Democrat ................................ ................................ .. 80 77 84 Republican ................................ ................................ .. 2 3 1 No Party Preference ................................ ................. 16 19 12 Others ................................ ................................ ......... 2 1 2
Q1. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely?
Yes, cell and can talk safely ................................ ...... 34 40 31 Yes, cell and cannot talk safely [CALL BACK] ........... 0 0 0 No, not on cell, but own one ................................ ...... 10 10 10 No, not on cell, and do not own one ............................ 2 2 2 (Don’t know/refused) [TERMINATE] .......................... 0 0 0 Text to online ................................ ............................ 54 48 57
Q2. Could you please tell me your gender? [DO NOT READ OPTIONS]
Male ................................ ................................ .......... 44 100 0 Female ................................ ................................ ...... 52 0 100 Non-binary/other ................................ ......................... 4 0 0 (Refused) ................................ .............. [TERMINATE]
City of Berkeley – October 2021 2
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Q3. Although it is some time from now, what are the chances of you voting in the November 2022 general election for Governor, Congress, and other offices? Are you almost certain to vote, will you probably vote, are the chances about 50-50, are you probably not going to vote, or are you definitely not going to vote?
Almost certain to vote ................................ ................ 95 94 95 Probably will vote ................................ ........................ 5 6 5 50-50 [TERMINATE] ................................ ................... 0 0 0 Probably not [TERMINATE] ................................ ........ 0 0 0 Definitely not [TERMINATE] ................................ ........ 0 0 0 Don't know [TERMINATE] ................................ ........... 0 0 0
Q4. [T] Generally speaking, do you think that things in the city of Berkeley are going in the right direction, or do you feel things are off on the wrong track?
Right direction ................................ ........................... 48 48 49 Wrong track ................................ .............................. 32 31 31 (Don't know) ................................ ............................. 21 21 20
Q5. [T*] How would you rate the job the city of Berkeley is doing in providing services to its residents — excellent, good, fair, or poor?
Excellent ................................ ................................ ..... 6 7 5 Good ................................ ................................ ......... 45 45 48 Fair ................................ ................................ ........... 30 31 29 Poor ................................ ................................ .......... 15 15 14 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 4 2 5
Excellent /good ................................ ......................... 51 52 52 Just fair /poor ................................ ............................ 45 46 43
Q6. [T] How much of an impact has the coronavirus pandemic had on you and your household – thinking about all of the effects, including financial concerns and physical and mental health, would you say the impact on your household has been very serious, fairly serious, moderate, minor, or no impact at all?
Very serious ................................ .............................. 15 15 13 Fairly serious ................................ ............................ 23 22 23 Moderate ................................ ................................ ... 40 41 40 Minor ................................ ................................ ......... 18 18 19 No impact ................................ ................................ .... 4 4 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 0 0 0
Very /fairly serious ................................ .................... 38 37 37 Moderate /minor /no impact................................ ....... 62 62 63
City of Berkeley – October 2021 3
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Q7. The next set of questions is about infrastructure needs in Berkeley. I am going to read you some areas that have been identified as types of infrastructure needing repair, investment, or improvement in the City of Berkeley. For each one, please tell me how important that is to you as a resident of Berkeley – extremely important, very important, somewhat important, not too important or not important at all:
[RANDOMIZE]
Sorted by Extremely Important
B7l.Increasing affordable housing for low -income
and homeless residents ................................ ...... 54 47 55 7p.Developing climate change resiliency including
protecting against sea level rise, wildfires, and
drought ................................ ................................ 48 39 54 A7k.Increasing affordable housing for low -income
residents ................................ ............................. 42 31 47 7c.Undergrounding utilities to help reduce the risk of
wildfire ................................ ................................ . 40 31 45 7a.Repairing deteriorating streets ............................. 35 33 36 B7e.Repairing sidewalks to improve access for
those with disabilities ................................ ........... 34 19 45 7y.Providing free transit passes for low -income
residents ................................ ............................. 34 25 37 A7u.Upgrading storm drains, green infrastructure,
and our watersheds to keep pollution from the
Bay ................................ ................................ ...... 31 20 40 7j.Planting and caring for trees ................................ .. 30 19 38 7t.Increasing availability of solar energy, solar
batteries, and electric vehicles and equipment .... 28 23 31 A7d.Repairing sidewalks to improve pedestrian
safety ................................ ................................ .. 27 20 34 A7f.Improving traffic safety ................................ ........ 27 22 32 B7g.Improving traffic safety and flow ......................... 26 14 37 B7v.Upgrading storm drains to reduce flooding and
protect against sea level rise ............................... 25 13 33 7i.Expanding bike lanes and improving bike safety ... 25 21 27 7cc.Making public buildings, streets, and sidewalks
more accessible to people with disabilities .......... 25 18 27 B7aa.Upgrading City buildings to be energy efficient,
seismically safe, and COVID-safe ....................... 23 14 30 7o.Decommissioning natural gas lines to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions ................................ .. 21 14 25 7ee.Upgrading traffic signals, pavement markings,
and street signs ................................ ................... 18 19 17 7h.Improving streetlighting ................................ ........ 17 12 22 7x.Providing more publicly available electric vehicle
charging ................................ .............................. 16 13 19 7r.Repairing Berkeley Pier, including recreational
and ferry upgrades ................................ .............. 16 15 17 7s.Improving the Berkeley waterfront, including
City of Berkeley – October 2021 4
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
docks, pilings, streets, parking lots, pathways,
and marina dredging ................................ ........... 15 9 19 7w.Making improvements to recreational facilities ..... 13 8 17 B7n.Renovating Berkeley's Civic Center Buildings
and Park to include music and theatre
performance spaces, a children's play area, café
kiosk and seating, and enhancing green space ... 12 7 14 7q.Replacing the community center and building a
public pool in San Pablo Park .............................. 12 7 15 7b.Expanding lanes, parking, and charging for e -
bikes (electronic bikes), e -scooters, and app -
based car, bike, and scooter-shares .................... 11 9 14 A7m.Improving seismic safety of historic buildings in
Civic Center, including Old City Hall and the
Veterans Building ................................ ................ 11 7 14 7bb.Upgrading playgrounds ................................ ...... 11 7 14 7dd.Upgrading senior centers ................................ ... 11 6 14 A7z.Upgrading City buildings ................................ ...... 4 6 3
a. Repairing deteriorating streets
Extremely important ................................ .................. 35 33 36 Very important................................ ........................... 38 36 40 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 24 26 21 Not too important ................................ ........................ 3 4 1 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 0 0 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 0 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 73 69 76 Not important ................................ ............................ 27 31 23
b. Expanding lanes, parking, and charging for e-bikes (electronic bikes), e-scooters, and app-based car, bike, and scooter-shares
Extremely important ................................ .................. 11 9 14 Very important................................ ........................... 21 27 18 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 32 27 37 Not too important ................................ ...................... 20 22 16 Not important at all ................................ .................... 12 12 13 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 3 3 3
Important ................................ ................................ ... 33 36 32 Not important ................................ ............................ 64 61 65
City of Berkeley – October 2021 5
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
c. Undergrounding utilities to help reduce the risk of wildfire
Extremely important ................................ .................. 40 31 45 Very important................................ ........................... 33 37 30 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 16 17 16 Not too important ................................ ........................ 7 10 4 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 3 2 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 2 3 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 73 68 75 Not important ................................ ............................ 26 29 24
d. SSA: Repairing sidewalks to improve pedestrian safety
Extremely important ................................ .................. 27 20 34 Very important................................ ........................... 39 41 37 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 23 22 23 Not too important ................................ ........................ 9 14 5 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 2 3 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 0 0 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 66 61 71 Not important ................................ ............................ 34 39 29
e. SSB: Repairing sidewalks to improve access for those with disabilities
Extremely important ................................ .................. 34 19 45 Very important................................ ........................... 33 40 27 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 24 28 22 Not too important ................................ ........................ 5 7 4 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 3 6 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 0 0 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 67 59 72 Not important ................................ ............................ 33 41 28
f. SSA: Improving traffic safety
Extremely important ................................ .................. 27 22 32 Very important................................ ........................... 37 36 38 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 27 31 23 Not too important ................................ ........................ 5 6 5 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 2 2 2 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 2 4 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 64 57 70 Not important ................................ ............................ 34 39 30
City of Berkeley – October 2021 6
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
g. SSB: Improving traffic safety and flow
Extremely important ................................ .................. 26 14 37 Very important................................ ........................... 37 41 32 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 23 28 17 Not too important ................................ ...................... 10 12 9 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 2 4 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 2 1 3
Important ................................ ................................ ... 63 55 69 Not important ................................ ............................ 35 44 27
h. Improving streetlighting
Extremely important ................................ .................. 17 12 22 Very important................................ ........................... 29 27 32 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 34 41 28 Not too important ................................ ...................... 16 18 14 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 3 2 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 0 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 46 39 54 Not important ................................ ............................ 53 60 45
i. Expanding bike lanes and improving bike safety
Extremely important ................................ .................. 25 21 27 Very important................................ ........................... 26 25 29 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 30 31 28 Not too important ................................ ...................... 12 16 8 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 6 6 7 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 0 2
Important ................................ ................................ ... 51 46 56 Not important ................................ ............................ 48 54 42
j. Planting and caring for trees
Extremely important ................................ .................. 30 19 38 Very important................................ ........................... 33 36 31 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 29 32 26 Not too important ................................ ........................ 7 10 4 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 2 3 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 0 0 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 62 55 68 Not important ................................ ............................ 37 45 31
City of Berkeley – October 2021 7
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
k. SSA: Increasing affordable housing for low-income residents
Extremely important ................................ .................. 42 31 47 Very important................................ ........................... 34 45 26 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 14 11 16 Not too important ................................ ........................ 4 3 4 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 6 8 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 1 2
Important ................................ ................................ ... 75 76 73 Not important ................................ ............................ 23 23 25
l. SSB: Increasing affordable housing for low-income and homeless residents
Extremely important ................................ .................. 54 47 55 Very important................................ ........................... 26 24 30 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 10 12 9 Not too important ................................ ........................ 6 10 4 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 3 5 2 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 2 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 79 71 85 Not important ................................ ............................ 19 27 14
m. SSA: Improving seismic safety of historic buildings in Civic Center, including Old City Hall and the Veterans Building
Extremely important ................................ .................. 11 7 14 Very important................................ ........................... 31 32 32 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 43 44 39 Not too important ................................ ...................... 10 9 10 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 4 5 3 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 2 3 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 42 39 46 Not important ................................ ............................ 56 58 53
City of Berkeley – October 2021 8
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
n. SSB: Renovating Berkeley’s Civic Center Buildings and Park to include music and theatre performance spaces, a children’s play area, café kiosk and seating, and enhancing green space
Extremely important ................................ .................. 12 7 14 Very important................................ ........................... 24 19 30 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 34 44 28 Not too important ................................ ...................... 20 21 19 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 7 7 8 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 2 2 2
Important ................................ ................................ ... 36 26 44 Not important ................................ ............................ 61 71 55
o. Decommissioning natural gas lines to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Extremely important ................................ .................. 21 14 25 Very important................................ ........................... 26 22 29 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 25 27 24 Not too important ................................ ...................... 13 18 10 Not important at all ................................ .................... 10 13 7 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 5 6 4
Important ................................ ................................ ... 47 36 54 Not important ................................ ............................ 48 58 41
p. Developing climate change resiliency including protecting against sea level rise, wildfires, and drought
Extremely important ................................ .................. 48 39 54 Very important................................ ........................... 30 31 30 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 16 22 12 Not too important ................................ ........................ 3 4 2 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 2 3 2 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 0 0 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 78 70 84 Not important ................................ ............................ 21 30 16
City of Berkeley – October 2021 9
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
q. Replacing the community center and building a public pool in San Pablo Park
Extremely important ................................ .................. 12 7 15 Very important................................ ........................... 18 14 21 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 28 27 29 Not too important ................................ ...................... 22 28 17 Not important at all ................................ .................... 12 15 9 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 9 9 9
Important ................................ ................................ ... 30 22 36 Not important ................................ ............................ 62 70 55
r. Repairing Berkeley Pier, including recreational and ferry upgrades
Extremely important ................................ .................. 16 15 17 Very important................................ ........................... 26 23 30 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 31 31 31 Not too important ................................ ...................... 19 19 16 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 6 8 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 3 3 3
Important ................................ ................................ ... 42 39 46 Not important ................................ ............................ 56 58 51
s. Improving the Berkeley waterfront, including docks, pilings, streets, parking lots, pathways, and marina dredging
Extremely important ................................ .................. 15 9 19 Very important................................ ........................... 28 30 29 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 38 43 33 Not too important ................................ ...................... 15 14 14 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 2 2 2 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 2 2 3
Important ................................ ................................ ... 43 40 48 Not important ................................ ............................ 55 58 49
t. Increasing availability of solar energy, solar batteries, and electric vehicles and equipment
Extremely important ................................ .................. 28 23 31 Very important................................ ........................... 32 32 33 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 28 26 29 Not too important ................................ ........................ 8 13 4 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 4 5 3 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 0 1 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 60 55 64 Not important ................................ ............................ 40 44 36
City of Berkeley – October 2021 10
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
u. SSA: Upgrading storm drains, green infrastructure, and our watersheds to keep pollution from the Bay
Extremely important ................................ .................. 31 20 40 Very important................................ ........................... 47 53 43 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 16 21 11 Not too important ................................ ........................ 4 3 5 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 1 0 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 3 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 79 73 83 Not important ................................ ............................ 20 25 17
v. SSB: Upgrading storm drains to reduce flooding and protect against sea level rise
Extremely important ................................ .................. 25 13 33 Very important................................ ........................... 37 32 40 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 22 30 17 Not too important ................................ ...................... 10 17 5 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 2 4 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 4 4 4
Important ................................ ................................ ... 62 45 73 Not important ................................ ............................ 34 51 23
w. Making improvements to recreational facilities
Extremely important ................................ .................. 13 8 17 Very important................................ ........................... 28 27 29 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 39 45 35 Not too important ................................ ...................... 13 11 14 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 3 5 2 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 3 4 3
Important ................................ ................................ ... 41 35 46 Not important ................................ ............................ 56 61 51
City of Berkeley – October 2021 11
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
x. Providing more publicly available electric vehicle charging
Extremely important ................................ .................. 16 13 19 Very important................................ ........................... 25 25 25 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 32 29 35 Not too important ................................ ...................... 19 22 14 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 7 9 6 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 1 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 41 39 44 Not important ................................ ............................ 58 60 55
y. Providing free transit passes for low-income residents
Extremely important ................................ .................. 34 25 37 Very important................................ ........................... 33 35 33 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 24 26 23 Not too important ................................ ........................ 5 6 3 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 5 7 3 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 0 1 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 67 60 70 Not important ................................ ............................ 33 39 30
z. SSA: Upgrading City buildings
Extremely important ................................ .................... 4 6 3 Very important................................ ........................... 18 11 25 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 40 41 39 Not too important ................................ ...................... 23 24 21 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 5 6 5 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 9 12 7
Important ................................ ................................ ... 23 17 28 Not important ................................ ............................ 68 71 65
aa. SSB: Upgrading City buildings to be energy efficient, seismically safe, and COVID-safe
Extremely important ................................ .................. 23 14 30 Very important................................ ........................... 35 34 34 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 30 39 24 Not too important ................................ ........................ 8 10 6 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 4 3 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 0 2
Important ................................ ................................ ... 58 48 64 Not important ................................ ............................ 41 52 35
City of Berkeley – October 2021 12
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
bb. Upgrading playgrounds
Extremely important ................................ .................. 11 7 14 Very important................................ ........................... 29 27 33 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 36 38 35 Not too important ................................ ...................... 17 21 12 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 4 5 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 2 3 2
Important ................................ ................................ ... 40 34 47 Not important ................................ ............................ 57 63 51
cc. Making public buildings, streets, and sidewalks more accessible to people with disabilities
Extremely important ................................ .................. 25 18 27 Very important................................ ........................... 36 38 36 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 28 28 29 Not too important ................................ ........................ 8 11 5 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 3 5 2 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 1 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 60 55 63 Not important ................................ ............................ 39 43 37
dd. Upgrading senior centers
Extremely important ................................ .................. 11 6 14 Very important................................ ........................... 30 28 33 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 37 37 36 Not too important ................................ ...................... 14 14 13 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 3 5 1 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 6 9 3
Important ................................ ................................ ... 40 34 47 Not important ................................ ............................ 54 57 50
ee. Upgrading traffic signals, pavement markings, and street signs
Extremely important ................................ .................. 18 19 17 Very important................................ ........................... 30 29 32 Somewhat important ................................ ................. 33 31 34 Not too important ................................ ...................... 15 17 13 Not important at all ................................ ...................... 4 4 4 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 1 1 0
Important ................................ ................................ ... 47 48 49 Not important ................................ ............................ 52 51 51
City of Berkeley – October 2021 13
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Now, I’m going to read several versions of a ballot measure that may appear on the ballot in Berkeley next year. I am going to ask about different ways of funding the measure and different dollar amounts for each.
[RANDOMIZE Q8/9, 10/11, 12]
The [first/next] version of the ballot measure I’m going to ask you about is a bond measure.
Q8. SSC [BOND MEASURE 27 CENTS] To:
• improve aging infrastructure and facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, restrooms, senior and recreation centers, and
• provide affordable housing to prevent displacement of vulnerable populations, including low to middle-income households, veterans, artists, seniors, and people with disabilities and provide supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness;
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 250 million dollars, at rates of 27 cents per 100 dollars of assessed property value, on average, generating approximately 25 million dollars annually while bonds are outstanding and requiring independent oversight?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ............................ 28 26 29 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ................. 13 10 16 Lean yes ................................ ................................ ... 14 11 15
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 55 48 60 Undecided/DK ................................ ........................... 16 19 14 No ................................ ................................ ............ 29 33 26
Lean no ................................ ................................ ....... 9 10 9 No - not so strongly ................................ ..................... 4 4 3 No - strongly ................................ ............................. 16 19 14
(Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 0 0 0
City of Berkeley – October 2021 14
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
The [first/next] version of the ballot measure I’m going to ask you about is a bond measure.
Q9. SSD [BOND MEASURE 54 CENTS] To:
• improve aging infrastructure and facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, restrooms, senior and recreation centers, and
• provide affordable housin g to prevent displacement of vulnerable populations, including low to middle-income households, veterans, artists, seniors, and people with disabilities and provide supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness;
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 500 million dollars, at rates of 54 cents per 100 dollars of assessed property value, on average, generating approximately 50 million dollars annually while bonds are outstanding and requiring independent oversight?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ............................ 35 35 36 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ................. 11 16 8 Lean yes ................................ ................................ ... 12 6 16
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 58 57 59 Undecided/DK ................................ ........................... 12 7 18 No ................................ ................................ ............ 29 37 23
Lean no ................................ ................................ ..... 10 9 11 No - not so strongly ................................ ..................... 8 7 7 No - strongly ................................ ............................. 12 20 5
(Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 0 0 0
Q8/9. Combined Bond Measure
Yes - strongly ................................ ............................ 32 31 32 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ................. 12 13 12 Lean yes ................................ ................................ ... 13 8 15
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 57 52 59 Undecided/DK ................................ ........................... 14 13 16 No ................................ ................................ ............ 29 35 25
Lean no ................................ ................................ ..... 10 10 10 No - not so strongly ................................ ..................... 6 6 5 No - strongly ................................ ............................. 14 20 10
(Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 0 0 0
City of Berkeley – October 2021 15
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
The [first/next] version of the ballot measure I’m going to ask you about is a parcel tax.
Q10. SSE [PARCEL TAX 15 CENTS ] To:
• improve aging infrastructure and facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, restrooms, senior and recreation centers, and
• provide affordable housing to prevent displacement of vulnerable populations, including low to middle-income households, veterans, artists, seniors, and people with disabilities and provide supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness;
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure levying 15 cents per building square foot, generating approximately 13 million dollars annually until ended by voters, with low-income exemptions, independent oversight and all funds staying local?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ............................ 37 35 37 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ................. 14 20 8 Lean yes ................................ ................................ ..... 9 4 14
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 60 60 58 Undecided/DK ................................ ........................... 13 8 17 No ................................ ................................ ............ 27 32 25
Lean no ................................ ................................ ....... 8 5 11 No - not so strongly ................................ ..................... 4 5 3 No - strongly ................................ ............................. 15 22 11
(Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 0 0 0
City of Berkeley – October 2021 16
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
The [first/next] version of the ballot measure I’m going to ask you about is a parcel tax.
Q11. SSF [PARCEL TAX 30 CENTS] To:
• improve aging infrastructure and facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, restrooms, senior and recreation centers; and
• provide affordable housing to prevent displacement of vulnerable populations, including low to middle-income households, veterans, artists, seniors, and people with disabilities and provide supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness;
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure levying 30 cents per building square foot, generating approximately 26 million dollars annually until ended by voters, with low-income exemptions, independent oversight and all funds staying local?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ............................ 35 34 37 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ................. 14 12 13 Lean yes ................................ ................................ ... 11 7 15
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 61 53 65 Undecided/DK ................................ ........................... 12 13 12 No ................................ ................................ ............ 27 33 22
Lean no ................................ ................................ ....... 6 7 6 No - not so strongly ................................ ..................... 3 3 3 No - strongly ................................ ............................. 18 24 13
(Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 0 0 0
Q10/11. Combined Parcel Tax
Yes - strongly ................................ ............................ 36 35 37 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ................. 14 16 11 Lean yes ................................ ................................ ... 10 6 14
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 60 57 62 Undecided/DK ................................ ........................... 13 11 15 No ................................ ................................ ............ 27 33 23
Lean no ................................ ................................ ....... 7 6 8 No - not so strongly ................................ ..................... 3 4 3 No - strongly ................................ ............................. 17 23 12
(Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 0 0 0
City of Berkeley – October 2021 17
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
The [first/next] version of the ballot measure I’m going to ask you about is a sales tax.
Q12. [SALES TAX HALF CENT] To:
• Improve aging infrastructure/ facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parks, restrooms, senior/recreation centers; and
• Provide affordable housing to prevent displacement of vulnerable populations, including low to middle-income households, veterans, artists, seniors, people with disabilities and provide supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness;
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure increasing the local sales tax by one half cent, generating approximately 9 million dollars annually from residents and visitors until ended by voters, with exemptions for essential purchases like groceries/prescription medicine and requiring independent oversight?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ............................ 34 34 35 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ................. 17 20 16 Lean yes ................................ ................................ ..... 8 7 8
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 59 60 59 Undecided/DK ................................ ............................. 9 6 12 No ................................ ................................ ............ 32 34 29
Lean no ................................ ................................ ....... 8 7 9 No - not so strongly ................................ ..................... 6 8 4 No - strongly ................................ ............................. 18 20 16
(Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 0 0 0
City of Berkeley – October 2021 18
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Q13. In this survey I asked about three different ways to fund this measure: [RANDOMIZE]
_a sales tax increase
_a bond measure
and
_a parcel tax.
Note that the measures generate different amounts of revenue to invest in the city’s infrastructure and housing needs. [RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS]
The sales tax would generate 9 million dollars annually for these investments.
The bond measure would generate [SSC: 25 million dollars / SSD: 50 million dollars] annually for these investments.
The parcel tax would generate [SSE: 13 million dollars / SSF: 26 million dollars] annually for these investments.
Which of these, if any, do you think is the most appropri ate way to increase city funding for the infrastructure and affordable housing needs outlined in the ballot measure? You may choose as many as you like. [ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
Bond measure................................ ........................... 46 41 49 Parcel tax ................................ ................................ .. 32 34 29 Sales tax increase ................................ ..................... 28 29 25 (None) ................................ ................................ ....... 10 13 8 (Don't know) ................................ .............................. 14 9 18 (Refused) ................................ ................................ .... 0 0 0
Q14. The measures I’ve read to you include different funding priorities for the City of Berkeley. If you had to choose, which one or two of these are the highest priorities for you personally? [RANDOMIZE] [ACCEPT UP TO TWO]
Providing affordable housing for low-income people . 53 49 55 Providing supportive housing for people
experiencing homelessness ................................ ...... 50 45 52 Improving streets ................................ ...................... 28 32 26 Improving traffic safety and expanding services for
pedestrians and bicyclists ................................ ......... 22 25 20 Improving parks and related facilities ........................ 11 12 10 Improving senior and recreation centers ..................... 5 2 8 (None) ................................ ................................ ......... 3 4 3 (Don't know) ................................ ................................ 2 1 3 (Refused) ................................ ................................ .... 0 0 0
City of Berkeley – October 2021 19
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Q15. Now thinking just about providing affordable housing in Berkeley, which of the following would be the highest priority for you personally? [RANDOMIZE]
Acquiring and building affordable housing units ........ 33 32 33 Providing supportive housing for people
experiencing homelessness ................................ ...... 29 29 29 Providing housing vouchers so low -income
residents have better opportunities for affordable
housing ................................ ................................ ..... 15 15 16 Preserving existing affordable housing units ............. 10 10 10 (None) ................................ ................................ ......... 7 9 6 (Don't know) ................................ ................................ 6 5 6 (Refused) ................................ ................................ .... 0 0 0
Q16. How important is it to you personally that a proposed infrastructure measure include an aspect of equity, whatever that means for you? Would you say it is very important, somewhat important, not to important, or not at all important?
Very important ................................ ......................... 48 38 54 Somewhat important ................................ .............. 28 32 27 Not too important ................................ ........................ 6 7 5 Not at all important ................................ ...................... 7 13 3 (Don't know) ................................ ............................. 10 9 11 (Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 1 1 1
Important ................................ ................................ ... 76 69 80 Not important ................................ ............................ 13 20 8
Q17. SSA: Now I am going to read some ways that people have defined equity in Berkeley. Please tell me which definition is most in line with what equity means to you. [RANDOMIZE]
Distributing more infrastructure benefits to lower -
income neighborhoods and communit ies of color
that have been historically underfunded. ................... 55 51 56 Distributing more infrastructure benefits to the most
vulnerable, like children, people with disabilities, and older Berkeleyans. ................................ .................... 18 21 17 Distributing infrastructure benefits equally between
Berkeley's eight City Council districts .......................... 9 13 6 Distributing infrastructure benefits to areas of
Berkeley where there are fewer parks, open spaces,
and trees. ................................ ................................ .... 9 8 9 (Don't know) ................................ ................................ 9 7 10 (Refused) ................................ ................................ .... 1 0 1
City of Berkeley – October 2021 20
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Q18. SSB: Now I am going to read some ways that people have defined equity in Berkeley. Please tell me which definition is most in line with what equity means to you. [RANDOMIZE]
Distributing infrastructure benefits first to lower -
income neighborhoods and communi ties of color
that have historically been underfunded .................... 52 50 51 Distributing infrastructure benefits first to the most
vulnerable, like children, people with disabilities, and older Berkeleyans ................................ ..................... 15 18 14 Distributing infrastructure benefits equally between
Berkeley's eight City Council districts ........................ 13 15 12 Distributing infrastructure benefits to areas of
Berkeley where there are fewer parks, open spaces,
and trees. ................................ ................................ .... 8 6 9 (Don't know) ................................ .............................. 10 7 14 (Refused) ................................ ................................ .... 2 3 0
Q17/18. Combined Equity Definition
Distributing infrastructure benefits (first) to lower - income neighborhoods and communities of color
that have historically been underfunded .................... 54 50 54 Distributing infrastructure benefits first to the most
vulnerable, like children, people with disabilities, and older Berkeleyans ................................ ..................... 17 19 15 Distributing infrastructure benefits equally between
Berkeley's eight City Council districts ........................ 11 14 9 Distributing infrastructure benefits to areas of
Berkeley where there are fewer parks, open spaces,
and trees. ................................ ................................ .... 8 7 9 (Don't know) ................................ .............................. 10 7 12 (Refused) ................................ ................................ .... 1 2 1
Q19. People in Berkeley have differing opinions about the amount of taxes we pay to fund city services.
Some say the amount of taxes we currently pay is appropriate for the services the city provides, while some [ROTATE]
_think taxes are too high
and others
_would be willing to pay more in taxes in order to fund more services.
What about you?
Taxes are too high ................................ .................... 33 31 34 Would be willing to pay more in taxes ....................... 33 35 31 Current amount is appropriate ................................ ... 25 25 25 (Don't know) ................................ ................................ 9 8 10 (Refused) ................................ ................................ .... 1 1 1
City of Berkeley – October 2021 21
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes only.
Q20. In terms of local politics, do you consider yourself progressive, liberal, moderate, or conservative?
Progressive ................................ ............................... 43 40 43 Liberal ................................ ................................ ....... 29 26 34 Moderate ................................ ................................ ... 19 24 16 Conservative ................................ ............................... 3 4 3 (Don't know) ................................ ............................... 3 4 2 (Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 2 2 2
Q21. What is the last year of schooling that you have completed?
1 - 11th Grade ................................ ............................. 0 0 0 High School Graduate ................................ ................. 2 3 3 Vocational or technical school ................................ ..... 2 2 2 Some college but no degree ................................ ..... 13 14 10 Associate degree ................................ ........................ 7 4 9 4-year college graduate or bachelor's degree ........... 34 37 31 Graduate School or advanced degree ....................... 40 36 44 (Refused) ................................ ................................ ... 3 4 2
Non-college ................................ ............................... 24 23 23 College grad ................................ ............................. 74 74 75
Q22. Do you have any children 18 years of age or younger living at home with you?
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 21 22 22 No ................................ ................................ ............ 76 75 76 (Don't know/refused) ................................ ................... 3 3 3
Q23. [IF Q22=YES] Are any of your children currently enrolled in Berkeley public schools?
N= 106 49 57
Yes ................................ ................................ ........... 67 63 70 No ................................ ................................ ............ 32 37 28 (Don't know/refused) ................................ .................. 1 0 2
Q24. Do you own your own home or do you rent?
Own ................................ ................................ .......... 50 51 53 Rent ................................ ................................ .......... 45 43 44 (Other) ................................ ................................ ....... 2 3 1 (Don't know/refused) ................................ .................. 2 3 2
City of Berkeley – October 2021 22
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Q25. How long have you lived in Berkeley? [DO NOT READ, RECORD WITHIN RANGE]
Less than two years ................................ .................... 6 7 3 Two to less than five years ................................ ........ 13 13 12 Five to less than ten years ................................ ........ 18 20 15 Ten to less than twenty years ................................ .... 19 18 20 Twenty years or more ................................ ............... 33 29 38 All your life ................................ ................................ .. 8 8 9 (Don't know/refused) ................................ .................. 4 5 3
Q26. [T] Just to make sure we have a representative sample, could you please tell me whether you are from a Latino, Hispanic, or Spanish-speaking background? Q27. [ASK ALL] [T] And please tell me which one, or more than one, of these racial or ethnic groups you identify with.
[RANDOMIZE/READ CHOICES]
[ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
[IF “OTHER” OR “BIRACIAL” OR “MULTI-RACIAL”:] Well which two or three of these do you identify with the most?
White or Caucasian ................................ ................... 58 60 60 Black or African American ................................ ......... 10 9 11 Latino/Latina or Hispanic ................................ ............. 9 9 9 Asian American or Pacific Islander ............................ 12 9 13 Native or Indigenous American ................................ ... 4 2 5 Middle Eastern ................................ ............................ 2 1 1 (Other) ................................ ................................ ....... 3 4 2 (Don’t know/Refused) ................................ ................. 7 9 5
City of Berkeley – October 2021 23
TOTAL MEN WOMEN
N= 500 221 262
Age
18 - 24 ................................ ................................ ...... 11 14 6 25 - 29 ................................ ................................ ........ 9 9 8 30 - 34 ................................ ................................ ........ 8 9 6 35 - 39 ................................ ................................ ........ 9 9 10 40 - 44 ................................ ................................ ........ 6 6 7 45 - 49 ................................ ................................ ........ 9 9 9 50 - 54 ................................ ................................ ........ 8 6 9 55 - 59 ................................ ................................ ........ 5 8 4 60 - 64 ................................ ................................ ........ 8 6 11 65 - 69 ................................ ................................ ........ 6 5 8 70 - 74 ................................ ................................ ........ 8 7 10 75 & older ................................ ................................ . 12 12 14 (don’t know) ................................ ............................... 0 0 0
Under 30 ................................ ................................ ... 20 23 14 30 - 39 ................................ ................................ ...... 17 19 16 40 - 49 ................................ ................................ ...... 15 15 16 50 - 64 ................................ ................................ ...... 21 20 24 65 & older ................................ ................................ . 27 24 31
City Council District
CCD 1 ................................ ................................ ....... 13 15 12 CCD 2 ................................ ................................ ....... 16 11 19 CCD 3 ................................ ................................ ....... 15 13 16 CCD 4 ................................ ................................ ......... 8 9 7 CCD 5 ................................ ................................ ....... 17 15 19 CCD 6 ................................ ................................ ....... 13 17 11 CCD 7 ................................ ................................ ......... 5 5 4 CCD 8 ................................ ................................ ....... 12 14 11
Infrastructure Need as Compiled Prior to FY 2022 Budget Adoption FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 Total
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1- 5
Parks, Park Buildings, Pools, Waterfront, and Camps
Available Funding(1) $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $7,000,000 Expenditures $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $7,000,000 Capital & Maint. Need (2) $217,039,000
Unfunded Liability ($219,951,780) ($222,922,816) ($225,953,272) ($229,044,337) ($232,197,224) ($232,197,224) Public Buildings
Available Funding $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $4,000,000 Expenditures $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $4,000,000 Capital & Maint. Need $282,300,000
Unfunded Liability ($287,130,000) ($292,056,600) ($297,081,732) ($302,207,367) ($307,435,514) ($307,435,514) Sidewalks
Available Funding $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,500,000 Expenditures $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,500,000 Capital & Maint. Need $11,120,000
Unfunded Liability ($10,628,400) ($10,126,968) ($9,615,507) ($9,093,818) ($8,561,694) ($8,561,694) Streets & Roads
Available Funding $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $34,100,000 Expenditures $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $6,820,000 $34,100,000 Capital & Maint. Need $250,000,000
Unfunded Liability ($248,043,600) ($246,048,072) ($244,012,633) ($241,936,486) ($239,818,816) ($239,818,816) Sewers
Available Funding $21,974,583 $16,456,882 $20,188,912 $24,206,893 $24,700,000 $107,527,270 Expenditures $21,974,583 $16,456,882 $20,188,912 $24,206,893 $24,700,000 $107,527,270 Capital & Maint. Need $193,800,000
Unfunded Liability ($175,261,925) ($161,981,144) ($144,628,077) ($122,829,608) ($100,092,200) ($100,092,200) Storm Water
Available Funding $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $6,500,000 Expenditures $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $6,500,000 Capital & Maint. Need $245,820,000
Unfunded Liability ($249,410,400) ($253,072,608) ($256,808,060) ($260,618,221) ($264,504,586) ($264,504,586) Traffic Signals & Parking Infrastructure
Available Funding $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,000,000 Expenditures $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,000,000 Capital & Maint. Need $14,838,800
Unfunded Liability ($14,727,576) ($14,614,128) ($14,498,410) ($14,380,378) ($14,259,986) ($14,259,986) TOTAL
Available Funding $33,394,583 $27,876,882 $31,608,912 $35,626,893 $36,120,000 $164,627,270 Expenditures $33,394,583 $27,876,882 $31,608,912 $35,626,893 $36,120,000 $164,627,270 T1 Funding: $100M Infrastructure Bond(3) $10,650,000 $10,650,000 $10,650,000 $10,650,000 $10,650,000 $53,250,000 Capital & Maint. Need $1,214,917,800
Unfunded Liability ($1,194,290,681) ($1,179,649,613) ($1,160,983,693) ($1,137,926,474) ($1,113,915,004) ($1,113,915,004) (3) The remaining $53.25M of the bond allocated to project budgets is estimated to be equally distributed over 5 years, ($10.65 million/year). (1) Unless otherwise noted, available funding includes recurring sources of capital and major maintenance funding. (2) Capital & Maint. Needs are current estimates of unfunded needs. Needs are estimated to increase at a rate of 2% per year.
Methodology for Infrastructure Need By Asset Category
Streets and Roads
This represents the one-time cost to raise the City's pavement condition to excellent, as shown by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Street Saver Program. The Street Saver Program includes the City's entire street inventory and each street segment's condition, both of which are audited for accuracy biannually and reported through the City's Pavement Management Plan. Curb ramps are included in this estimate, but improvements from a variety of other plans/policies are not included: Bicycle, Complete Streets, Green Infrastructure, Pedestrian, Watershed Management, Strategic Transportation (BeST), and Vision Zero.
Sewers
This represents the one-time cost to rehabilitate 61 miles of the City's sewer pipes, which would complete the City's goal of rehabilitating all of the City's sewer pipes per the City's adopted plans. The amount declines over time as a result of the ongoing sewer program and its annually charged sewer fee. The sewer fee is adjusted after a Proposition 218 compliant process every five years, and if more revenue is needed for this asset category, the fee will adjust accordingly.
Public Buildings
Parks, Park Buildings, Pools, Waterfront, and Camps
Sidewalks
These costs include all infrastructure associated with the City’s 52 parks such as irrigation, paths, recreation centers, restrooms, sports fields, and play structures; the waterfront including streets, buildings, paths, docks, parking lots and the pier; resident camps including structures, pools, bridges, pathways and water systems; and pools including locker room buildings, decking, mechanical systems and pool shells.
This includes 50 Public Works-maintained buildings, including Public Safety Building, Fire Stations, 1947 Center, HHCS buildings, Animal Shelter, Corp Yard, and off-street parking garages. These are not included: Transfer Station, Old City Hall, Veterans Building, Libraries, all PRW buildings, and EV charging stations. Estimates are derived both from staff and from completed facility condition assessments.
This includes the City's backlog of resident-requested sidewalk repairs at approximately 3600 properties. The ADA Transition Plan is underway and includes a proactive condition assessment of sidewalks. This assessment will likely result in approximately $50M in additional unfunded need not included in this calculation.
Storm Water
This represents the $204M of need as extrapolated from the cost estimates for the Potter/Codornices Creek watersheds identified in the Watershed Management Plan (2012). Staff projected an additional need of $37M for unfunded capital and maintenance needs in the City's inlets, pipes, cross drains, etc. Staff are initiating the process to adopt a comprehensive stormwater plan to update these needs.
Traffic Signals and Parking Infrastructure
Replacements of 2100 parking meters and 240 pay stations at or nearing the end of their useful life, and upgrades to existing traffic signals, including detection at 67 locations, ADA accessibility/pedestrian push buttons at 103 locations, and battery back-ups at 124 locations. New traffic signals, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons are not included.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.6700 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.6710 E-mail: [email protected] Website http://www.cityofberkeley.info/parks
October 18, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Subject: Update on Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department Maintenance and Capital Projects
Below is a list of the currently funded or recently completed maintenance and capital improvement projects in the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Department.
Maintenance Projects
Recently Completed (FY, Funding Source)
63rd Street Park- Play equipment painting, new amenities, pollinator garden (FY22-23, PT) Codornices Park - Added new reservable picnic area - Donation (FY22-23, PT) Echo Lake Camp – 3 new emergency generators installed (FY23, CF) Echo Lake Camp – Complete rebuild of cabin 25 (FY23, CF) Echo Lake Camp – Camp manager cabin floor replacement (FY22, CF) Greg Brown Park- New trees and amenities (FY22-23, PT)
Haskell - Mabel Park- Paint play equipment, new amenities (FY22-23, PT) John Hinkle Park Pathways – Replace support wall above playground (FY23, PT) King Park - Tree planting, new circle bench, irrigation establishment (FY22, PT) King Pool – Bleacher replacement (FY22, PT)
King Pool - Artificial turf installation (FY23, PT)
Prince Street Park - Paint play equipment, new amenities (FY22, PT) Remillard Park - Replace fence, rebuilt retaining wall, new play equipment (FY22-23, PT) San Pablo Park – Tree planting, 2 pollinator gardens (FY22, PT) Strawberry Creek Park - New fencing, trees, and tables- Donation (FY22-23, PT) Terrace View Park- Basketball court surfacing (FY23, PT) Waterfront / DE Dock Restroom – Security gate (FY22-23, WF) Waterfront / University Avenue – Median planting (FY22-23, WF) Waterfront / DE Dock- Decking safety improvements (FY22, WF) Waterfront / Docks- Metal plate installation (FY22-23, WF) Waterfront / Cesar Chavez Park – Owl fence repairs (FY23, WF) West Campus Pool – New deck lighting, bleacher replacement (FY22-23, PT)
Office of the City Manage
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.6700 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.6710 E-mail: [email protected] Website http://www.cityofberkeley.info/parks Playground Surfacing Replacement: Dreamland, Codornices, 63 Avenue, Strawberry Creek, Prince Street (FY23, PT)
In Process
Aquatic Park - New fencing south of YMTC (FY23, PT)
Aquatic Park - Irrigation establishment and tree planting on the west side (FY23-24, PT) Berkeley Way Mini Park - Picnic area, play equipment upgrades, (FY23-24, PT) Cedar Rose Park – Turf renovation (FY23, PT)
Echo Lake Camp- Hazardous tree removal (FY22-23, PT)
Grove Park – Turf renovation (FY23, PT)
James Kenney Park – Turf renovation (FY23, PT)
John Hinkle Park- Tree planting (FY23, PT)
Monkey Island - Turf renovation, tree planting (FY23, PT) San Pablo Park – Turf renovation (FY23, PT)
Solano – Peralta Park – Addition of play equipment and other furniture (FY22-23, GF) Tuolumne Camp - Emergency generators (FY23, CF)
Waterfront / FG Dock- Gate replacement (FY22-23, MF)
Waterfront /Shorebird Park: Replacement of asphalt pathway to picnic areas FY23, MF) Willard Park – Turf renovation (FY23, PT)
Note: All maintenance projects are funded by either General Fund (GF), Parks Tax (PT), and/or Marina Fund (MF).
Capital Improvement Projects
Projects in Closing
Cazadero Camp Dormitory Rebuild (Insurance)
John Hinkle Amphitheater, Picnic, and 2-12 Play Structure (T1, PT) King Pool Tile and Plaster (T1, GF)
Tuolumne Camp Construction (Insurance, FEMA, GF, Donations) Waterfront: Marina Streets Replacement-University, Marina, Spinnaker (T1, BB, B, MF) West Campus Tile and Plaster (GF)
King Park 2-5 and 5-12 Play Structures (Insurance, PT)
Projects in Construction (Funding Source)
Aquatic Park Tide Tube – Sediment Removal (T1)
Skate Park Fence Replacement (PT)
Waterfront: Marina Finger Docks- Phase 4 (MF)
Waterfront: Marina O and K Electrical Replacement (GF, MF) West Campus Pool Filters (4) Replacement (GF)
Projects Bidding soon/Construction in late FY23
Aquatic Park Dock Access/Parking Lot (PT)
Echo Lake Camp ADA- Phase 1 (GF)
Grove Park 2-5 and 5-12 Playgrounds (T1, PT)
Grove Park Sports Field (T1, PT)
Ohlone 2-5, 5-12 Playgrounds, Mural Garden (T1, PT, Grant) Tuolumne Camp EV Charging Stations (GF)
Waterfront: Marina Pilling Replacements (T1, GF, MF)
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.6700 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.6710 E-mail: [email protected] Website http://www.cityofberkeley.info/parks Projects in Design/Planning (Anticipated Construction/Funding Source) African American Holistic Resource Center (FY25/ T1, GF, Grant) Aquatic Park Improvements- 600 Addison (Phase 1 FY23, Phase 2 FY24-25/ MOU, PT) Cedar Rose 2-5, 5-12 Play Structures (FY24/ GF, PT)
Civic Center Upper Plaza -Turtle Island Project Improvements (FY24/T1, Grant, PT) Harrison Park Restroom Renovation (FY24/T1)
MLK Jr. Youth Services Center/YAP Renovation (FY25/T1, Grants, PT) Ohlone Park Lighting (FY25/T1)
Ohlone Park Restroom (FY25/T1)
Santa Fe ROW: Covert 4 blocks to New Park (FY25/Grant)
Tom Bates Restroom and Community Space (FY24-25/T1, PT) Waterfront: Cesar Chavez Park Restroom (FY25/T1)
Waterfront: DE Dock Replacement (FY25/T1, MF)
Waterfront: K Dock Restroom Renovation (FY25/T1)
Willard Clubhouse and Restroom (FY24-25/T1, PT)
Design/Planning Only Projects -Construction Not Funded
Aquatic Park Dreamland-2-12 Play Structure (GF)
Codornices Park 2-5 and 5-12 Play Structures (GF)
Glendale – La Loma Park 2-5 and 5-12 Play Structures (GF, PT) James Kenney Park Skate Area (PT)
John Hinkle Park Hut- Conceptual Design Only (PT)
Shorebird Park 2-12 Play Structure (GF)
South Cove West Parking Lot (MF)
Tom Bates Sports Complex - Small Soccer/ Pickleball Courts (PT) Waterfront: Bike Park - Conceptual Design (PT)
Waterfront- Dredging Main Channel (GF)
Waterfront- Dredging South Cove (GF)
Waterfront: Waterfront Specific Plan-BMASP (GF)
For further information on any of these projects, please email Scott Ferris at [email protected]
cc: Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
LaTanya Bellow, Deputy City Manager
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department Liam Garland, Public Works Director
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Matthai Chakko, Assistant to the City Manager
Fund *
FY 2023 Beginning Fund
Balance
FY 2023 Projected
Revenues
FY 2023 Projected
Expenditures
FY 2023 Projected
Fund Balance Usage
FY 2024 Proposed Update
Beginning Fund Balance**
FY 2024 Proposed
Update Revenues
FY 2024 Proposed
Update Expenditures
FY 2024 Projected
Fund Balance Usage
FY 2025 Projected Beginning
Fund Balance**
FY 2025 Projected
Revenues
FY 2025 Projected
Expenditures
FY 2025 Projected Ending
Fund Balance**
FY 2025 Projected
Fund Balance Usage
Projected Fund Balance
Increase/(Decrease) from
FY 2023 to FY 2025
General Fund $74,141,617 $265,958,729 $274,796,462 $8,837,733 $65,303,884 $266,418,342 $270,428,381 $4,010,039 $61,293,845 $272,154,570 $278,285,253 $55,163,162 $6,130,683 ($18,978,455) Paramedic Tax ($2,726,813) $6,964,296 $4,465,370 ($2,498,926) ($227,887) $4,500,543 $4,981,166 $480,623 ($708,510) $4,575,395 $4,632,492 ($765,607) $57,097 $1,961,206 Playground Camp Fund $4,024,465 $6,152,122 $9,452,848 $3,300,726 $723,739 $3,109,285 $2,735,587 ($373,698) $1,097,437 $3,191,627 $4,174,070 $114,994 $982,443 ($3,909,471) State Transportation Tax $4,960,178 $6,357,333 $5,196,926 ($1,160,407) $6,120,585 $6,696,569 $5,868,962 ($827,607) $6,948,192 $6,897,466 $6,103,720 $7,741,938 ($793,746) $2,781,760 CDBG Fund*** $2,830,921 $3,415,992 $4,757,857 $1,341,865 $1,489,056 $4,437,743 $4,792,214 $354,471 $1,134,585 $3,500,000 $3,250,000 $1,384,585 ($250,000) ($1,446,336) Rental Housing Safety $2,912,194 $2,261,986 $1,971,540 ($290,446) $3,202,640 $1,783,780 $2,356,542 $572,762 $2,629,878 $2,525,769 $2,231,549 $2,924,098 ($294,220) $11,904 Parks Tax Fund $4,864,504 $17,429,959 $18,227,452 $797,493 $4,067,011 $17,813,646 $15,963,245 ($1,850,401) $5,917,412 $18,249,854 $19,381,764 $4,785,502 $1,131,910 ($79,002) Measure GG $3,003,860 $5,763,263 $6,331,426 $568,163 $2,435,697 $5,677,795 $5,704,447 $26,652 $2,409,045 $5,758,104 $5,333,032 $2,834,117 ($425,072) ($169,743) Street Light Assessment District Fund $2,381,943 $2,085,711 $2,086,963 $1,252 $2,380,691 $2,240,939 $3,217,317 $976,378 $1,404,313 $2,212,283 $1,933,941 $1,682,655 ($278,342) ($699,288) Mental Health State Aid Realignment**** $5,925,383 $3,256,911 $2,720,714 ($536,197) $6,461,580 $3,320,985 $4,031,749 $710,764 $5,750,816 $3,346,048 $4,152,702 $4,944,163 $806,653 ($981,220) Measure FF $8,711,844 $9,354,876 $7,724,018 ($1,630,858) $10,342,702 $9,770,233 $8,525,459 ($1,244,774) $11,587,476 $9,965,638 $7,526,723 $14,026,391 ($2,438,915) $5,314,547 Capital Improvement Fund $8,165,916 $19,002,999 $16,490,466 ($2,512,533) $10,678,449 $18,370,905 $22,333,379 $3,962,474 $6,715,975 $22,968,380 $25,281,362 $4,402,993 $2,312,982 ($3,762,923) Measure T1 $37,098,843 $1,000,000 $13,389,509 $12,389,509 $24,709,334 $20,500,000 $18,091,805 ($2,408,195) $27,117,529 $500,000 $16,441,006 $11,176,523 $15,941,006 ($25,922,320) Zero Waste Fund $26,025,170 $49,094,680 $48,476,709 ($617,971) $26,643,141 $46,767,263 $59,489,630 $12,722,367 $13,920,774 $48,990,397 $57,405,039 $5,506,132 $8,414,642 ($20,519,038) Marina Fund $4,520,155 $7,580,451 $11,388,992 $3,808,541 $711,614 $6,500,211 $8,027,559 $1,527,348 ($815,734) $6,762,091 $8,567,303 ($2,620,946) $1,805,212 ($7,141,101) Sanitary Sewer Fund $34,662,327 $24,680,449 $34,377,591 $9,697,142 $24,965,185 $24,986,977 $32,561,256 $7,574,279 $17,390,906 $24,537,469 $39,142,949 $2,785,426 $14,605,480 ($31,876,901) Clean Storm Water Fund $9,426,996 $4,419,311 $3,948,793 ($470,518) $9,897,514 $4,551,890 $6,111,869 $1,559,979 $8,337,535 $4,688,447 $5,416,638 $7,609,344 $728,191 ($1,817,652) Permit Service Center Fund ***** $30,256,341 $28,839,080 $18,751,674 ($10,087,406) $40,343,747 $19,709,270 $25,508,236 $5,798,966 $34,544,781 $27,534,112 $25,733,871 $36,345,022 ($1,800,241) $6,088,681 Off Street Parking Fund ($1,064,784) $5,271,269 $5,928,298 $657,029 ($1,721,813) $5,091,895 $6,940,921 $1,849,026 ($3,570,839) $5,295,571 $7,218,558 ($5,493,826) $1,922,987 ($4,429,042) Parking Meter Fund $3,776,013 $11,482,942 $8,893,175 ($2,589,767) $6,365,780 $9,712,789 $10,122,167 $409,378 $5,956,402 $10,149,865 $10,425,832 $5,680,434 $275,968 $1,904,421 Building Purchase & Management Fund ($308,774) $2,560,687 $2,895,832 $335,145 ($643,919) $2,968,817 $3,697,419 $728,602 ($1,372,521) $2,968,817 $3,296,626 ($1,700,330) $327,809 ($1,391,556) Equipment Replacement Fund $13,488,842 $10,168,696 $4,304,549 ($5,864,147) $19,352,989 $4,754,926 $6,300,512 $1,545,586 $17,807,403 $11,007,077 $4,450,749 $24,363,731 ($6,556,328) $10,874,889 Equipment Maintenance Fund ($318,301) $9,305,089 $8,736,487 ($568,602) $250,301 $6,461,013 $9,296,717 $2,835,704 ($2,585,403) $8,859,057 $9,314,661 ($3,041,007) $455,604 ($2,722,706) Building Maintenance Fund $3,348,106 $3,958,343 $3,997,288 $38,945 $3,309,161 $3,821,039 $4,627,672 $806,633 $2,502,528 $3,935,670 $4,812,779 $1,625,419 $877,109 ($1,722,687) IT Cost Allocation Fund $7,505,592 $14,806,185 $15,500,000 $693,815 $6,811,777 $14,806,185 $17,311,329 $2,505,144 $4,306,633 $22,450,586 $22,000,586 $4,756,633 ($450,000) ($2,748,959) Total $287,612,538 $521,171,359 $534,810,940 $13,639,581 $273,972,957 $514,773,040 $559,025,540 $44,252,499 $229,720,458 $533,024,293 $576,513,205 $186,231,546 $43,488,912 ($101,380,992) *The City has over 200 funds, therefore, this is not an exhaustive list. This spreadsheet includes some of the City's major funding sources. **Fund balance amount does not account for any encumbered and projected carryover amounts from the previous fiscal year. Therefore, actual expenditures might be more than proposed/projected expenditures and might result in a lower fund balance. *** As a grant, CDBG is not accurate to track with a fund balance. Any revenue received is then used as reimbursement for expenditures and does not gather in a fund balance to be used later **** Expenditures and Revenue for MH Realignment are unknown given the new CalAIM changes that go into effect 7/1/23. HHCS will be working with a consultant over the next year to assess/project the impact. ***** The PSC Fund balance is high right now due to the number of large projects recently begun. We receive revenue up front on these large projects, but we will have expenditures against these amounts until the projects are complete, which can take several years.
DRAFT, SUBJECT TO CHANGEPublic
Category of Spending FY 2019 Actuals
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual FY 2022 Actual FY 2023 Adopted FY 2023 Projected FY 2024 Adopted Revenues
Beginning Fund Balance 2,932,313$ 9,859,779$ 17,032,464$ 22,783,216$ 22,783,216$ 12,236,186$ Measure P Revenues* 2,932,313$ 9,512,603$ 10,919,576$ 20,591,313$ 14,073,750$ 14,073,750$ 14,073,750$ Total Revenues and Balance of Funds 2,932,313$ 12,444,916$ 20,779,355$ 37,623,777$ 36,856,966$ 36,856,966$ 26,309,936$ LESS: Total Expenses 2,585,137$ 3,746,891$ 14,840,561$ 16,371,646$ 24,620,780$ 17,085,243$ Personnel Costs -$ 118,521$ 155,753$ 309,483$ 695,730$ 592,010$ 722,413$ CMO: Homeless Services Coordinator Staffing/Infrastructure 196,348$ 196,348$ 202,899$ Finance: Accountant II Staffing/Infrastructure 70,784$ 200,380$ 178,858$ 178,858$ 193,441$ Finance: Contract Staffing Staffing/Infrastructure 38,266$ -$ HHCS: Community Services Specialist II Staffing/Infrastructure 80,255$ 84,969$ 109,103$ HHCS: 50% Senior Management Analyst Staffing/Infrastructure 113,085$ 113,085$ 116,560$ HHCS: 2 Year Limited Term Community Services Specialist II Staffing/Infrastructure 207,439$ 103,719$ 209,513$ Non-Personnel Costs/ Program Expenses -$ 2,466,616$ 3,591,138$ 14,531,078$ 15,675,916$ 24,028,770$ 16,362,830$ Fire: 5150 Response & Transport Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene -$ 846,616$ 1,601,639$ 1,003,931$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ 1,556,857$ Dorothy Day House Shelter Emergency Shelter -$ 300,000$ 566,000$ 566,000$ 566,000$ 566,000$ Dorothy Day House Drop In Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene -$ 21,340$ 182,000$ 182,000$ 182,000$ 182,000$ Pathways STAIR Center Emergency Shelter -$ 1,200,000$ 1,499,525$ 2,499,525$ 2,499,525$ 2,499,525$ No Place Like Home - Scattered Unit Supportive Services Permanent Housing -$ 128,750$ -$ 105,000$ Hope Center - Mental Health Services Permanent Housing 71,250$ 71,250$ 95,000$ Coordinated Entry System (BACs HRC) Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 150,000$ 1,000,000$ Permanent Housing Subsidies / Shallow Subsidies Permanent Housing 650,000$ 1,600,000$ -$ 1,600,000$ Berkeley Food and Housing Project - Men's Housing Program Emergency Shelter
COVID-19 Emergency Housing Assistance - Housing Retention Program (EDC)
Homelessness Prevention 1,000,000$ 1,300,000$ Anti-Displacement Programs (Legal Assistance, Housing
Retention Program, Flexible Housing Funds) (100k to BACS HRC; 275K to EDC and remaining to EBCLC) - tranferred to U1 Homelessness Prevention 900,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ BDIC Locker Program Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 25,000$ 47,944$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ LifeLong Medical - Street Medicine Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ YSA Tiny Home Emergency Shelter 117,000$ 56,074$ 78,000$ 78,000$ 78,000$ DBA- Homeless Outreach Worker Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 20,000$ 40,000$ 20,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Downtown Streets Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 111,243$ 299,643$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ Shelter at 742 Grayson Street Emergency Shelter 86,633$ 1,154,681$ 1,011,900$ 1,011,900$ Shelter at 1720 San Pablo Ave Lease Emergency Shelter 883,200$ 908,796$ Shelter at 1720 San Pablo Ave Supportive Services Emergency Shelter 612,559$ 950,000$ Safe RV Parking Program Emergency Shelter 287,359$
Project Homekey- Golden Bear Inn Permanent Housing -$ 7,325,341$ Project Homekey Reservation (round 3) Permanent Housing 8,500,000$ 1367 University Avenue Step Up Housing Project* Permanent Housing -$ 539,330$ Russell Street Residence Acquisition Permanent Housing
HHCS: Square One Hotel Vouchers Emergency Shelter -$
Training and Evaluation Staffing/Infrastructure -$ 133,334$ -$ 133,334$ Homeless Response Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene -$ 88,283 415,999 918,149$ 918,149$ 920,085$ Berkeley Relief Fund Homelessness Prevention -$ 1,600,000$ Portable Toilets Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter (Winter Shelter) Emergency Shelter 22,582$ 186,500$ 216,201$ 350,000$ Old City Hall Sprinkler system Emergency Shelter
TRANSFER TAX -- MEASURE P PROGRAM LONG-TERM FORECAST-----DRAFT
DRAFT, SUBJECT TO CHANGEPublic
Inclement Weather Shelter Emergency Shelter 412,185$
One-Time Use of Measure P for Nexus Community Programs Permanent Housing 578,164$ 578,164$ 578,164$ One-Time Use of Measure P for Nexus Community Programs Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 976,207$ 976,207$ 976,207$ One-Time Use of Measure P for Nexus Community Programs Emergency Shelter 882,480$ 882,480$ 882,480$ One-Time Use of Measure P for Nexus Community Programs Staffing/Infrastructure 23,837$ 23,837$ 23,837$ One-Time Use of Measure P for Nexus Community Programs Homelessness Prevention 262,215$ 262,215$ 262,215$ Reimagining Public Safety-Expand Downtown Streets Teams as placement for low-level violations Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Equitable Clean Streets Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 327,293$ Expand the scope of services for the Downtown Streets Team to address the need for enhanced services around commercial and industrial areas in the Gilman District twice weekly Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Reimagining Public Safety: Conduct a service needs
assessment based on 911 and non-911 calls for service,
dispatch, and response and capacity assessment of crisis response and crisis-related services Staffing/Infrastructure 100,000$ 100,000$
Reimagining Public Safety: Funding to organizations for Respite from Gender/Domestic Violence Emergency Shelter
220,000$ 220,000$ 220,000$ 1654 5th Street Operations Emergency Shelter
701 Harrison Transition - Site Security Emergency Shelter Public facilities improvement Staffing/Infrastructure
Encampment Resolution Fund 2 grant match Emergency Shelter Fiscal Year Surplus (Shortfall) 2,932,313$ 6,927,466$ 7,172,686$ 5,750,752$ (2,297,896)$ (10,547,030)$ (3,011,493)$ Ending Fund Balance 2,932,313$ 9,859,779$ 17,032,464$ 22,783,216$ 20,485,320$ 12,236,186$ 9,224,693$
CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 12, 2024
1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Sophie Hahn
Subject: Creating SHARE BERKELEY - A Berkeley Public Library Share Hub for Access, Resilience, and Equity
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request that the Library Director work with Library Staff to develop a visionary plan to expand the Berkeley Public Library’s Tool Lending Library into a comprehensive, full- service SHARE hub for the City of Berkeley, providing a one-stop center for community members to:
a. Borrow from an expanded portfolio of Library-based tools, supplies, equipment and other durable/reusable items;
b. Access comprehensive, up-to-date information and referrals about community- based opportunities for borrowing, renting, or obtaining free tools, supplies, equipment, bikes/vehicles, locations, and similar resources; and c. Receive need-based financial assistance to support access to community-based share/rental resources.
2. Consider categories of items that might be appropriate for an expanded Berkeley Public Library (BPL) in-house Lending Library, and which categories would be best accessed through other community share/rental resources such as REI, AAA, bike and party rental services, and other organizations serving Berkeley.
3. Consider expanding BPL’s in-house Lending Library beyond the current portfolio of carpentry, gardening, kitchen, and other traditional tools to potentially include categories such as toys and games; event furniture and supplies; sports and recreation-related equipment; irons, floor polishing machines, and other household tools; and other durable items typically used on a limited basis by members of the community.
4. Create a plan to establish, maintain, and administer a comprehensive, one-stop reference/resource service for all share/rental/free opportunities available to Berkeley residents, including but not limited to ensuring access to a searchable database of resources and offering assistance and advice to individuals seeking information on share/rental/free opportunities. Consider a partnership with existing platforms and applications such as the Buy Nothing Project to foster connections between neighbors and support the goals of the circular economy.
Internal
2 5. For items to be shared/rented through outside lending or rental services, explore possibilities for SHARE BERKELEY to offer and/or administer City-based or other vouchers/subsidies for low-income residents to access borrowed/rented items from non- Library vendors at reduced or no cost.
6. Consider and propose storage, maintenance, repair, customer service, and other operational and space needs for an expanded in-house Lending Library and to house and administer the Share Hub resource center.
7. Consider start-up and ongoing costs for the expanded in-house Lending Collection and to establish and administer the Share Hub resource center, including but not limited to costs for equipment, materials, software/technology, staffing, and facilities.
8. In the course of researching categories of items to potentially add to the Library’s in- house Lending Collections and in considering other elements of the Share Hub concept, conduct robust outreach to individuals and groups of diverse backgrounds, ages, and abilities to ensure services, offerings, and facilities equitably represent and serve all members of the community.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Berkeley is committed to a carbon neutral, zero waste future. To meet its sustainability goals, the City must reduce its impact on the environment by scaling back overconsumption. Given that an average drill is used for just 13 minutes over its lifetime, the amount of plastic and material waste resulting from individual ownership is extremely impactful.1 BPL’s Tool Lending Library (TLL) has long facilitated the reuse of construction and landscaping tools, cutting back on the need for residents to own items they may only use occasionally and producing meaningful environmental benefits.
From 2018 to 2019, BPL conducted a community survey which found that Berkeley residents were interested in having the TLL expand its hours and offerings to include kitchen appliances and utensils. In response, the Library has added a variety of culinary tools to its lending collection, including food dehydrators, Instant Pots, and ice cream makers.2 Providing access to borrow, obtain for free, and/or rent a significantly expanded array of “limited use” personal and household tools, equipment, and materials and other similar resources, either directly through the Berkeley Public Library or through other community organizations, 1 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, How tool sharing could become a public utility, December 1, 2021, https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-examples/how-tool-sharing-could-become-a-public- utility.
2 Warren, Elliot. Executive Summary of Berkeley Public Library’s 2019 Community Survey, May 6, 2019. https://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/sites/default/files/files/inline/bpl_2019_communitysurvey_executive_ summary.pdf.
Internal
3 businesses, and services, would shape the Library into an even more environmentally impactful and equitable resource for the community.
Expanding the TLL’s offerings, and turning the Berkeley Public Library into a one-stop “Share Hub'' for the community, will reduce waste and support a necessary transition to a “share” and “circular” economy that de-emphasizes individual consumption and facilitates sharing, reusing, and regeneration. Expanded offerings can also save Berkeley households hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars each year, since nearly one in every four dollars a household spends goes toward resources that could be shared.3
Public Libraries are home to the original “share economy” and have sophisticated systems, developed over thousands of years, to obtain, store, maintain, manage, lend, and retrieve items of importance to the community - books and other media - that are often only used once by each individual. They are the perfect locus to house, administer, and facilitate publicly supported sharing of a much wider range of limited-use tools, equipment, materials and other items and resources.
With their existing infrastructure to support resource sharing and other needs and the public gathering spaces they provide, public libraries are already key resilience centers for the community. As staff gather feedback from community members around the kinds of resources they would like to be able to access they will learn more about additional ways to address and support community needs.
Businesses spawned by the internet’s ability to match owners with borrowers have proliferated in the past twenty years, and seek to extract profit from renting goods and/or brokering transactions. Expanding the Berkeley Public Library’s mandate as a Share Hub usurps efforts to privatize and monetize sharing and reinforces the critically important role of public entities in reducing waste generated by unnecessary consumption and increasing equitable access to tools, equipment, and materials that enhance community members’ lives.
For all of these reasons, this item requests that the Berkeley Public Library study the opportunities, needs, costs, and benefits associated with significant expansion of the Library’s sharing mandate, and return to the Board of Library Trustees - and share with the City Council and public - a proposal for the creation and funding of a comprehensive, equitable, and impactful Share Hub for Berkeley.
BACKGROUND
The Berkeley Tool Lending Library, housed in the Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch of the Berkeley Public Library, was established in 1979 with a federal Community Development Block Grant. One of the first such libraries in the nation, the Tool Lending Library has grown to 3 Harris Steve, Mata Erika, Plepys Andrius, Katzeff Cecilia, “Sharing is daring, but is it sustainable? An assessment of sharing cars, electric tools and offices in Sweden,” Resources, Conversation, and Recycling Volume 170 (July 2021),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344921001920.
Internal
4 become a beloved institution, offering Berkeley residents, age 18 and over, a selection of more than 3,500 gardening, home repair, and construction-grade tools for loan, offering frequent workshops on such topics as gardening, home maintenance, and DIY projects.
Similar innovations in library lending have proliferated across the United States.4 Boston’s Public Library system utilized COVID emergency funds to provide long-term access to Chromebooks and internet routers to empower residents.5 Niagara Falls founded its own tool lending library in partnership with Habitat for Humanity.6 Leadville, Colorado has framed its tool lending library as a way to keep the institution relevant and responsive to community needs.7 Oakland and other libraries lend children’s toys.8 The Athens-Clarke County library in Georgia lends prom dresses.9
Public libraries represent a critical hub for sharing books, knowledge, and other items essential to community members. The “sharing economy” is not a new concept, and pooling resources on behalf of all citizens allows for items’ temporary and sustainable use. Libraries have well- developed systems for purchasing, cataloging, repairing and storing the items they lend as well as encouraging their timely return.
Libraries are also in the business of providing reference materials to individuals seeking a wide variety of information. In addition to expanding the Library’s own collection, the Share Hub is envisioned to also refer residents to useful information and resources for repairing their own tools and materials, and improving the sustainability of their projects.
The Berkeley Public Library currently takes responsibility for the repair and storage of books, audiovisual materials, and various culinary, gardening, construction, and landscaping tools held at the Tool Lending Library, as well as the new categories of materials such as air quality monitors and bike repair kits, recently added to the collection. Globally, libraries have also taken responsibility for items such as hobby supplies, sewing supplies, telescopes, bikes, scientific equipment, karaoke machines, exercise equipment, and hammocks.10 4 Free, Cathay. “Tools Are Costly and Take up Space. Tool Libraries Are Popping up so People Can Share.” The Washington Post, January 5, 2022.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/01/05/tool-library-gift-economy/. 5 Boston Public Library. Long-Term Device Lending Program, https://www.bpl.org/long-term-lending/. 6 Office of Mayor Robert Restaino, Niagara Falls Library to launch community tool lending library, October 21, 2022, https://www.wnypapers.com/news/article/current/2022/10/21/152738/niagara-falls-library-to- launch-community-tool-lending-library.
7 Tassey, Elaine, “Libraries add museums, tool rentals and job centers to help meet community needs and stay relevant,” CPR News, October 19. 2022, https://www.cpr.org/2022/10/19/libraries-add- museums-tool-rentals-and-job-centers-to-help-meet-community-needs-and-stay-relevant/ 8 Oakland Public Library, Toy Lending, https://oaklandlibrary.org/toy-lending/. 9 Shearer, Andrew, “Why this year's resource for prom fashion might be the Athens-Clarke County Library,” Athens Banner-Herald, February 1, 2022,
https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/2022/02/01/acc-librarys-bling-your-prom-event-could-2022- fashion-source/9287902002/.
10 Shaw, Amy and Rosansky, Jaclyn. 50 Things You Can Borrow from Libraries Besides Books.
ProQuest, September 9, 2015, https://about.proquest.com/en/blog/blog-listing/.
Internal
5 As the “mother of all” sharing resources, libraries have the scale to reshape consumer habits through public initiatives that build on their legacy as free, universal resources for community members. Berkeley’s residents would be well-served by a library that provides a wide variety of items either directly, or by referring patrons to other community resources, at no or low cost, eliminating the need for items to be owned but seldom used by thousands of individual households - with great environmental and economic consequences.11 Berkeley is a global leader in community responsibility and sustainability. Rather than allowing the “sharing economy” to be dominated by for-profit models, Berkeley should establish an innovative and comprehensive SHARE program that serves residents and provides a replicable model for other communities to follow. An expanded library will save residents money and enable a higher standard of living, reduce waste, and contribute to a necessary shift away from individualized and excessive consumption toward a society uplifted by the sharing of a wider array of communal resources.
Berkeley Public Library respects labor standards, allows community members to gain access to shared resources without proof of address or a government-issued ID, and has eliminated fines to equitably increase access. Berkeley’s library is therefore the perfect medium for expanding the sharing economy in ways that are efficient, equitable, and accessible.
The SHARE Berkeley Program Concept
BPL as a Citywide one-stop Share Hub is envisioned to potentially include all of the following elements:
1. A traditional Lending Library, as currently configured, with an expanded portfolio of items to be lent directly by the BPL.
2. A clearinghouse for information about lending, rental, “free” and similar services in the community, to facilitate community access to borrowing/sharing/rental/free opportunities for a wide variety of goods, locations and services not lent directly by BPL.
3. Administration of a program to help low income-community members access community-based rental and sharing opportunities that charge for services, to ensure people at all income levels can access these opportunities and enjoy the many benefits of “not owning” - but having access to - things that are only periodically needed to support their lives and families.
BPL is requested to explore these and other ideas and propose a comprehensive plan for starting-up, funding, and long term operations for SHARE BERKELEY to the Board of Library Trustees. The plan should be as expansive and impactful as possible, offering a vision for a groundbreaking, first-in-kind, comprehensive program combining an in-house collection with referrals, resources and subsidies to equitably access items beyond BPL’s collection. While the full program may need to be phased-in, the goal is to produce a broad, comprehensive, visionary plan as a starting point for conversation, funding, and implementation. Success for this 11 Noria Corporation, “U.S. power/hand tool consumption to hit $14.3B by 2011,” Reliable Planet, https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/4854/us-powerh-tool-consumption-to-hit-$143b-by-2011.
Internal
6 item is the successful delivery of the visionary plan, for consideration by the Board of Library Trustees.
City of Berkeley staff with relevant expertise should be made available by the City Manager for consultation with BPL in developing the proposal. The City Council would be interested in a presentation of the SHARE BERKELEY plan as well, for information purposes and to explore whether the City might partner with BPL in making SHARE BERKELEY available to the people of Berkeley.
REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES & LAWS
Berkeley Tool Lending Library:
Berkeley Public Library has operated a successful Tool Lending Library since 1979. In the early days, the TLL operated out of a trailer and lent out tools at a low cost – until the 1988 property- based library tax came into effect.
Currently, loan periods for tools are two, three, or seven days depending on demand, and borrowers agree to pay for the loss or damage of items. Renewals on borrowing can be made in person, and borrowers can place reserve requests on items that are currently unavailable.12 The TLL is open 40 hours each week, with hours Tuesday through Saturday.13 BPL’s offerings include:
● Carpentry and Woodworking: Awl, Butt Hinge Marker, Cabinet Scraper, Chalk Line, Draw Knife, Flat Bar, Hammers, Level, Mallet, Miter Box, Nail Puller, Nail Set, Planes, Plumb Bob, Prybars, Rasp, Router, Saws (Dovetail, Hand, Crosscut, Coping, Horses), Scribing Tools, Shavehook, Speed Square, Spokeshave, Squares, Stud Sensor, Surform Plane, T-Bevel, Tack Claw, Tack Hammer, Tape Measure, Utility Knife, Wood Chisels.
● Clamps: Pipe Clamps, Spring Clamps, C-Clamps, Handscrews, Bar Clamps, Handscrews, Bar Clamps, Vise Grip Clamps, Corner Clamps, Clamp Tool Guide. ● Concrete and Masonry: Brick Jointing Tools, Bull Float (Magnesium, Wood), Bull Float Handles, Cement Finishing Tools (Darby, Trowels, Edgers, Groovers), Cement Mixer, Cement Mixing Box, Chisels (brick, cold, bull point), Concrete Vibrator, Demolition Hammer, Float (Magnesium, Wood,Rubber), Grinder, Grout Float, House Jacks, Mortar Hoe, Mortar Mixing Box, Rebar Cutter/Bender, “Berkeley” Benders, Rotary Hammer Drills, SDS, Spline Drive, Rotary Hammer Bits.
● Cooking: mini muffin and cupcake pan 24 cup, muffin and cupcake pan 12 cup, elephant cake pan, my little pony cake pan, dinosaur cake pan, 3-d pony cake pan 12 Berkeley Public Library, Borrowing Tools, https://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/locations/tool-lending- library/borrowing-tools
13 Berkeley Public Library, Tool Lending Library - A Brief History, https://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/locations/tool-lending-library/tool-lending-library-brief-history.
Internal
7 10.5x12x2, Disney Frozen Elsa cake pan, dough press kit, tortilla press, apple peeler and corer, immersion blender, roasting pan with rack 16" x 13", donut baking pan 20 capacity, bundt pan 10 cup gold, bundt pan with handles 12 cup, bundt pan -brilliance 10-15 cup, bundt pan - heritage, springform pan 10 cup, canning kit and supplies, water bath canner, griddle, portable induction cooktop, induction cooktop with frypan and sauce pan, knife sharpener whetstone, pasta machine, electric grain mill, air fryer ninja, belgian waffle maker, mini-prep food processor, food processor 14 cup, ice cream maker
1.6 quart, food dehydrator, sous vide, cookie cutters (Valentines 25 pieces, Christmas 18 pieces, Hanukkah 3 pieces, Thanksgiving 7 pieces, animal cookie cutters 50 pieces, alphabet cookie cutters 101 pieces), electric fryer, Instant pot 9 in 1 8 quart, Cold Brew Coffee Maker, Vitamix blender, Hot air popcorn maker, Soft serve ice cream maker. ● Electrical: Bx Cable Cutter, Circuit Tester, Conduit Bender, Extension Cords, Fish Tape, Knock-Out Punch Set, Soldering Irons, Wire Stripper.
● Floor and Wall: Caulking Gun, Carpet Cutter, Carpet Edge Trimmer, Carpet Knee Kicker, Carpet, Power Stretcher, Carpet Seam Iron, Carpet Seam Roller, Carpet Stair Tool, Drywall (Mudknives, Corner Knife, Hand Sander, Pole Sander, Mud Pan, Screwgun, T-Square, Floor & Roof Scraper, Heat Gun, Paint Scraper, Plaster Darby, Plaster Hawk, Plasterer’s Rod, Tile Cutter (Ceramic & Vinyl), Tile Nipper. ● Gardening and Digging: Bow Saw, Broad Fork, Cultivator, Digging Bar, Fence Post Driver, Garden Trowel, Grass Hook, Hedge Shear (Manual), Hedge Trimmer (Electric), Planter’s Hoe, Lawn Mower, Leaf Blower, Lopping Shear, Picks (Railroad, Mattock, Hand), Pitchfork, Pole Pruner, Pole Pruner Ext Handle, Pole Saw, Post Hole Digger, Pruning Saw, Pruning Shear, Rake (leaf, bow, grading), Shovel, Soil Tamper, Spade, Garden, Spading Fork, Slate Bar, Street Broom, String Trimmer (WeedEater), Swing Sickle, Telegraph Bar, Trowels, Cultivators.
● Ladders: Extension, 16', 24', 28', Ladder Jacks, Orchard Ladder (8’), Step, 2', 4', 6', 8', 10', Roof Jacks.
● Material Handling: Piano dolly, Hand Trucks (Refrigerator, Delivery), Contractor’s Wheelbarrow.
● Mechanical Tools: Bolt Cutter (Mini, 24"), Cable Cutters, Channellocks, Crimpers, Cutters (side & end), Impact Screwdriver, Grinder, Grommet Kit, Files, Sledge Hammer (3,4,8,10 lb), Hacksaw, Hex / Torx Key Set, Nut Drivers, Punches, Pliers, Pop Riveter, Saw (Abrasive Cut-Off), Screwdrivers, Tin Snips, Staple Gun, Swaging Tool, Vise Grips, Wrenches (Allen, Crescent, Metric, Standard).
● Plumbing and Drain Cleaning: Basin Wrench, Closet (toilet) Auger, Drain Snakes (Hand, Electric), Faucet Handle Puller, Faucet Seat Wrench, Garbage disp. Wrench, Gas Pressure Tester, Pipe Cutter (Cast Iron, Various), Pipe Reamer, Pipe Vise, Pipe
Internal
8 Wrenches, Pipe Threader (Die, Threader Handle), Tube Bender, Tubing Cutter, Shower Valve Sockets, Submersible Pump Test Plug, Water Meter Key, Water Pressure Tester. ● Power Tools - Drills and Bits: Cordless drill, Drill Motor, VSR, 1/2", Drill, Right Angle, 1/2" Drill Bit (Ship Auger, Bellhanger, Self-Feed, Extension), Hole Saw, (Various sizes, Mandrel), Impact driver.
● Power Tools - Sanders and Grinders: Angle Grinder,( 4-1/2", 7", 9"), Belt Sander (3x21, 4x24), Disc Sander, 7", Random Orbit Sander (5" & 6"), Vibrating, 1/4, 1/2 Sheet. ● Power Tools - Saws: Circular (Skilsaw), Power Miter (Chop), Reciprocating (Sawzall), Saber (Jigsaw), Table (8").
● Recent Additions: Air Quality Monitors, Bike Repair Kit, iFixit Smartphone and Tablet Repair Kit.
Tool Lending Libraries Nationwide:
Berkeley was one of the first, but there are now similar Lending Libraries throughout the United States. Some lending libraries have innovated by including a wider array of items than Berkeley’s Lending Library. The following is a sampling of programs/items other Lending Libraries include. These and other examples are suggestive of the kinds of programs/items Berkeley may wish to explore adding to its collection. BPL is encouraged to be creative and consider going beyond these existing models as well!
● The Chicago Public Library lends backpacking backpacks, sleeping bags and pads, air mattresses, tents, and even fishing poles.
● The Napa County Public Library lends popular board games, jigsaw puzzles, blood pressure monitors, E-readers, and musical instruments.
● The Sacramento Public Library lends Prom Dresses and attire. ● The San Francisco Public Library lends children’s toys. ● Maine’s Millinocket Memorial Library rents mountain bikes, canoes, kayaks, paddleboards, cross-country skis, snowshoes, and fat-tire bikes ● The Altadena Public Library lends out telescopes, virtual reality headsets, sewing machines, and tarot card decks.
● The Bolivar County Library in Mississippi offers Santa suits. ● The Sherwood Public Library in Oregon has DSLR cameras, LEGO sets, hula hoops, therapy lights, and knitting needles.
● New York Public Library’s Riverside Branch lends neck and bow ties, briefcases, and handbags.
● The Washington County Library offers metal detectors, backyard movie kits, playstation consoles, and turntables.
Many other examples can be identified and explored during the research phase of the referred study.
Internal
9 Overview of Rental/Share Economy Services available to Berkeley Residents:
The following is a sampling of rental/share services currently available in the community. These are the kinds of services the Share Hub would be able to refer community members to, and for which the Library could administer subsidies for low income community members. ● REI – Rents backcountry snow gear, bear canisters, camping and hiking gear, snow shoes, climbing gear, cross country ski gear, cycling gear, downhill ski gear, and paddling gear.14
● Sports Basement – Rents skis, snowboards, snow packages, snow apparel, pickleball gear, tennis gear, bikes, backpacking, car camping and picnic equipment, stand up paddle boards, kayaks, surf and body boards.15
● Avis, Hertz, Enterprise, Zipcar, Gig Share, and Turo – rent vehicles and moving vans. ● California Ski Company - rents skis and boots.
● Paper Plus Party (may be closing soon) – rents tables, chairs, snow cone machines, nacho cheese dispensers, popcorn poppers, and cotton candy carts. ● Swimply – Lists swimming pools for hourly rentals.
● Freecycle.org, Craig’s List and Facebook Marketplace – Free and low-cost items listed by owners for sale or reuse.
Many more rental and sharing resources exist for the Share Hub to identify and refer to patrons.
Another exciting opportunity that has come to light in consulting with outside organizations would be to increase local access to the Bay Area Seed Interchange Library (BASIL), which ensures the preservation of genetic diversity in our planet’s seed stock and would provide local gardeners and farmers access to a diverse collection of seeds, with the agreement they attempt to grow them and return some of the next generation at the end of the season.
Other partnership opportunities will no doubt be discovered through the outreach and exploration of creating the SHARE BERKELEY plan.
Voucher programs for rentals:
Currently, the Berkeley Rides for Seniors & the Disabled Program provides up to $720 of free scrip (temporary paper money) to pay for demand-response taxi transportation for older and disabled Berkeley residents. Similar voucher or subsidy programs for low income community members could support rental of items from outside vendors such as those listed above, significantly increasing access to items and resources that might otherwise be out of reach. For items that the BPL’s expanded TLL does not choose to furnish from its own collection, the referred study should consider parameters and potential funding sources beyond the Library Tax Fund for a program to subsidize rentals by lower income community members. 14 REI, Rental Pricing, https://www.rei.com/stores/rentals/pricing. 15 Sports Basement, Rentals, https://shop.sportsbasement.com/collections/rentals.
Internal
10 ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Berkeley Public Library could continue to operate the Tool Lending Library without exploring the expansion of its collection and role in Berkeley’s share economy. Berkeley residents would still benefit from this, but the Library and City would miss out on an opportunity to explore options to support and lead on achievement of the city’s GHG emission and zero waste goals, and the people of Berkeley would not have the benefit of a possible one-stop resource for sharing, renting, and free-cycling.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Berkeley is an innovative City with a history of leadership on programs and policies that benefit the local community and serve as models for other jurisdictions to adopt. Expanding Berkeley’s Tool Lending Library and providing a hub for information, resources, and subsidies to rent and share items offered by other organizations/businesses serves a number of important goals for our community.
Creating a comprehensive Share Hub at the Berkeley Public Library supports the achievement of Berkeley’s Zero Waste goals by reducing the need for individual households to purchase rarely-used items – many of which are manufactured in distant locations, with raw and finished materials transported across the globe. In addition to the environmental impacts of creating and transporting these items, they are often transported and sold in impactful packaging.
A good overview of the impacts of our society’s addiction to “stuff” is provided by The Story of Stuff, a Berkeley-based not for profit focused on reducing consumption and increasing sharing.
The crux of the matter is that we produce and consume too much stuff – a lot of it toxic and most of it slow to decompose – and we don’t share it very well. However, with a broadly expanded mandate and resources, the Berkeley Public Library can help advance the share economy and be a part of the movement to shift attitudes on consumption.
Additionally, while certain outlets such as REI and Sports Basement, both local businesses, rent out camping and recreational equipment, cost remains a barrier for low-income families. This is where the inclusion of sporting goods and other hobby equipment in the TLL could help bridge the gap. The same outcome could be achieved if the BPL decides providing vouchers is a better path forward.
CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW & RESULTS
Councilmember Hahn has had conversations with library staff on the subject of expanding the Tool Lending Library and was met with a positive response. The office has consulted with outside experts including the Ecology Center in Berkeley. Because this is a referral to do in depth consultation and research, broader consultation with the community is envisioned as an important outcome of the referral.
IMPLEMENTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Berkeley Public Library staff has expressed interest in taking on this project and carrying it out from the initial planning stages through its eventual implementation. Library staff would be
Internal
11 responsible for exploring options for expansion including smaller-scale pilot approaches, consulting members of the community about their needs, and evaluating the cost of procuring additional equipment. BPL will work at their own pace but are requested to report to the Board of Library Trustees within two years, to share conclusions, and are invited to share their proposals with the City Council as well.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The creation of SHARE BERKELEY is expected to require BPL to hire new staff and obtain new equipment, software, and facilities. BPL may also seek to involve the Berkeley Public Library Foundation and Friends of the Berkeley Public Library to provide an avenue for philanthropic contributions to SHARE BERKELEY - at its inception, and/or on an ongoing basis. On its website, the Chicago Public Library asks for donations to purchase specific items such as generators, folding chairs, utility carts, and canopies, among other things. Berkeley’s generous community may take a strong interest in further supporting the establishment and operations of SHARE BERKELEY, given the strong correlation with the mission of the Berkeley Public Library, the environmental and social benefits to the community, and the fact that BPL already is formally designated as one of Berkeley’s “Resilience Centers.” Further, Alameda County recently launched two new lending libraries, one with funding from the California State Library. Similarly, the Los Angeles County TLL is supported by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. BPL should look at the potential to apply for Library-oriented and environmental/zero-waste-oriented grants, and all other potential funding opportunities.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Lending libraries encourage community members to borrow rather than buy, reducing the wasteful purchase of items rarely used and their environmental impact. Any efforts to reduce the production and purchase of plastic, metal - and any - materials will have a positive overall impact on our planet. According to the United Nations, resource extraction has more than tripled since 1970 and accounts for half of the world’s carbon emissions and 80% of biodiversity loss.16 Furthermore, the expansion of TLL signals the City’s commitment to the share economy and will help facilitate a cultural shift in views on consumption.
Additionally, expanding the availability of garden equipment can promote community greening and locally-procured urban agriculture. Many items that might otherwise end up in a landfill can be diverted to the Lending Library for future use.17 Insofar as this diversion happens and there is strong participation in borrowing, this initiative will help achieve the city’s zero-waste and climate action goals.
16 Watts, Jonathan, “Resource extraction responsible for half the world’s carbon emissions,” The Guardian, March 12, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/12/resource-extraction- carbon-emissions-biodiversity-loss.
17 Tabor, Neil, “Evaluating the Success of Tool-Lending Libraries and their Contributions to Community Sustainability,” University of Nebraska-Lincoln Environmental Studies Program, August 2013, p. 20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=envstudtheses.
Internal
12 OUTCOMES & EVALUATION
As stated previously, the expected outcome of this recommendation is that BPL will create an innovative plan for SHARE BERKELEY. The plan should be as expansive and impactful as possible, offering a vision for a groundbreaking, first-in-kind, comprehensive program combining an in-house collection with referrals, resources and subsidies to equitably access items beyond BPL’s collection. While the full program may need to be phased-in, the goal is to produce a broad, comprehensive, visionary plan as a starting point for conversation, funding, and implementation. Success for this item is the successful delivery of the visionary plan, for consideration by the Board of Library Trustees.
The intent of this item is to fully explore options for an expanded TLL and Share Hub at the Berkeley Public Library. One outcome of the study might be that the TLL/BPL is not the best space for the full spectrum of desired services, and other options are recommended. These might include partnerships with outside organizations such as Berkeley’s Ecology Center, or centering some or all expanded services elsewhere within the City organization, such as in the office of Energy and Sustainable Development. It is hoped that the process of studying and exploring the benefits and opportunities for a comprehensive, public Share Hub for Berkeley will lead to recommendations for viable paths forward within the TLL/BPL, and/or suggestions for other means to achieve these important goals for the community.
The SHARE BERKELEY plan to be developed by BPL should include metrics to measure the success of the new initiative. For example, success could be evaluated on the basis of how many new items are lent relative to the expense of the expanded program. Qualitative impact measures can be explored that evaluate how the availability of expanded resources and the overall program positively address community needs and interests. Estimates of reductions in GHG emissions and plastic consumption, for example, and consumption of other toxic and impactful materials can also be estimated and folded into the City’s metrics tracking progress on Climate and Zero Waste goals. High community participation in the expanded collections and resources will help guide the collection of new items. And the library could make use of volunteer focus groups, intercept interviews, or surveys to assess what items community members would be most interested in borrowing. Community feedback shared in the planning process will also inform expansion of the current collection. All of this is to be determined by BPL staff in developing and presenting the proposed program.
CONTACT
Sophie Hahn, District 5, (510) 981-7150
Special thanks to Aleks Wolan, Legislative Director District 5
Susan Wengraf
Vice Mayor and Councilmember District 6
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 12, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Wengraf (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Opposition to AT&T Applications: Relief of “Carrier of Last Resort” and Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Designation
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution and send a letter to the CPUC expressing strong opposition to AT&T’s proposal to discontinue being the default landline phone provider, and its proposal to relinquish its eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation. Urge the CPUC to reject AT&T’s application to end traditional landline service in all areas until reliable broadband cellular coverage is available.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
California residents deserve reliable telecommunication service. The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) must ensure that traditional landline phone service remains in place until broadband can replace it as a reliable means of communication. Many geographic areas of Berkeley do not have dependable cellular service. Removal of traditional landlines before reliable alternatives are in place, contradicts Berkeley’s strategic goals of creating a resilient, safe, connected and prepared city. Landline telephone service is a lifeline for those in Berkeley who do not have reliable cell service.
AT&T submitted two applications to the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) on March 3, 2023. One for targeted relief from its carrier of last resort obligation and certain associated tariff obligations (A23-03-003). The other, to relinquish its eligible telecommunications carrier designation (A23-03-002).
If the CPUC grants AT&T relief from being the “Carrier of Last Resort” (COLR), i.e. the only carrier legally mandated to provide service to anyone in their service territory who wants it, and therefore stops providing landline service, large numbers of residents living in Berkeley where cellular service is non-existent or unreliable will be deprived of a dependable means of communication. Reliable telephone service is essential for day- to-day life and critical for medical emergencies, public safety and natural disasters.
Landlines are overwhelmingly the most reliable method of communication.
Opposition to AT&T Applications: Relief of “Carrier of Last Resort” & ETC CONSENT CALENDAR March 12, 2024
In the Berkeley Hills and other high fire risk areas throughout the state, where PG&E regularly conducts Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS), traditional landlines, or Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), are the only form of reliable communication – unless cell tower back-up generators last throughout the PSPS or disaster, and households with reliable cell service have invested in batteries or generators to keep their phones and modems operating.
Berkeley Fire Chief Dave Sprague stated that, “The loss of POTS in the region before reliable alternatives are in place creates an unacceptable degradation of public safety for California’s residents following a seismic event, wildfire, or other natural disaster.” Further, if AT&T is allowed to relinquish its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation, it would no longer be mandated to provide Lifeline service which ensures residents with low incomes, frequently elders and those with disabilities, can have access to telephone service.
BACKGROUND
California’s telecommunications policy is founded on an ongoing commitment to universal service by assuring the continued affordability and widespread availability of high-quality telecommunications services.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has deemed Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations an important component of universal access to communications services because these obligations ensure that customers who want service, receive it.
As a COLR, AT&T has an obligation to serve all customers in its service area who request service. If the CPUC approves AT&T’s application for relief of its COLR obligations, California would have no Carrier of Last Resort and residents would lose their Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS).
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Elimination of Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) could prevent safe evacuation in a natural disaster and interfere with Emergency Response. As extreme weather events increase due to climate change, access to reliable communication is critical to life and safety.
CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor & Councilmember Susan Wengraf, Council District 6 510-981-7160 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Letter to CPUC
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
OPPOSITION TO AT&T COLR AND ETC APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, California’s telecommunications policy is founded on an ongoing commitment to universal service by assuring the continued affordability and widespread availability of high-quality telecommunications services; and WHEREAS, The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has deemed Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations an important component of universal access to communications services because these obligations ensure that customers who want service, receive it; and
WHEREAS, AT&T submitted two applications to the CPUC on March 3, 2023. One for targeted relief from its carrier of last resort obligation and certain associated tariff obligations (A23-03-003); the other, to relinquish its eligible telecommunications carrier designation (A23-03-002); and
WHEREAS, If the CPUC grants AT&T relief from being the “Carrier of Last Resort” (COLR) and therefore AT&T stops providing landline service, large numbers of residents living in Berkeley where cellular service is non-existent or unreliable will be deprived of a dependable means of communication; and
WHEREAS, If the CPUC allows AT&T to relinquish its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation, AT&T would no longer be mandated to provide Lifeline service which ensures residents with low incomes, frequently elders and those with disabilities, can have access to telephone service; and
WHEREAS, Reliable telephone service is essential for day-to-day life and critical for medical emergencies, public safety and natural disasters; and WHEREAS, Berkeley Fire Chief Dave Sprague stated that “The loss of POTS in the region before reliable alternatives are in place creates an unacceptable degradation of public safety for California’s residents following a seismic event, wildfire, or other natural disaster.”
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it strongly opposes AT&T’s applications A23-03-003 and A23-03-002.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council strongly urges the CPUC to reject AT&T’s A23-03-003 and A23-03-002 applications.
Exhibits
A: Letter to the CPUC
February 12, 2024
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Ave
San Francisco, California 94102
RE: Opposition to AT&T’s Applications A23-03-003 and A23-03-002 Dear CPUC President and Commissioners,
The City of Berkeley respectfully requests that you reject AT&T’s applications for targeted relief from its Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligation, and to relinquish its eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation.
All residents deserve reliable telecommunication service. The CPUC must ensure that Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) remains in place until broadband has achieved that standard.
If AT&T is allowed to stop being the COLR and transfer its landline service to broadband or VOIP, large numbers of Berkeley residents where cellular service is non- existent or intermittent at best, will be deprived of a reliable means of communication.
Berkeley cannot maintain a resilient, safe, connected and prepared city without reliable landline service.
Berkeley Fire Chief Dave Sprague stated that, “The loss of POTS in the region before reliable alternatives are in place creates an unacceptable degradation of public safety for California’s residents following a seismic event, wildfire, or other natural disaster.” Further, if AT&T is allowed to relinquish its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation, Berkeley’s residents with low incomes could lose Lifeline Program access to telephone service, including elders and those with disabilities. As you know, reliable telephone service is essential for day-to-day life and critical for medical emergencies, public safety and natural disasters.
For some of Berkeley’s residents, who are underserved by cellular phone service, there is no substitute for landline telephone service. We strongly urge you to take into consideration the needs of those with no cellular service, those who could lose low cost telephone services, and those living in areas of high risk to wildfire and other natural disasters, as you make your decision.
Respectfully,
Berkeley City Council
Cc: Kate Turner, Cal Advocates; Regina Costa, TURN
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: https://berkeleyca.gov/
INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 12, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Anne Cardwell, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring Audit Status Report
INTRODUCTION
On July 11, 2023, the City Auditor submitted a Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring audit report to the City Council with recommendations that the City establish retention goals, conduct an analysis of staff needed for city services and consider staff capacity around new legislation. It was also recommended that the City take steps to address employee satisfaction and improve the recruiting and hiring process. Further, the audit recommended that the City expand the telework policy to align with best practices and regularly collect data on employee satisfaction and on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
The purpose of this information item is to update City Council on the status of implementation of the audit report’s recommendations. This is the first status report regarding this audit. It is also an opportunity to provide an update on the Employer of Choice Initiative (EOCI), since many of the recommendations from the audit overlap with the objectives of the EOCI.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The audit included 25 recommendations. As of the writing of this report, three (3) of those recommendations have been implemented, four (4) have been partially implemented, fourteen (14) have been started, and four (4) have not yet been initiated.
Please see Attachment 1 for a detailed table of audit report recommendations, corrective action plans, and implementation progress. The next status report to Council is expected to be presented on July 30, 2024.
BACKGROUND
The findings of the audit are helping to inform the City’s current EOCI efforts. As already noted, the EOCI Roadmap has many critical destinations along the way to becoming an Employer of Choice. Specifically, of the 25 audit findings, 14 are not only clearly aligned with Employer of Choice, but are already underway. Seven (7) are aligned, and part of
INFORMATION CALENDAR
Staffing Shortages: Audit Status Report March 12, 2024
the roadmap, but are not yet initiated. Recommendations that are already underway and/or clearly aligned with the 49 EOCI Roadmap recommendations will take priority in terms of resources and timing. Many of these efforts take notable time and resources, as articulated in staff’s response to audit recommendations.
As the City moves forward with this initiative, our focus remains on enhancing employee satisfaction, retaining valuable staff members, and refining our hiring processes. It is clear that a dedicated and motivated workforce is crucial to the successful functioning of the organization and the delivery of quality services to the Berkeley community.
There is a strong commitment to ensuring that the organization becomes an employer of choice, providing an environment that fosters growth, recognition, and professional development for employees. By creating a workplace that promotes job satisfaction and overall well-being, the organization can overcome the challenges of the staffing crisis.
Staff will continue to keep the City Council informed of progress, sharing updates on the implementation of initiatives, and improvements made in staffing strategies.
Finally, key to continued success along the way will be maintaining the Employer of Choice Initiative as the organization’s top priority in the upcoming budget process.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects associated with the subject of this report.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None at this time
CONTACT PERSON
Anne Cardwell, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office, (510) 981-7014 Attachments:
1. Audit Findings, Recommendations, and Status Updates
2. Update on Employer of Choice Initiative (EOCI)
Internal
Audit Title: Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring Finding Department Expected or
Actual
Implementation
Date
Status of Audit Recommendations,
Corrective Plan, and Progress
Summary
Status at
Audit Issuance
Staff shortages
constrained city services.
1.1 Establish citywide
retention goals and
report to City Council
on progress towards
those goals biennially.
City Manager 1 year from audit
response.
Started:
Human Resources has developed a
preliminary set of metrics (e.g.,
measuring the rate of hiring over
attrition) and will develop further ones
as the City makes reporting
improvements to ERMA, Berkeley's
personnel and financial management
system.
Not Started
Staff shortages
constrained city services.
1.2 Conduct a staffing
analysis based on
critical needs to
identify the number
and type of full-time
equivalent positions
needed for successful
city operations and
services. The City may
consider conducting
this analysis one
department at a time
based on available
resources.
City Manager 2+ years from
audit response.
Not Started Not Started
Recommendation
Internal
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.1 Review the highest
priority city job
descriptions to ensure
they accurately reflect
job duties.
City Manager 2 years from audit
response.
Started:
Human Resources has started updating
job descriptions.
Started
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.2 Consider staff capacity
when introducing new
legislation, and limit or
prioritize new
legislation during
periods of short
staffing.
Mayor and
Council
1 year from audit
response.
Started:
Councilmembers have discussed
methods to streamline the legislative
process and consider budget and
staffing impacts when implementing
new legislation. The Agenda and Rules
Committee is considering proposals as
of January 2024.
Started
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.3 Report on the status
of approved projects
to City Council,
including information
about delays caused
by staff vacancies.
City Manager 1 year from audit
response.
Started:
Staff continue to articulate in reports
and communication to City Council
regarding the status of approved
projects and impacts of staff vacancies.
Additional opportunities for enhanced
communication in this area will be
explored within a year of the audit
response.
Started
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.4 Improve pathways for
promotion in the City
through a citywide
succession plan, which
may include cross-
training for positions.
City Manager 2 years from audit
response.
Started:
Human Resources is currently
redesigning the City’s training
curriculum in order to align training
with career paths.
Not Started
Internal
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.5 Direct departments to
ensure that all
employees receive an
annual performance
evaluation.
City Manager 18 months from
audit response.
Started:
Human Resources has redesigned “The
Role of the Supervisor” training
module to emphasize ongoing
feedback for performance
management.
Not Started
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.6 Implement a
comprehensive
training program that
ensures staff at all
levels receive the
training they need to
fulfill their job duties
and develop their job
skills as needed.
Consider increasing
the training budget
and redesigning the
training curriculum to
best address the
needs of a post-
pandemic workforce,
improving training for
supervisors and
managers, ensuring
that experts conduct
trainings, and allowing
employees to request
specific trainings.
Human
Resources
18 months from
audit response.
Started:
Human Resources is on track with re-
imagining the workforce training
curriculum along front-line,
supervisory and management tracks,
and expects the project to be
completed within 18 months of the
audit response.
Started
Internal
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.7 Ensure that all city
employees complete
mandatory trainings in
accordance with the
state law. Report data
on mandated trainings
to Council annually.
Human
Resources
1 year from audit
response.
Partly Implemented:
Human Resources has successfully
brought the City back to near
compliance with all mandatory
trainings, with several departments
achieving 100% compliance and all
departments exceeding 90%
compliance.
Started
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.8 Update City Council on
the recruitment status
of hard-to-fill
positions during the
biennial budget
process, as well as
steps taken to fill
these positions.
City Manager 18 months from
audit response.
Started:
Human Resources continues to meet
regularly with departments to
prioritize hiring needs and address the
challenges of hard-to-fill positions
through interventions that range from
enhanced recruitment strategies (e.g.,
direct outreach through LinkedIn) to
modifications of job classifications.
Departments will be able to update
Council on the status of these positions
during the upcoming budget process
for fiscal years 25-26.
Started
Internal
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.9 Identify positions that
are hard-to-recruit
and retain and
consider reassessing
pay for those
positions.
City Manager 18 months from
audit response.
Partly Implemented:
The City has adjusted salaries for
several classifications in order to
maintain market competitiveness (e.g.,
Senior Building Maintenance and
Senior Public Works Supervisor), to
avoid compaction issues (e.g., several
classifications in the behavioral health
career ladder), and to ensure internal
equity (e.g., Traffic Maintenance
Supervisor and Parking Meter
Maintenance and Collection
Supervisor).
Started
Internal
Some current city
employees reported
dissatisfaction and many
have contemplated
leaving.
2.10 Assess employees’
needs regarding
communication from
the City Manager’s
Office and design a
communication
strategy that
addresses those
needs.
City Manager 1 year from audit
response.
Partly Implemented:
The Special Projects Division produces
a newsletter at the completion of each
90-day sprint period. The newsletter is
distributed widely via email and is
stored in a folder all staff can access.
Additionally, the Special Projects
Division is creating a SharePoint Site to
include information about the
Employer Of Choice Initiative and
other Citywide information that staff
can access whenever it is convenient.
The CMO is also initiating a series of
internal 'open-houses' across
departments to encourage
collaboration, communication, and
engagement across departments. This
is all part of the calendar year 2024
workplan.
Started
Internal
Instability in Human
Resources delayed hiring
and impacted internal
services.
3.1 Assess the level of
staff and resources
needed to meet the
City’s recruitment and
hiring needs. Prioritize
filling these positions
when vacancies in this
area fall below a level
that would jeopardize
the City’s ability to
hire quickly.
City Manager 3/12/2024 Implemented:
This recommendation has been fully
implemented with the hiring of three
additional employees: one Associate
HR Analyst dedicated to recruitment;
one Associate HR Analyst assigned to
exams; and one Assistant HR Analyst
supporting Benefits. HR’s recruitment
team additionally has standing
meetings with departments during
which they identify and prioritize hiring
needs.
Started
Internal
Instability in Human
Resources delayed hiring
and impacted internal
services.
3.2 Assess the approval
process for hiring new
employees and
identify opportunities
to reduce
inefficiencies.
City Manager 3/12/2024 Implemented:
This recommendation has been fully
implemented with the development of
exam plans at the outset of every
hiring process. Human Resources (HR)
has also changed the order by which
hiring approvals are processed in
NeoGov, the City's hiring platform. HR
has implemented additional steps to
reduce inefficiencies including e-offers
and e-reference checks through the
NeoGov hiring system. HR has also
obtained LiveScan certifications for
some staff members and will be
moving the fingerprinting process in-
house as soon as they receive final
approval.
Started
Instability in Human
Resources delayed hiring
and impacted internal
services.
3.3 Develop and execute a
plan to modernize
recruitment and hiring
using social media and
community
engagement.
Human
Resources
1 year from audit
response.
Partly Implemented:
Utilizing funds allocated by City Council
to support the Employer of Choice
initiative, Human Resources has
engaged a marketing agency, Sensis,
and is developing a digital platform
dedicated to hiring, along with a full-
scale social media campaign. The new
recruitment website can be found at
https://www.berkeley.careers.
Started
Internal
Instability in Human
Resources delayed hiring
and impacted internal
services.
3.4 Communicate
standard procedures
and trainings for
NEOGOV and the
City’s hiring process to
all department heads
and hiring managers.
Human
Resources
Ongoing Started:
Human Resources maintains a standing
series of meetings with City
departments to assist with NEOGOV
usage and hiring procedures.
Started
Instability in Human
Resources delayed hiring
and impacted internal
services.
3.5 Improve the employee
onboarding process so
employees have the
tools and information
they need to do their
jobs.
Human
Resources
3/12/2024 Implemented:
The corrective action has been fully
implemented with the automation of
Onboarding through NEOGOV and the
launch of the new, in-person
“Welcome to Berkeley” orientation
program.
Started
Telework can benefit the
City but the current policy
is limited.
4.1 Identify ways of
reducing unused space
in city buildings to
save on overhead
costs. This initiative
may require additional
resources beyond city
staff.
City Manager 2+ years from
audit response.
Started:
The City is taking initial steps in
exploring more efficient use of space
on a department-by-department basis.
Not Started
Internal
Telework can benefit the
City but the current policy
is limited.
4.2 Expand the citywide
telework policy to
include elements that
align with best
practices. This can
include eligibility,
employee
accountability,
equipment requests,
telework training, and
justifications for
denying employee
requests to telework.
City Manager Ongoing Started:
The consulting firm Municipal
Resource Group (MRG) prepared a
Hybrid Workplace Best Practice Guide
as a supplement to the Employer of
Choice roadmap. The City received a
draft of the Best Practice Guide and is
currently reviewing the report.
Started
The City lacked reliable
data to address staff
shortages.
5.1 Clean up personnel
data in ERMA to
ensure all employee
data is accurate.
Human
Resources
Ongoing Started:
Human Resources is collaborating with
a consultant for next-level review of
data in ERMA, Berkeley's personnel
and financial management system, to
be followed with an initiative to ensure
consistency along the system’s
nomenclature.
Started
Internal
The City lacked reliable
data to address staff
shortages.
5.2 Develop standardized
procedures for
entering and
managing personnel
data in ERMA.
Human
Resources
Ongoing Started:
Human Resources is collaborating with
a consultant for next-level review of
data in ERMA, Berkeley's personnel
and budget management system, to be
followed with an initiative to ensure
consistency along the system’s
nomenclature
Started
The City lacked reliable
data to address staff
shortages.
5.3 Produce reports that
can be used to inform
retention and hiring
efforts, which may
include data on
vacancies,
recruitments,
turnover, or other
useful data. Human
Resources should also
report to City Council
on staff vacancies by
department and how
long those positions
have been vacant.
Human
Resources
Ongoing Started:
The City Manager’s Office, in
collaboration with Human Resources,
is contracting with Tyler Technologies
for follow-up assessments of ERMA
functionality in order to identify and
implement system improvements.
Started
The City lacked reliable
data to address staff
shortages.
5.4 Consistently conduct
exit surveys or
interviews and share
results with
departments.
Human
Resources
2 years from audit
response.
Not Started Not Started
Internal
The City lacked reliable
data to address staff
shortages.
5.5 Determine the
appropriate city
department or other
body to regularly
collect data on
employee satisfaction.
Data collection should
include employees’
perceptions about
diversity, equity,
inclusion, and
accessibility in the
workplace. The
department should
consider publishing
the data and
comparing it to
previous years to help
inform retention
efforts.
Mayor and
Council
2 years from audit
response.
Not Started:
City Council has not yet provided input
on the appropriate department or
entity to conduct satisfaction surveys.
Not Started
Internal
The City lacked reliable
data to address staff
shortages.
5.6 Resume data
collection and
production of Year
End Workforce
Reports on
demographic
workforce trends at
least annually.
Consider expanding
Human Resources’
performance measure
reported in the budget
book to capture
diversity at all levels of
city employment.
City Manager 2 years from audit
response.
Not Started Not Started
Office of the City Manager
Attachment 2: Update on Employer of Choice Initiative (EOCI)
On February 28, 2023, the City Manager and representatives from the Municipal Resource Group (MRG) presented to the City Council a proposed roadmap designed to help the City become an Employer of Choice. The goal of the project was to assess the organization’s needs and craft an actionable plan titled the “Employer of Choice Roadmap” to retain and attract employees. This Roadmap creates six thematic areas of focus with a total of forty-eight (48) initiative areas that strongly align with the report from the City Auditor focused on Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring Audit Status Report.
The Special Projects Team in the City Manager’s Office was charged with leading the Employer of Choice Initiative (EOCI) to lead and track efforts made to address the action items identified in the Roadmap.
The City has completed several actions defined in the EOCI Roadmap that also support and align with the goals of the City Auditor’s report. Here are some highlights from the past year of work:
1. Two 90-day strike team initiatives, which completed the following list of highlighted activities:
a. Strike Team 1 – April to June 2023
i. Invest in Human Resources – this effort included an increased focus on filling vacancies, increasing HR staff and developing a digital marketing campaign.
ii. Improve Communication – The office of Communications met with all departments to better determine each of their communication needs. The Communications team also created tools to assist staff in day-to-day communications, including the addition of a photo library, as well as developing a concerted presence for the City on LinkedIn.
iii. Developed processes to elevate internal and administrative systems - The Special Projects Division engaged with Departments to gather information on process pain points and began work to mitigate those issues and collect departmental data related to EOCI activities.
b. Strike Team 2 – September to November 2023
i. Invest in Cross Department Relationship Building through developing a model and schedule for Departmental open houses which kicks off with the CMO Open House in February 2024.
ii. Implement Business Process Improvements, Finance - Changes to Purchasing and Expenditure Contract threshold requirements. The City has raised its formal competition limit from $25,000, an amount unchanged for many years and inconsistent with best practices.
Additionally, the City has raised its threshold amount for requiring a Blue Back Contract from $5,000 to $25,000. For low-risk services below $25,000, a Purchase Order can be used to govern the engagement. Competition is still required. Engagements cannot be split to avoid the $25,000 limit. The change was accompanied by clear instructions, training and guidelines to ensure continued rigor for competition.
iii. Implement Business Process Improvements, Information Technology - IT staff trained City employees and deployed the use of TEAMS and TEAMS Channels for use city wide.
iv. Implement Business Process Improvements, Other - Update Internal Administrative Regulation site to be more user friendly, searchable and include more information regarding what an Administrative Regulation is and when you should use them.
In addition to the strike teams, “Team Unity” was formed to redesign the City’s years of service awards process, the annual staff appreciation event and the City’s gifting and recognition program. The team consists of representatives from each Union, each unrepresented department and four at-large positions.
The role of Team Unity is to bring forward ideas for Citywide improvements in the defined squad. The Team Unity will review proposals from each squad and determine which projects move forward considering cost, value, impact, environmental considerations, adherence to city policy, and any other criteria the Team Unity puts forth. While the squad members will be the main group responsible for implementing the new structure or program, it is expected that all Team Unity members be present at events, promote the work of the Team Unity and provide additional support when needed. In year one, Team Unity members are active in the design, development, and deployment of the following programs:
1. Years of Service Events-Uplift Squad
2. Citywide Events-Party Squad
3. Gifting and Recognition Program-Appreciation Squad
Finally, the Special Projects Division worked closely with Human Resources to incorporate a mentoring model into the Skilled Worker Academy. As part of this effort, participants are connected with members of the Senior Executive Team for coaching and mentoring. Additionally, each participant has the opportunity to meet directly with the City Manager.
The Special Projects Division workplan for 2024 includes continuing the work to define business processes, create relevant informational materials and training for staff, and a comprehensive EOCI report, which will highlight the tremendous work completed in Departments across all lanes of the Roadmap.
Communications
All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.
City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/
To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:
1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”
2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting
3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)
4. Click the “Search” button
5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned
6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF