Berkeley City Council
October 29, 2024

14

Contract: Green Pocket Forest, for the design CONSENT CALENDAR and installation of a Miyawaki forest October 29, 2024

BACKGROUND
The Miyawaki forest planting method mimics the way natural habitat would grow in an area if humans - and their transplanted invasive plants - disappeared. A diverse mixture of trees is planted closely together to maximize density and create balance. As closely planted saplings have to compete for light, they shoot upwards very quickly, creating rapid growth not experienced when trees are planted individually or in more widely spaced configurations. In addition to fostering extremely rapid growth, planting a wide variety of native trees and other plants closely together results in increased biodiversity, additional forage for pollinators and refuge for birds. The dense canopy cover shades weeds, creates a cool home for insects, and the increased leaf litter enhances soil fertility.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Section D.2 in chapter 3 of the City’s Climate Action Plan seeks to promote tree planting, landscaping, and the creation of green and open space that is safe and attractive and that helps to restore natural processes with significant environmental benefits in the form of carbon dioxide absorption and oxygen production, as well as storm water retention and climate control. The installation of a Miyawaki forest will support the Climate Action Plan by increasing canopy cover and wildlife habitat in an area with low canopy cover.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City’s Strategic Plan goal of being global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment throughout the City will be furthered by the installation of a Miyawaki forest.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, 981-6700 Attachment:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT: GREEN POCKET FOREST FOR THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF

MIYAWAKI FOREST
WHEREAS, the installation of a Miyawaki forest will improve the soil structure at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Way and 63rd Street, including increased organic content and improved water retention, and an improved growing environment for the existing trees, and
WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised on July 16, 2024, bids were opened on September 3, 2024, and the City received two (2) bids; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, the City determined that Green Pocket Forest received the best score as the most responsive and responsive bidder, and WHEREAS, funding for this contract of $142,775 is available in the FY 2025 Parks Tax Fund (Fund 138). Funding will be recommended for appropriation in the first amendment to the appropriations ordinance in the General Fund (Fund 011). The General Fund portion is a carryover of project funds allocated by Council in FY 2024.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or their designee to execute a contract with Green Pocket Forest for the design and installation of a Miyawaki forest in an amount not to exceed $142,775.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrance Davis, Director of Public Works
Subject: Agreement Regarding Allocation of Costs for Railroad CrossingImprovements for Berkeley Commons Between Berkeley Commons Owner, LLC, (“Developer”) a California limited liability company and the City of Berkeley (“City”).

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute an agreement (Attachment 1) and any amendments with Berkeley Commons (Developer) for payment for all the improvements to mitigate the impact of Berkeley Commons Development (Project) at the Addison Street and Bancroft Way at-grade railroad crossings.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Developer is responsible for all actual costs and expenses for the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) parties performance of the safety improvement work at the two railroad crossings pertaining to their Project. One main purpose of this agreement is to document the process pursuant to which the Developer shall assume responsibility for all such railroad costs.

The agreement further confirms that the Developer and its contractor(s) are responsible for complying with all Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) insurance and other requirements applicable to any work performed by Berkeley Commons Owner with respect to the Developer’s portion of Project safety improvements.

The Developer and City agree that the Developer shall be responsible for making all payments to the UPRR. There is no fiscal impact to the City as a result of this agreement.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Within Project area there are two railroad crossings; one at Addison and the other at Bancroft. The projected impacts of the Berkeley Commons development will require improvements to safely facilitate all road users through these intersections.

15

Agreement Regarding Allocation of Costs for CONSENT CALENDAR Railroad Crossing Improvements for Berkeley Commons October 29, 2024 Between Berkeley Commons Owner, LLC and the City of Berkeley

The City, Developer and UPRR have agreed on the Scope of Work for Developer’s Work Associated with Railroad Crossings at Addison Street and at Bancroft Way are shown in Exhibits 1 & 2 respectively, attached.

BACKGROUND
A developer is constructing the Berkeley Commons research and development campus, which includes two buildings with a combined gross floor area of 470,986 square feet and two parking structures providing a total of 943 spaces on an approximately 8.5-acre industrial site owned by the developer.

Pursuant to Use Permit #ZP2019-0215, the Project is subject to certain conditions of approval which requires the Developer to coordinate with the UPRR, the California Public Utilities commission (CPUC) and the City to improve the safety of all travelers at the Addison Street and Bancroft Way at-grade railroad crossing near the Project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental impacts expected from the agreement between the Developer and the City.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The UPRR does not enter into agreements with private entities. Therefore, the City will enter into an agreement with the UPRR on behalf of the Developer with the Developer agreeing to pay all the associated UPRR costs.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Since Union Pacific does not enter into agreements with private entities the City will act as the go-between between the developer and Union Pacific in order for the safety improvements to be implemented. If the City does not step in UPRR will not approve the project, therefore no alternatives were feasible.

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Deputy Public Works Director, (510) 981-6396 Hamid Mostowfi, Transportation Division Manager, Public Works, (510) 981-6403 Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Berkeley Commons Agreement re allocation of costs for railroad crossing

3. Exhibit 1

4. Exhibit 2

5. Insurance and Bonding Requirements

6. Surety Bond

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

AGREEMENT: REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BERKELEYCOMMONS, LLC

FOR BERKELEYCOMMON'S CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
WHEREAS, Berkeley Commons is engaged in the development of certain real property located at 600 Addison Street in City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, Development of the project under the use permits requires construction of safety improvements which consist of Union Pacific Railroad crossings safety improvements at Addison Street crossing and at Bancroft Street crossing, collectively "Public Facilities" in the project area that will serve Berkeley Commons as well as public; and
WHEREAS, Within the development project area there are two railroad crossings; one at Addison and the other at Bancroft; and
WHEREAS, The impacts of the Berkeley Commons development will require improvements to safely facilitate all road users through these intersections; and WHEREAS, Since Union Pacific does not enter into agreements with private entities the city will act as the go-between between the developer and Union Pacific in order for the safety improvements to be implemented; and
WHEREAS, The Developer acknowledges responsibility and will pay for all actual costs and expenses for the UPRR parties performance of the safety improvement work pertaining to the Developer’s portion of the safety improvements at the two railroad crossings; and
WHEREAS, City of Berkeley will submit invoices for implementation of “Public Facilities” by Union Pacific to Berkeley Commons for payment directly to Union Pacific; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that a reimbursement agreement and any amendments with Berkeley Commons for payment of implementation of safety improvements by Union Pacific at railroad crossings pertaining to the Developer’s portion of the safety improvements at Addison and Bancroft Streets is accepted. A record signature copy of said agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

1 AGREEMENT RE ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR RAILROAD CROSSING

IMPROVEMENTS FOR BERKELEY COMMONS
This Agreement Regarding Allocation of Costs for Railroad Crossing Improvements for Berkeley Commons (“Agreement”) is by and between Berkeley Commons Owner, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”), and the City of Berkeley (“City”), and is effective this __ day of _____________, 2024.

RECITALS
A. Developer is developing a research and development campus known as the Berkeley Commons project, containing two buildings totaling 470,986 square feet of gross floor area and two parking structures that can accommodate 943 parking spaces on an approximately 8.4-acre industrial site owned by Developer (“Project”).

B. Pursuant to Use Permit #ZP2019-0215, the Project is subject to certain conditions of approval (each a “Condition”), specifically Condition No. 27, which requires Developer to coordinate with the Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”), the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), and the City to improve the safety of all travelers at the Addison Street and Bancroft Way at-grade railroad crossings near the Project site (together the “Crossings”).

Developer and the other parties have reached a consensus regarding the improvements which UPRR and Developer each will make to the Crossings as required by Condition No. 27 (“Project Railroad Improvements”).

C. SteelWave CDS, LLC (“SteelWave”), pursuant to Use Permit #ZP2021-0096 associated with an unrelated property identified as 747/787 Bancroft Way, proposes to implement certain additional improvements at the Bancroft Way at-grade railroad crossing (“SteelWave Improvements”), in coordination with UPRR, the CPUC, and the City, to improve the safety of all travelers at such railroad crossing with respect to SteelWave’s development project on such property.

D. City and UPRR intend to enter into one or more Construction and Maintenance Agreements (each a “C&M Agreement”) pursuant to which City will agree to reimburse UPRR and/or UPRR’s third party consultants and contractors (collectively, the “UPRR Parties”) for actual costs incurred by the UPRR Parties (“Railroad Costs”) for all work performed by the UPRR Parties to (i) construct or install UPRR’s portion of the Project Railroad Improvements, (ii) monitor or perform any engineering work regarding Developer’s work on constructing or installing Developer’s portion of the Project Railroad Improvements, and (ii) monitor or perform any engineering work regarding SteelWave’s work on constructing or installing the SteelWave Improvements (collectively “Railroad Work”). One main purpose of this Agreement is to document the process pursuant to which Developer shall assume responsibility for all such Railroad Costs, in recognition of the fact that such costs (excluding those associated with the SteelWave Improvements) are Developer’s responsibility under Condition No. 27.

E. This Agreement is further intended to confirm that Developer and its contractor are responsible for complying with all UPRR insurance and other requirements applicable to any work performed by Developer and/or its contractor with respect to the Developer’s portion of the

2 Project Railroad Improvements, consisting of all “Project work” performed under the C&M Agreement (excluding the SteelWave Improvements).

AGREEMENT

1. Under each C&M Agreement, City (as “Political Body”) is responsible for one hundred percent (100%) of all actual costs and expenses for the UPRR Parties’ performance of the Railroad Work. Developer acknowledges that the Estimate, as such term is defined in a C&M Agreement, is only an estimate of the expected Railroad Costs, as further detailed and explained in the C&M Agreement. Developer and City hereby agree that Developer shall be responsible for making all payments to the UPRR Parties which City is obligated to make under the C&M Agreement, other than those associated with the SteelWave Improvements, on and subject to the terms of this Agreement.

2. Prior to the execution of any C&M Agreement between the City and UPRR intended to be subject to this Agreement, Developer shall furnish to the City a Faithful Performance Bond as described in Exhibit A.

3. Within five (5) days after receipt of any bill (progressive, final, or otherwise) from the UPRR Parties with respect to any portion of the Railroad Work, City shall deliver a copy of such bill by email to Developer at the email address(es) set forth in Section 12 below, and shall simultaneously send a copy of such bill to Developer by regular mail at the street address(es) set forth in said Section 12. Developer agrees to reimburse UPRR or other UPRR Party within twenty-five (25) days after receipt of the emailed copy of each bill from City.

4. Developer acknowledges and agrees that Developer shall be responsible for performing, or causing its contractor to perform, the Project work. Developer further agrees that any contractor retained by Developer to perform any portion of the Project work carried out on property owned by UPRR shall comply with the conditions on such work required under the C&M Agreement. Without limiting the specificity of the foregoing, Developer shall require any contractor performing work on property owned by UPRR to execute UPRR’s then-current form of Contractor’s Right of Entry Agreement (“CROE Agreement”) and comply with the requirements set forth therein.

5. Developer shall require any contractor entering onto UPRR property to maintain all insurance required by UPRR under the CROE Agreement, or to be covered by an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) policy providing such coverage. City acknowledges and agrees that such insurance requirements satisfy and supersede any insurance requirements which City would otherwise impose on such contractor and its work, except that Developer shall require its contractor’s or OCIP insurance to be endorsed as follows:
(a) For the commercial general liability and automobile insurance, the City (including its elected officials, employees, and agents) shall be named as additional insured, and the policy shall be endorsed accordingly.
(b) The contractor’s or OCIP insurance shall be primary to any other insurance, self-insurance or joint self-insurance available to the City with respect to any claim

3 arising out of this Agreement. Any insurance, self-insurance or joint self-insurance maintained by the City shall be excess of the contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. (c) The contractor’s or OCIP insurance will not be cancelled, limited or allowed to expire until after thirty (30) days’ written notice has been given to the City, except in the event of nonpayment for premium, in which case ten (10) days’ advance notice shall be required. During the term of this Agreement, the contractor shall not materially alter any of the policies or reduce any of the levels of coverage afforded thereby.

6. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. The Parties agree that venue for any dispute shall be Alameda County, California.

7. The terms of this Agreement shall not be altered or otherwise modified except by a written amendment to this Agreement executed by City and Developer.

8. Developer is, and at all times shall remain, an independent contractor solely responsible for all acts of its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors, including any negligent acts or omissions. Developer is not City's agent, and shall have no authority to act on behalf of the City, or to bind the City to any obligation whatsoever, unless the City provides prior written authorization to Developer.

9. If any part of this Agreement or the application thereof is declared invalid for any reason, such invalidity shall not affect the other terms of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable.

10. Failure of City to insist on strict performance shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement or a waiver of any other default of Developer.

11. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Parties hereto.

12. The terms and conditions of this Agreement and any documents incorporated by reference represent the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement shall supersede any and all prior agreements, oral or written, regarding the subject matter between City and Developer. No other agreement, statement, or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement shall be valid or binding except by a written amendment to this Agreement.

13. All notices and other communications which are required or may be given under this Agreement or any Exhibits hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) when received if personally delivered; (ii) upon receipt if sent for next day delivery by recognized overnight delivery service (e.g., FedEx); (iii) upon receipt, if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested; and (iv) upon receipt, if the communication consists of a bill sent by email as permitted by Section 2 and the bill is also sent by regular mail as required by Section 2. In each case notice shall be sent to the respective Parties as follows:

4 To City: Hamid Mostowfi
Transportation Division Manager
City of Berkeley
1947 Center St., 4th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Email: [email protected]
To Developer: Berkeley Commons Owner, LLC
c/o Nick Menchel, Lane Partners, LLC
644 Menlo Avenue, Suite 204
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Email: [email protected]

With copy to: Todd A. Williams
Fennemore Wendel
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Email: [email protected]

14. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

An emailed or PDF or photocopy signature on this Agreement shall have the same legal effect as an original signature.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

Approved as to form: CITY OF BERKELEY
By:

Deputy City Attorney Name:

Title:
[Signatures continued on following page]

5 DEVELOPER
Berkeley Commons Owner, LLC, a California limited liability company By:

Name:

Its:

Approved as to form:
_______________________
Todd A. Williams
Fennemore Wendel
Attorneys for Developer

Exhibit A
Insurance and Bonding Requirements

1.1 Prior to the execution of any C&M Agreement between the City and UPRR, Developer shall furnish to City satisfactory proof that Developer or any contractor intended to perform any Project work has insurance in accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of this Agreement.

1.2 Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Developer or any of its contractors or subcontractors may be held responsible for payment of damages resulting from their operations.

1.3 If Developer or any contractor fails to maintain any required insurance, City may take out such insurance, and Developer agrees to reimburse City for any and all costs of obtaining such insurance.

2. Prior to the execution of any C&M Agreement between the City and UPRR, Developer shall furnish a Faithful Performance Bond in an amount not less than l10% of the cumulative sum of the Estimate, as such term is defined in each C&M Agreement subject to this Agreement, executed on the City of Berkeley Standard Performance Bond agreement form (See Exhibit B). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in said standard form, City agrees to instruct the surety to release the bond promptly upon the latest to occur of (i) completion of Project Railroad Improvements to the satisfaction of City, and (ii) payment by Developer of all actual or expected Railroad Costs other than costs associated with the SteelWave Improvements. City shall provide such instruction regardless of the status of the SteelWave Improvements and regardless of whether City and SteelWave may have entered into a separate agreement regarding such costs or improvements.

1 Exhibit B

SURETY BOND

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,
That we, __________________________________________________________, as Principal, and ___________________________________________________________, a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of ________________ and authorized to transact surety business in the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Berkeley (hereinafter called Obligee), in the sum of two million Dollars ($2,000,000.00), for the payment whereof well and truly to be made and we each of us bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION of the above obligation is such that:

Whereas, the above-named bounden Principal entered into an Agreement re Allocation of Costs for Railroad Crossing Improvements for Berkeley Commons (“Contract”) dated _________________, 2024 with the said Obligee to do and perform the following work, to-wit:

To coordinate with the Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”), the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), and Obligee to improve the safety of all travelers at the Addison Street and Bancroft Way at-grade railroad crossings near the Principal’s Project site, and to make all payments to UPRR and any associated parties which Obligee becomes obligated to make under certain Construction & Maintenance Agreements between UPRR and Obligee; which Contract is hereby referred to, incorporated by reference, and made a part hereof as fully and to the same extent as if copied at length herein.

NOW, THEREFORE. THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That if the above bounden Principal shall well and truly keep, do, pay and perform, each and every, all and singular, all the matters, provisions, undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, agreements and things in said Contract set forth and specified to be by the said Principal kept, done, paid and performed at the time and in the manner in said Contract specified, and shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the above-named Obligee, all loss and damages which said Obligee may sustain by reason of failure or default, or breach on the part of said Principal, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to be and remain in full force and effect.

Whenever Principal shall be, and is declared by Obligee to be in default under the Contract, the Obligee having performed Obligee’s obligations thereunder, the Surety may promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly complete the Contract in accordance with its terms, provisions, undertakings, covenants, agreements, clauses, and conditions
Any suit under this bond must be instituted before the expiration of two (2) years from the date on which final payment under the Contract falls due.

No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than the Obligee named herein or the heirs. executors, administrators or successors of Obligee.

2 If any action or law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this bond, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.

SIGNED AND SEALED THIS ___________ day of _________, 2024 ___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Principal
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Surety Attorney In Fact

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/

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Terrence Davis, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract No. 32500095 Amendment: B-Bros Construction Inc. for Temporary Stabilization of Stair Tower Windows at 2180 Milvia Street

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 32500095 with B-Bros Construction, Inc. to complete the window stabilization and add additional scope to remediate flaking paint and repaint interior perimeter walls at 2180 Milvia Street, increasing the current authorized not-to-exceed (NTE) contract amount of $400,000 by $947,671, for a total NTE amount of $1,347,671.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract amendment is available in the Capital Improvement Fund (501) in the Public Works budget. The overall project budget will increase by $947,671.

No other funding is required and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

Original Authorized Contract Amount (NTE). ..................... $400,000 This Amendment ................................................................ $947,671 Amended Contract Amount (NTE) $1,347,671
The additional funding is necessary since it will address staff concerns regarding the effects of occupying a building that contains lead-containing paint.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On or about August 28, 2024, Public Works staff was alerted to potential hazards caused by flaking paint at 2180 Milvia Street. A walk-through inspection was completed with Public Works’ Building Safety Staff, and an industrial hygienist on Thursday, September 4, 2024. Public Works then engaged Acumen Industrial Hygiene (Acumen), an industrial hygiene consulting firm specializing in health and safety services, to conduct lead and asbestos testing.

Acumen was contracted to sample the areas of concern on September 13, 2024. While not all samples tested positive for lead, several paint samples did test positive for lead, but were below the threshold to be considered lead-containing paint. Following this

16

Contract Amendment: B-Bros Construction Inc. for Temporary Stabilization CONSENT CALENDAR of Stair Tower Windows at 2180 Milvia Street October 29, 2024

result, Acumen took air samples on September 30, 2024. Lead was below detection limits in the samples, indicating the absence of aerosolized lead. Following these tests, Acumen developed a remediation work plan that complies with the most stringent CDPH, EPA, OSHA, Cal/OSHA safety standards.

Additionally, Public Works has contracted B-Bros Construction Inc. to furnish labor and materials in accordance with the City’s plans and specifications for necessary remediation of lead-containing paint at 2180 Milvia Street.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley Civic Center is an office building for City employees and a designated historic landmark. In July, Public Works worked through emergency design procedures with the Planning Department to install fencing and safety nets to secure and mitigate the hazard caused by deteriorated windows in the secondary egress stairwells. This allowed staff to continue their engineering investigation and determine the appropriate steps to repair this landmark building.

On September 24, 2024, City Council authorized execution of a contract and any amendments, extension and/or change orders until completion of the window stabilization project at 2180 Milvia Street with B-Bros Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed (NTE) $400,000 (Resolution No. 71,515-N.S.).

The work currently conducted by B-Bros on the secondary egress stairwells can be expanded within the existing contract to immediately address lead paint remediation requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Responsible remediation of lead-containing paint has long term health benefits for all staff and members of the public who may come into contact with the affected surfaces.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The occupants of 2180 Milvia Street have expressed concern over flaking paint on interior perimeter walls. The City needs to address these concerns so employees and the public can feel comfortable in the building. The City plans to remediate the affected areas such that it conforms to the highest California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) standards. Whenever there is a conflict or overlap of these agencies, the most stringent provision shall apply. The City does not have the in-house expertise to perform the remediation work.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
A new Request for Proposals would take substantially longer than expanding an existing contract and would continue to expose staff and the public to lead-containing

Contract Amendment: B-Bros Construction Inc. for Temporary Stabilization CONSENT CALENDAR of Stair Tower Windows at 2180 Milvia Street October 29, 2024

paint. By expanding the scope of the current B Bros’ contract, a fast and responsible remediation plan can move forward.

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Deputy Director, Public Works (510) 981-6396 Ronald Nevels, Manager of Engineering, Public Works (510) 980-6439 Elmar Kapfer, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works (510) 981-6435 Uriel Gonzalez, Assistant Public Works Engineer, Public Works (510) 981-6627 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 32500095 AMENDMENT: B-BROS CONSTRUCTION INC FOR TEMPORARY STABILIZATION OF STAIR TOWER WINDOWS AT 2180 MILVIA STREET
WHEREAS, on or about July 11, 2024, Public Works staff was alerted to potential hazards caused by windows in the secondary egress stairwells in 2180 Milvia Street; and WHEREAS, glass from the windows could fall outside the building; and WHEREAS, people and property outside the building could be at risk of being hit by it; and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized execution of a contract and any amendments, extension and/or change orders until completion of the window stabilization project at 2180 Milvia Street with B-Bros Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed (NTE) $400,000 (Resolution No. 71,515-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, on or about August 28, 2024, Public Works Staff was alerted to potential hazards caused by flaking paint within 2180 Milvia Street; and WHEREAS, on or about September 13, 2024, Public Works engaged the services of an industrial hygienist to test the affected areas for lead and asbestos, resulting in the discovery of lead-containing paint in several areas; and WHERAS, on or about September 30, 2024, the industrial hygienist collected air samples in affected areas for lead, the results of which were below detection limits indicating the absence of airborne lead; and
WHEREAS, the industrial hygienist developed a remediation work plan based on the sampling and testing results; and
WHEREAS, the lead-containing paint should be stabilized and the affected areas should be repainted per the remediation work plan;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32500095 with B- Bros Construction Inc. for the stabilization of the stair tower windows and to remediate flaking paint and repaint the interior perimeter walls at 2180 Milvia Street increasing the current NTE contract amount of $400,000 by $947,671, for a total NTE contract amount of $1,347,671.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Solano Avenue BID Advisory Board
Submitted by: Todd Andrew, Chair, Solano Avenue BID Advisory Board Subject: Renewal of the Solano Avenue BID for Calendar Year 2025

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Advisory Board’s (hereafter “Solano BID Advisory Board” or “the Advisory Board”) recommendation that Council: 1) approve the 2024 Annual Report and preliminary budget on proposed improvements in the District for calendar year 2025; 2) declare its intent to levy an assessment to finance improvements in the District for calendar year 2025; and 3) direct the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing on the renewal of the assessment for December 3, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Projected BID revenue of approximately $30,000 will be deposited into the Solano Avenue BID Fund, revenue budget code 783-21-208-251-0000-000-000-412110- and expensed from budget code 783-21-208-251-0000-000-446-636110. The BID constitutes an independent funding source that must be targeted to commercial revitalization efforts that are recommended by the Solano BID Advisory Board. To the extent that the work of the Solano BID enhances the economic development of Solano Avenue and its business climate over the long term, the BID contributes towards improving City revenues through increased sales and property taxes.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Renewal of the Solano BID is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to foster a dynamic, sustainable, and locally-based economy. Under the State of California Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989 (California Streets and Highways Code section 36500 et.seq.) the City Council must approve an Annual Report prepared by the Solano BID Advisory Board with a proposed budget for the next year as a requirement to levy new assessments. Accordingly, at its meeting of September 24, 2024, the Solano BID Advisory Board voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Report for the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District for 2024-25 and adopt a Resolution of Intention to renew the assessment 2025. The Resolution of Intention also sets a public hearing date for December 3, 2024 where affected Solano businesses can express support or opposition to renewal of the BID for calendar year 2025. If written and/or oral protests are received from businesses proposed to pay a

17

Renewal of the Solano Avenue BID for Calendar Year 2025 CONSENT CALENDAR October 29, 2024
majority of the assessment, Council cannot vote to levy assessments for 2025. If no majority protest is received the Council may renew the assessment.

BACKGROUND
Since its revival in May 2012, the Solano BID Advisory Board has used Solano BID revenues to finance three programs: 1) a tree watering contract to ensure the health of 48 young street trees on Solano; 2) installing a program of 40 hanging planter baskets on light poles; and 3) sponsorship of events that attract customers to the district and improvements that enhance the pedestrian experience. In recent years, the BID program has focused on sponsoring activities and improvements intended to market and promote the Solano Avenue business district. In the wintertime, the BID in conjunction with the Solano Avenue Association (which represents both Albany and Berkeley businesses along Solano Avenue) pays a contractor to erect holiday lights and decorations on City street light poles. This will continue for the upcoming winter season.

Due to expenditures in prior years, the Solano BID will use less of its funds on the holiday décor program, and, instead, explore expanded landscaping services to better maintain existing tree wells and water existing hanging flower baskets. BID expenditures are to be made through an established fiscal agency contract with Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation (Telegraph PBMC).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
By maintaining and enhancing the district, the Solano BID creates shopping opportunities for residents and visitors alike while encouraging alternative forms of transportation. The environmental enhancements such as the added street trees, hanging planters, parklet, and holiday decorations contribute to making Solano a more pleasant walking destination. Because the District is well served by public transportation and biking infrastructure, these services indirectly support environmental sustainability goals of encouraging alternative transportation modes to decrease carbon emissions.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
State law requires that the City Council annually renew the Solano BID by first passing a resolution stating Council's intention to levy an annual assessment and scheduling a public hearing on the proposed renewed assessment for the coming year.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Vincent McCoy, Secretary to the Solano BID Advisory Board, (510) 981-7043.

Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Report for the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District 2024 Exhibit A1: Map of the Solano BID
Exhibit A2: Assessment Rates

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

APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT AND PROPOSED BUDGET OF THE SOLANO AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2024-25; DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT IN THE DISTRICT FOR 2025; AND

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR DECEMBER 3, 2024 TO CONSIDER LEVYING A RENEWED ASSESSMENT FOR 2025.

WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highway Code section 36500 et seq.) authorizes cities to establish parking and business improvement areas for the purpose of imposing assessments on businesses for certain purposes; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2003 the Berkeley City Council established such an area known as the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the City Council established a Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Advisory Board (Advisory Board) to act in compliance with State law to oversee the activities of the District; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Board has submitted an Annual Report to the Berkeley City Council that outlines the activities of the District proposed for 2025 as required by the California Streets and Highways Code Section 36533; and WHEREAS, the Annual Report is clear and complete and found to comply with the interests of Solano Avenue assessees; and
WHEREAS, the annual process for levying assessments in Business Improvement Districts requires that cities adopt a Resolution of Intent that declares their intent to levy such an assessment and then set a date for a public hearing where interested parties may be heard on the issue.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Report 2024 and Budget for the year 2025 (Exhibit A) as submitted to the City Clerk by the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Advisory Board.

Section 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 36500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act"), the City Council declares its intent to levy an annual assessment for the parking and business improvement area known as the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District.

Section 3. The boundaries of the District are set forth in Exhibit A1 to the 2024-25 Annual Report which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4. The improvements and activities proposed for the District are as described in the Report and budget (Exhibit A) and appended hereto.

Council intends that these funds be used for designated activities and improvements in the Solano Avenue commercial area. Council explicitly intends that funds generated through this BID shall not be used to pay for activities routinely paid for by the City.

Section 5. The City Council intends to levy assessments on businesses located within the boundaries of the District shown Exhibit A1 and according to the business classifications and rates set forth in Exhibit A2 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 6. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council on December 3, 2024.

Following the hearing the Council will consider adoption of a resolution levying an assessment as recommended by the Solano Avenue Business Improvement Advisory Board. At this hearing the Council will hear all interested persons for or against the levying of such an assessment.

Formal protests against the levying of the District assessment must be made in writing.

All written and oral protests should contain the following certification: "I certify that I am the owner of the business listed below, and that the business is located or operates within the boundaries of the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District." Protests should also contain the following information: business name (printed), business address (printed), City Business License Tax Registration number, name of protester (printed), signature of protester, date of protest and the reason(s) the protester is against the levying of the District assessment. Protests will not be considered valid unless signed and submitted by the owner of a business located within the boundaries of the proposed District. Written protests shall be filed with the City Clerk, First Floor, City Hall, at 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, California, 94704, at or before 3 pm on December 3, 2024 and shall contain a description of the business sufficient to identify the business, and if the person so protesting is not listed on City records as the owner of the business, the protest shall be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscripting the protest is the owner of the business. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment proposed to be levied, no further proceedings to levy the assessment shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvements or activities within the District, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated.

Section 7. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of said public hearing by publishing the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation seven days prior to the public hearing.

Exhibits
A: Report for the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District 2024-25 A1: Map of the Solano BID
A2: Assessment Rates

Exhibit A
Report for the Solano Avenue Business Improvement District for 2024 and Budget for 2025
Background
The first version of the Solano Business Improvement District (BID) operated from 2002-2007, with administration of the BID headed by the Solano Avenue Association (SAA). In 2012, the Council appointed the Solano BID Advisory Board to administer the Solano Avenue BID, to fund physical improvements to the street and dedicate marketing and promotion efforts towards the businesses on the portion of Solano Avenue that lies in Berkeley. This Annual report and budget updates the most recent year of operational programs of the Solano BID.

Landscape Program
In 2013, the Solano BID financed a tree watering program for young street trees along upper Solano Avenue. In 2016, per the City of Berkeley arborist, the trees were mature enough to not require additional water services. In early 2016, the board voted to enhance Solano’s landscape by installing 41 hanging planter baskets on light poles distributed throughout the district, utilizing the Downtown Berkeley Association’s (DBA) services. The DBA watered and maintained the baskets though the end of calendar year 2018. From 2019 to 2021, rainwater alone supported the baskets, and in 2022 the Solano BID entered into a contract with The Peralta Services Corporation to supplement other efforts to clean, weed, and level the tree wells through the district, and to develop an ongoing watering and maintenance system for the hanging flower baskets. Peralta's services began in July of 2022 and, per Peralta, the latest contract is renewed on a quarterly basis with regularly scheduled landscaping in tree wells, including porous pavement on a weekly basis. Additional services have been considered and further options and changes will be discussed in the context of the 2025 Work Plan.

In 2020, funds were approved and a selection process was conducted for a revitalization & public realm plan study on Solano. The BID was supportive of the process and was deeply committed to involving both local merchants and local residents in the effort to re-imagine Solano Avenue in a way that brings more vitality to the Avenue in concert with the efforts of the City of Albany, with the intention of strengthening the Solano Avenue brand overall.

Marketing and Promotion of Solano
Marketing and promotion of Solano Avenue constitutes a second priority of the Solano BID. The commission has engaged with Solano Avenue Association for the purpose of increased marketing to member businesses, improved online presence, and higher visibility during events, minor and major, along Solano Avenue. Since 2018, the board approved funding for a new vendor under the direction of the SAA, with BID reimbursement to the SAA, which covered more poles and provided greater decoration coordination opportunities with neighboring Albany, all at a lower cost than previous seasons. The BID used the same vendor and process last season and plans to do the

same in the 2024-2025 season. This partnership underscores the leverage the BID obtains in working with the SAA to provide support for BID priorities for the Berkeley portion of Solano Avenue. In the remainder of 2024, the Advisory Board may again decide to participate in the development of holiday campaigns and activities (e.g., supporting the SAA in producing the ‘Santa on Solano’ event or similar).

The details of the 2025 Work Plan, to be developed over the remainder of the year include engaging with the City regarding traffic safety improvements, increased marketing of the Berkeley portion of Solano Avenue, and improvement programs to deploy merchant fees effectively and equitably.

Commissioner Recruitment
In the spirit of vibrant and effective service to the merchants of the Solano BID, the Advisory Board continues to recruit new board members. In June of 2024 the board increased from three to four members and ongoing recruitment is a focus for the remainder of 2024 and 2025. Merchant owners are often busy operating, and sometimes expanding, their businesses. The Advisory Board reminds merchants that they can assign a proxy, from inside or outside their organization, to represent them on the Board. City of Berkeley residence is not required for Board membership.

Solano BID Administration
The Solano BID has contracted with a fiscal agent, the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation (Telegraph PBMC), which charges a 5% fiscal agent fee on new BID revenue annually. For example, the anticipated new Solano BID revenue for 2025 is $30,000 so the fiscal agent fee is estimated to be $1,500.

FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE SOLANO BID, AUGUST 2024
Solano BID Balance, as of 8/31/2024 $40,681
Accounts Receivable - Remaining 2024 Carryover from City of Berkeley $13,582 Less fall and winter payments remaining for Solano Ave Assn Contract, for 2024-25 holiday-related events ($10,000)
Less payments for holiday decor installation, removal and storage, Nov ‘24 to Jan ‘25 ($2,875) Less fall and winter payments for Peralta Svcs Corp sidewalk/tree maintenance ($3,080) Allocated Expenditures ($15,955)
Unallocated as of 8/31/2024 $38,308
BUDGET FOR THE SOLANO BID FOR 2025 (Calendar Year)
Estimated new revenue 2025 $30,000
Carryover from 2024 (estimated) $38,308
Estimated SAA Events Payments ($20,000)
Estimated Holiday Decorations Payments ($6,000)
Estimated Peralta Svcs Corp sidewalk/tree maintenance ($6,500) Less fiscal agent fee to Telegraph PBMC (5%) - of estimated new revenue ($1,500) Total additional available for expenditure in 2025 $34,308

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Advisory Board recommends that Council:
 Approve the 2024 Annual Report and 2025 Budget.
 Make no changes in the boundaries of the Solano Business Improvement District or in the two Benefit Zones, A & B, as shown in Exhibit A1.  Make no changes in the method and basis for merchant assessments, as shown in Exhibit A2.
 Carry over to 2025 the estimated surplus revenues from 2024, as stated in the 2025 Budget.

Exhibit A1
SOLANO
Business
Improvement
District

October 10, 2023
Exhibit A2
Berkeley Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Formula Annual
Assessments
Type of Business Zone A Zone B
a. Retailers and
Restaurants
1-5 employees $200 $125
6-9 employees $300 $175
10+ employees $400 $225
b. Service
Businesses
$175 $100
c. Professional
Services
$100 $65
d. Financial
Institutions
$500 $500
SOLANO
Business
Improvement
District

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29th, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: 2024-2025 Budget Request: Funding for Speed Bump at Russell and Martin Luther King Jr. Way

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council refers the November AAO#1 Budget Process $7,000 to fund the speed bump installation on Russell Street at King Street or other costs associated with the traffic calming method that City Staff sees fit.

CURRENT SITUATION
On May 21st, 2024 Regular Council Meeting, an item was passed approving the Speed Bump Installation on Russell St at King Street (South Berkeley) to improve the public space to increase safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and people living with disabilities, while also meeting the needs of public transit and emergency vehicles.

BACKGROUND:

The intersection at Russell St. and King St. located within District 3, is a regularly crossed street by pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. Both Russell Street and King Street are “Bicycle Boulevards”, and are the main routes as parents/children go to Malcolm X Elementary School, Sylvia Mendez Elementary School, Emerson Elementary School, and Willard Middle School. Right at its corner, Grove Park and the Tarea H. Pittman Berkeley Public Library (South Branch) are walking-distance away, as well as other service centers in the community. Commuters park in the neighborhood, and walk or bike to Ashby BART.

Neighborhood residents walk to the retail hubs with Walgreens and Berkeley Bowl. There are home-based daycares and preschools on the same block in question. Community members have expressed a shared interest in maintaining the safety and accessibility of this crucial intersection. While it serves as a hub for community activities and services, there is a growing awareness of safety concerns for all road users. While the Speed Bump Installation on Russell St at King Street (South Berkeley) item was previously passed, City Staff asked our office to write an additional item for a budget request in order to get the speed bump installed. Further, discussions with staff have revealed there are two additional traffic calming requests and an ultimate improvement of a traffic circle contemplated for the area long term via the Bike Plan. This speed bump would serve an immediate traffic calming need identified by neighbors and staff at this intersection until the long term plan is executed.

18

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29th, 2024

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
Video Links:

1. Public YouTube Channel - Over 50 videos demonstrating traffic violations at the intersection.

2. Silver Minivan Ignoring Stop Sign - A recent upload showing a silver minivan blasting through the intersection.

3. SUV Scaring Cyclist - Video of an SUV frightening a cyclist.

4. Cyclist Halting Due to Overtaking Car - A cyclist freezing to a halt upon hearing a car engine accelerating.

5. Nighttime Violations:
○ SUV at 9:26 PM
○ SUV at 9:28 PM
○ Clip at Dawn

6. Near-Miss Incident - A minivan almost hitting a cyclist.

7. Family Escaping Potential Collision - Red car blasting through the intersection.

8. Blue Sports Car Ignoring Stop Sign (January 2024)

9. Garbage Trucks Ignoring Stop Sign (January 31, 2024):
○ Video 1
○ Video 2
Comments and Anecdotes from Neighbors

1. PG&E Workers' Account - Daily observation of drivers ignoring stop signs; anecdotally, around 8 drivers per day were observed blasting through without stopping.

2. Witness Comment #1 (Jessica and Tao, 1703 Russell Street):
"Daily observation of cars neglecting the stop sign and speeding down Russell Street."

3. Witness Comment #2 (Cindi Augsjoost, 2906 King St):
"Close call with a car while crossing Russell. Observes daily violations of stop signs by cars. Requests speed bumps for safety."

4. Witness Comment #3 (Balark):
"Supports the installation of speed bumps due to frequent traffic violations at the intersection."

5. Witness Comment #4 (Sudhir, 2901 King Street):
"Daily observation of cars speeding through stop signs at all times of the day, impacting safety for all residents."

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29th, 2024

6. City Council Meeting Anecdote - Mayor Jesse Arreguín recounts his personal near-miss while cycling through the intersection, echoing community concerns.

Documents and Reference Links:

1. Request for Traffic Calming Study (Jessica Liu, 11/2022)

2. Neighbor Comment/Testimony (Cindi Augsjoost, 11/2023)

3. Correspondence with Public Works (Jessica Liu, 11/2023)

4. Neighbor Comment/Testimony (Sudhir Manandhar, 11/2023)

5. Correspondence with Public Works (Loa Ortiz, 11/2023)

6. Correspondence with Public Works (Jessica Liu, 12/2023)

7. Correspondence with Police Department (Sutapa Mallik, 12/2023) Additional Reference Links:

1. City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan (2017) - Traffic circle recommendation at Russell St/King St intersection

2. News Articles About South Berkeley Hit and Run:
○ Kron4
○ Berkeleyside
○ NBC Bay Area

3. Original Petition for Traffic Safety Measures

4. News Article on Funding for Road Safety Improvements

ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The neighbors would also be amenable to whatever calming device City Staff sees fit such
as a traffic circle or other effective and permanent traffic calming solution.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time and cost associated with the installation of a speed bump ($7,000) or other effective traffic calming measure (For example $30,000 to fund traffic circle) ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

The proposed traffic calming measures are expected to have no adverse environmental effects. Reducing vehicle speeds and enhancing pedestrian and cyclist safety contributes to a safer and more sustainable urban environment.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION:

The implementation of a speed bump at the intersection of Russell St. and King St would reduce consistent vehicle-related violations along the intersection.

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29th, 2024

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected] Tina R. Posner [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: FY25 Budget Request: Funding for Replacement of Six Existing Wrought Iron Barriers for South Adeline Circular Planters

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council refer $50,000 to the FY25 AAO1 budget process for the replacement of the existing six wrought iron barriers that protect the circular planters on South Adeline Street in District 3, as requested by community members and identified by city staff. These new artistic barriers will match the ones on Shattuck Avenue in the downtown area, create new seating opportunities, enhance the aesthetic appeal and foster a more positive community atmosphere.

CURRENT SITUATION
The current planters on South Adeline are surrounded by wrought iron that obstructs seating and creates a negative visual and social atmosphere for the community. This need for replacement was identified by south berkeley neighborhood groups and city staff who have sought help from this office in order to move this forward. Originally, it was thought the city would authorize this payment, but were advised that, in order for this to move forward, this needs to be part of the budget process.

BACKGROUND:

South Berkeley, particularly the Adeline Corridor, has long been a vital yet underserved part of the city. Historically, this area has faced systemic underinvestment in infrastructure and public spaces, which has contributed to a lack of amenities and slower economic growth compared to other parts of Berkeley. South Berkeley, home to a diverse community, including many low-income residents and people of color, has been a focal point for grassroots efforts aimed at revitalization and equitable investment.

In recent years, the city has made efforts to address some of these historical inequities, including improvements to streets and public spaces. However, much work remains to be done to create a welcoming and safe environment that meets the needs of the local community. The South Adeline planters represent one such opportunity for improvement.

The current state of the planters, surrounded by obstructive wiring, detracts from the area’s potential as a community space. Community members and city staff have identified the need for upgrades, specifically the replacement of the current wiring with decorative rod iron, to enhance both the functionality and aesthetics of these public spaces.

Investing in these small but meaningful improvements is part of a broader commitment to

19

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
addressing the legacy of neglect in South Berkeley and ensuring that all residents have access to safe, beautiful, and functional public areas that promote community engagement.

Community members and city staff brought the issue of obstructed seating and poor visual appeal surrounding the South Adeline planters to the attention of the Councilmember's office.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
This request aligns with broader city goals of enhancing public spaces and creating welcoming community environments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time and cost associated with the installation of the wiring ($50,000) ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

This project supports the city’s commitment to creating sustainable and enjoyable public spaces by improving the functionality of existing infrastructure.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION:

The replacement of the current wiring with decorative rod iron will enhance the usability of the planters as seating areas, improve the aesthetic appeal of the public space, and create a more welcoming environment for residents and visitors. This improvement aligns with the city’s goals of fostering community engagement through well-maintained and attractive public spaces.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected] Tina R. Posner [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]

Susan Wengraf
Vice Mayor and Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Wengraf (Author)
Subject: “Your Rose Garden”: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $500 from Vice Mayor Susan Wengraf to the Living New Deal, earmarked for the completion of the short film, “Your Rose Garden,” with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Vice Mayor Wengraf and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact: up to $500 is available from contributing Councilmember’s Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Your Rose Garden is a short musical film that celebrates the City of Berkeley Rose Garden, built by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s. The film commemorates its history and continual use as a beautiful and vibrant public community space almost a hundred years after its construction. Berkeley’s Rose Garden is part of a complex tapestry of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects across the nation, whose construction helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression. This film will be an important part of a larger project on other WPA projects.

The film’s soundtrack is a song written by Berkeley native, Alexis Harte, based on his personal enjoyment and observation of activities at the Rose Garden. “I'm a Berkeley native and, like my kids, I grew up playing in its creeks and parks. I've been to birthdays, keggers, graduations, weddings, and memorials at the Rose Garden. This song is my tribute to the place, and more broadly to the New Deal-era Works Progress Administration (WPA) that built this and so many other gems.” Hear the song

20

“Your Rose Garden”: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds CONSENT CALENDAR October 29, 2024

The Living New Deal, a California nonprofit, is the fiscal sponsor of the film. Your Rose Garden has received a UC Berkeley Chancellor’s grant of $8,000 and many private donations. Contributions from Berkeley City Council discretionary accounts will help to achieve the final budget goal for completion of $29,000.

The community is invited to share photos, videos and anecdotes with the filmmakers for possible inclusion in the film.

For further information: https://www.yourrosegarden.com/

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with adopting this recommendation.

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Susan Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO SUPPORT “YOUR ROSE GARDEN”
WHEREAS, Your Rose Garden is a short musical film that celebrates the City of Berkeley Rose Garden, built by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s; and WHEREAS, the film commemorates the Rose Garden’s history and continual use as a beautiful and vibrant public community space almost a hundred years after its construction; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Wengraf has surplus funds in her office expenditure account and will contribute $500, and invites the Mayor and other Councilmembers to join her in contributing; and
WHEREAS, a California nonprofit tax-exempt corporation, The Living New Deal, serves as the fiscal sponsor of “Your Rose Garden” and will receive funds in an amount up to $500 per contributing Councilmember’s discretionary accounts; and WHEREAS, the provision of such services would support the completion of the short film celebrating the glorious Berkeley Rose Garden.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget, up to $500 per office, shall be granted to The Living New Deal, earmarked for the completion of “Your Rose Garden.”

Commission on Aging
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/

ACTION CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Commission on Aging
Submitted by: Margot Smith, Chair, Commission on Aging
Subject: Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager steps to revisit and act on the recommendations of the Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan by building on what is already occurring in the community, expanding the Plan’s impact, and addressing gaps by increasing funding for personnel and other services currently being offered, as well as others identified in the Age-Friendly Plan.

While recommendations are too numerous to list here, the Aging Commission identified as first steps four (4) priority areas and goals for the Action Plan:

1. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Develop a continuum of affordable, accessible housing options for older adults to age in their community regardless of their health or financial status.

2. TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY: Advance a network of public and private transportation (including transit, assistive devices, e-bikes and e-scooters and bicycling and walking) that equitably serves residents and connects them to services, social activities, and employment opportunities.

3. HEALTH AND WELLNESS: Develop a more integrated system of services and supports that is person-centered and ensures that all residents have the opportunity to engage in health promoting activities.

4. SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: Enhance neighborhood cohesion and social connectedness of all Berkeley residents with community events and activities that are inclusive, affordable, and accessible.

In the short term, the Commission recommends that these plans should include a budget referral to the City Manager for consideration in the biennial budget process.

21a

Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On September 17, 2024, the Budget & Finance Committee adopted the following action:

M/S/C (Arreguin/Hahn) to refer the item from the Commission and the City Manager Companion Report item to the City Council with a qualified positive recommendation to consider sending both items to the City Manager for evaluation of the age-friendly action plan and the provision of recommendations. Vote: All Ayes.

These plans should at a minimum take into account and address the following:

1. It is important that we continue to track Berkeley’s aging population (the original plan was based on earlier data that should be re-evaluated based on the 2020 United States Census, and later American Community Surveys). Berkeley must consider how to increase funding for aging services while our population continues to age (See Attachment 9 Highlights of Census Data on Aging in Berkeley). Also compare the rate of expenditure on services for this population in the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services to the overall size of the City’s budget during the same period and to its growth or lack of growth in relation to the growth in the aging population (See Attachment 2 City Departmental Budgets; Attachment 3 HHCS Departmental Summary; Attachment 4 HHCS Division Summary and Attachment 9 Highlights of Census Data on Aging in Berkeley).

2. An examination and evaluation of staffing challenges and key needs in the Division of Aging Services as shown in the agency budget line items and staffing levels, as well as Berkeley’s unique way of structuring aging services under the mantle of the Health, Housing and Community Services (one of only three cities in the state to do so), rather than the way most cities do, which is to put it under Parks and Recreation (See Attachment 5 Berkeley’s Unique Structure for Aging Services).

There is an immediate need to expand the division from its current level of 21 full-time, and 5 part-time, career positions and 15 hourly positions by making 2 of the part-time positions full-time and adding 1 part-time, bringing the total to 23 full-time and 4 part-time. (The hourly workers assist with many of the face-to-face services offered at the two senior centers, including lunch service, front desk operations, Meals on Wheels deliveries, and facility rentals on nights and weekends. They supplement the work of 5 permanent staff, only 1 of whom is full-time; the Meals on Wheels program currently has no full-time program manager or case manager; they are currently 80% and 75% respectively. The program also needs another full-time senior center staff person; currently it is budgeted for a 50% position, but that is vacant; in order to fulfill the responsibilities of the position and to attract qualified candidates, this position, ideally, would be 100% and permanent.)

Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024

3. The dire need for increased outreach. Berkeley residents over 60 currently number approximately 20,000– or 1 in 5 residents. This number doubled in the decade from 2010 to 2020 and is projected to increase at a similar rate well into the future. Given this explosive growth, it is important that all Berkeley households and residences are made aware of the breadth of services available to individuals, their families, and their caregivers. At this time only a very small fraction of those over 60 years of age are receiving materials from the Berkeley Senior Centers and the Division of Aging Services, due to staff and budgetary shortages that have made it difficult to upgrade outreach: for instance, the main communication is via a print newsletter that is mailed to several hundred people, with no way of tracking whether it has been received. We recommend that the City invest in outreach to this growing demographic group.

This could include:
 a city-wide mailing, similar to the citywide mailings by the City Parks and Recreation Department about activities,
 updating and keeping relevant websites current,
 investing in collecting email addresses and disseminating information by email,
 reaching out to civic institutions and groups to seek their help with outreach to the aging community and their families.

SUMMARY
The Commission on Aging recommends that City Council refer to the City Manager steps to revisit and act on the recommendations of the Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan by building on what is already occurring in the community, expanding the Plan’s impact, and addressing gaps by increasing funding for personnel and other services currently being offered, as well as others identified in the Age-Friendly Plan.

The Aging Commission identified as first steps four (4) priority areas and goals for the Action Plan:

1. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Develop a continuum of affordable, accessible housing options for older adults to age in their community regardless of their health or financial status.

2. TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY: Advance a network of public and private transportation (including transit, assistive devices, e-bikes and e-scooters and bicycling and walking) that equitably serves residents and connects them to services, social activities, and employment opportunities.

3. HEALTH AND WELLNESS: Develop a more integrated system of services and supports that is person-centered and ensures that all residents have the opportunity to engage in health promoting activities.

Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024

4. SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: Enhance neighborhood cohesion and social connectedness of all Berkeley residents with community events and activities that are inclusive, affordable, and accessible.

The Commission recommends that these plans should include a budget referral to the City Manager for consideration in the biennial budget process.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Increased General Fund for to meet staffing needs of the Aging Services Division due to increased community need.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In December 2018, the Mayor presented the Age-Friendly Berkeley Action Plan. This three-year plan was the result of two years of extensive outreach and engagement. It sought to ensure that older adults remain at the heart of our community and recognized them as a vital part of the fabric of our neighborhoods and civic life.

Among the motivations for the plan was the recognition of our city’s rapidly changing demographics: at the time it was written–2017–it projected that by 2030 over 1 in 5 people in Berkeley would be over 65 years of age. (For the purposes of the City of Berkeley’s Aging Services programs, the generally accepted age cut-off for determining that someone is a senior is 60 and above. That is the figure used in the rest of this report.) The number of older Berkeley residents was expected to double from 2018, when the plan was finalized. Those numbers have since been validated and expanded on by the 2020 Census and subsequent American Community Surveys. Berkeley residents over 60 currently number approximately 20,000–or 1 in 5 residents. This number doubled in the decade from 2010 to 2020 and is projected to increase at a similar rate well into the future. On behalf of the Commission on Aging, we would call on the Mayor, City Council and all agencies to consider how our aging city should ensure that residents 60 and older can remain a vital and active part of our community. (See Attachment 10 Understanding California's Middle-Income Older Adult Population and Attachment 11 Percent of Households with Seniors Age 65+, 2000 & 2021) We would be remiss if we didn’t seek to build on the investment that the city made in the Age-Friendly Berkeley Report, and allowed the Action Plan to languish. We call on our city’s leadership to consider how we move forward and implement the many recommendations in the plan.

The issues of concern identified in the report–high cost of living, lack of affordable housing, limited reliability, coordination, and options for transportation, problems with sidewalks, poor lighting, lack of benches and limited parking, crime, widespread homelessness, insufficient number of affordable, desirable settings for out-of-home assisted living, limited options for subsidized services for moderate-income individuals,

Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024

and lack of “human touch” for information, referral and system navigation assistance– are recognizable to many of us who live in Berkeley, and we need to ask ourselves whether we have made progress in addressing these issues.

BACKGROUND
At a regular Commission meeting on February 21, 2024, the Commission on Aging voted as follows:

Approve Council report that recommends Council refer to the City Manager steps to develop plans to revisit and act on the recommendations in the Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan by building on what is already occurring in the community, expanding the Plan’s impact, and addressing gaps, by increasing funding for personnel and other services currently being offered as well as others identified in the Age-Friendly Plan.

M/S/C: Chisholm, Cochran, Collins, Evans, Lavault, Orrick, Porter, Smith, Yamaguchi Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In December 2018, the Mayor presented the Age-Friendly Berkeley Action Plan. This three-year plan was the result of two years of extensive outreach and engagement. It sought to ensure that older adults remain at the heart of our community and recognized them as a vital part of the fabric of our neighborhoods and civic life.

Among the motivations for the plan was the recognition of our city’s rapidly changing demographics: Berkeley residents over 60 currently number approximately 20,000–or 1 in 5 residents. This number doubled in the decade from 2010 to 2020 and is projected to increase at a similar rate well into the future. On behalf of the Commission on Aging, we would call on. We have identified a handful of small steps in increasing staffing and spending, but these are only the start of this long march toward fulfilling what was promised in the 2018 Plan.

We would be remiss if we didn’t seek to build on the investment that the city made in the Age-Friendly Berkeley Report, and allowed the Action Plan to languish. We call on our city’s leadership to consider how we move forward and implement the many recommendations in the plan.

Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
To leave the situation as is would not provide needed services in support of Berkeley’s rapidly expanding over-60 population and fall short of the commitment it made when applying for and being awarded the designation of an Age-Friendly City in 2018.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager refers to the budget process, the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report. See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON
Darlene Bronson, Commission Secretary, HHCS, 510-981-5194 Attachments:

Attachment 1 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan
Attachment 2 City Departmental Budgets
Attachment 3 HHCS Departmental Summary
Attachment 4 HHCS Division Summary
Attachment 5 Berkeley’s Unique Structure for Aging Services & Division Activities Summary
Attachment 6 Aging in Alameda County: A Changing Landscape July 2022 Attachment 7 Breakdown of Alameda Area on Aging Funds for Berkeley Attachment 8 Highlights of Census Data on Aging in Berkeley Attachment 9 Understanding California's Middle-Income Older Adult Population Attachment 10 Percent of Households with Seniors Age 65+, 2000 & 2021

1 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Berkeley, California • December 2018
Age-Friendly
Berkeley
Action Plan

3 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
O
n behalf of Berkeley, California and its residents, I am proud to present this three-year Age-Friendly Berkeley Action Plan. This roadmap, developed by residents, community
organizations, and the city, demonstrates our commitment to a livable community where all generations are included and are able to thrive.

Older adults are at the heart of our community and a vital part of the fabric of our neighborhoods and civic life. Rapidly changing demographics drive the timing of this effort, with the number of residents 65 and older expected to more than double by 2030 to over 1 in 5 people in the city
In 2016 under former Mayor Tom Bates, Berkeley was accepted into the World Health Organization and AARP’s network of Age-Friendly Communities, which now includes over 300 US cities and 37 countries. This Action Plan addresses several areas identified by the World Health Organization as key to ensuring an aging-friendly environment.

Planning was driven by the community through surveys, focus groups and discussions with community non profits and city departments. Three objectives emerged from this work that inform the recommendations. The action plan is designed to:
• Enable people to remain in their homes and communities as they navigate the transitions of aging
• Maintain and enhance the ethnic and economic diversity of Berkeley • Ensure that people of all ages and abilities can enjoy the social and cultural assets Berkeley has to offer.

We look forward to forming broad partnerships across all sectors of our community including residents, nonprofit organizations, business leaders, faith communities and others as we move forward with these recommendations. Because services and supports cross city and regional boundaries, we will continue to work with neighboring cities and counties to address common goals.

Berkeley is uniquely positioned to address the needs of our rapidly growing older adult population and maximize the benefits of creating a more inclusive, equitable and accessible city. An extensive 2 year planning process has engaged residents, city officials and staff, nonprofits and community partners. Continued collaboration will be vital as we move forward with our next steps.

Age-Friendly communities benefit all of us and this Action Plan is part of an evolving community process for generations to come. For questions or additional information see agefriendlyberkeley.org or contact Aging Services at (510) 981-5200.

Jesse Arreguin
Mayor, City of Berkeley
Mayor’s Letter

6 The Age-Friendly Communities movement fo-
cuses largely on collaborations with city and county
governments to anticipate the wants and needs of
their older populations, as well as on the growing
demand for and cost of medical and social services.

With Berkeley anticipating a doubling of its older
adult population and with the support of former May-
or Tom Bates in 2016, the City of Berkeley complet-
ed an initial assessment, applied to and was accept-
ed into the World Health Organization (WHO) and
AARP’s Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and
Communities.

Needs Assessment
Thus began a needs assessment and a 2- year process
using the WHO framework to support Age-Friendly
planning. The needs assessment included a review of
related research and plans from other cities, a survey
of over 1400 Berkeley seniors, 5 focus groups, and
interviews with 18 city staff and numerous community
partners. The findings are summarized in Appendix
B and indicate that the needs of older adults in
Berkeley are representative of findings across
international, national and local studies and surveys.

The community responses indicate that residents
appreciate the service/activity rich environment of
Berkeley, as well its walkability and its diverse people.

Strikingly, residents’ feelings on whether Berkeley is
a good place to age varied significantly depending
on income. Those earning less than $32,000 annually
were more than twice as likely to rate Berkeley poorly
when compared to top earners.

Background and Context
T
he population of older adults in Berkeley will
double in the next 10 years, resulting in 1 in 5
adults being over 65 years of age. According
to a study by AARP and the Age-Friendly Berkeley
community survey, the vast majority of older adults
want to age in their homes and communities.
1 With
this shift in demographics and the desire of people
to stay and thrive in their communities, policy mak-
ers need to look at how our neighborhoods are de-
signed, including the affordability of places to live,
the inclusivity of social activities, the accessibility of infrastructure, and the availability of jobs for older
people. This Action Plan builds on the work of the
World Health Organization’s (WHO) Age-Friendly
Cities and Communities Initiative, launched in 2005
in partnership with AARP in the United States. This
network has expanded to over 37 countries around
the world and to over 300 cities in the United States.

The Age-Friendly Berkeley initiative helps prepare
Berkeley for its rapidly aging population by gathering
input from the community and pulling together public
and private leaders, resources, ideas, and strategies
to address the issues raised. Age-Friendly Berkeley
is a collective effort whose goal is to ensure that
all Berkeley residents are connected, healthy, and
engaged in their environments. Planning for Age-
Friendly Berkeley was guided by a Leadership Team
of individuals and organization representatives who
have been key voices in community conversations
about aging. It has members from the city, the health
sector, and the nonprofit sector (See Appendix A) who
worked together to ensure that the recommendations
are relevant and feasible.
1 AARP , 2012 and Age-Friendly Community Survey 2018
Executive Summary
Rating of Berkeley as a place to age by income group
% Respondents
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 <$16K $16K–$32K $32K– ]$60K $60K–$90K >$90K
Excellent/Good Okay Not so good

AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY

7 Approach
Several themes cut across the plan’s
recommendations and actions. These
include the need to:
• create complete neighborhoods
that have a mix of housing types and
land uses, affordable housing and
transportation options, and access
to healthy foods, schools, retail,
employment, community services, parks
and recreation options
• foster ongoing collaborations
within large organizations, such as
municipal entities, and across sectors
and community organizations, as these
are key to implementing policy and
programs
• leverage existing resources to
support, expand and coordinate a
system of services and supports for
aging in community
• capture emergent opportunities and
leverage innovations in both technology
and care/service delivery to support
community-based living
• strengthen intergenerational
relationships because while programs
abound, they are mostly age-specific
• work with other regional jurisdictions
and Age-Friendly cities to address
overlapping issues and services and to
find solutions to common challenges.

Common issues raised by community responses
included:
• The high cost of living
• Lack of affordable housing, including affordable
home modification and in-home supports
• Limited reliability, coordination, and options of
transportation
• Problems with sidewalks, poor lighting, lack of
benches, and limited parking
• Crime
• Widespread homelessness
• Insufficient number of affordable, desirable
settings for out-of-home assisted living
• Limited options for subsidized services for
moderate income individuals
• Lack of “human touch” for information, referral
and system navigation assistance.

The Age-Friendly planning process also leveraged
and incorporated community feedback gathered as
part of the city’s strategic planning process and the
2018 Health Status Report. The City’s strategic plan-
ning process includes a focus on affordable housing,
improving ADA compatibility, investing in infrastruc-
ture and improving access to information. The Health
Status Report found many strengths in Berkeley re-
lated to life expectancy, but troubling disparities for African Americans and other people of color. This
Age-Friendly Plan is presented as a complementary,
consistent and collaborative set of recommendations
focused on creating a city that is inclusive, equitable, and accessible for people of all ages.

Executive Summary
“Housing is not affordable.“
“It is a lively city with active people.”
“Does not have a welcoming
downtown.”
survey comments of berkeley seniors

AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY

8 Implementation of the 3-year Action Plan
The prime objective of the Age-Friendly planning process was to develop a 3-year action plan to serve as a road map for collective action. Activities below are paced from Year 1 through Years 2-3, including evaluation and recommendations for continued improvement.

Years 2-3
• Clarify desired outcomes and implement Year
2-3 recommendations
• Monitor progress and evaluate results using a
Results Based Accountability framework
• Use the dashboard on the Age-Friendly
website to track progress
• Integrate focus on aging into ongoing
operations and partnerships
• Report back to the community on the status
of all recommendations and begin to assess
the next steps.

Year 1
• Designate Health, Housing and Community
Services as the lead city department and
the Aging Services division as the backbone
agency to coordinate the initiatives
• Form a leadership team from relevant sectors
of the community to work with the city
• Solidify action teams for the priority areas;
prioritize recommendations
• Finalize budget and Identify funding
opportunities
• Develop shared metrics and begin data
collection
• Implement internal and external
communication plans, set up a dashboard on
the Age-Friendly website
• Catalogue and track efforts already in
development.

Recommendations
The recommendations in this Action Plan are designed to build on what is already occurring in the community, improve impact, and address gaps. While recommendations are too numerous to list in the executive summary (see Appendix B), the leadership team reviewed local results using the 8 domains in the WHO framework and identified 4 priority areas and goals for the Action Plan:
2 HOUSING AND ECONOMIC SECURITY:

Develop a continuum of affordable, accessible housing options for older adults to age in their community regardless of their health or financial status.

TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY:

Advance a network of public and private transportation that equitably serves residents and connects them to services, social activities, and employment opportunities.

HEALTH AND WELLNESS:

Develop a more integrated system of services and supports that is person-centered and ensures that all residents have the opportunity to engage in health promoting activities.

SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT:

Enhance neighborhood cohesion and social connectedness of all Berkeley residents with community events and activities that are inclusive, affordable, and accessible. 2 Detailed information for all 8 domains is included in Appendix B where each domain includes relevant resources, current efforts that are in process, survey results and information from focus groups, GIS maps, and information from the 2016 Alameda County Plan for Older Adults and the Berkeley Age-Friendly Continuum needs assessment.

AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY

9 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
and West Berkeley. The mortality rate for African
Americans remains twice as high as the mortality rate
of Whites. Berkeley has the highest per capita rate of
homelessness in Alameda County.
6 Low and moderate
income individuals are finding it difficult to afford to
live and work here and there is an increasing divide
between income levels. Estimates in 2014 indicated
that 23% of those 60+ in Berkeley were living under
200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
7 Significant policy
changes are needed locally and regionally as Berkeley
continues to tackle these challenges.

Berkeley has a number of assets to support an
active, healthy and engaged community. Berkeley is
one of three cities in the state of California with its own Public Health Jurisdiction. This distinction enables
public health services and initiatives to be focused
on and dedicated to a discrete population. Berkeley
is also home to a number of educational institutions,
including the University of California, Berkeley campus, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley
City College, and the Graduate Theological Union.

These institutions enhance Berkeley’s reputation
as an intellectual mecca and are also an economic
engine for the City. Thirty percent of local jobs are in education.
8 Berkeley’s international reputation plus
its active arts and culture scene and a dynamic social
center contribute to making it a magnet for inventive
people, an incubator for business start-ups, and a
science and technology hub.

B
erkeley is located on the east shore of the San
Francisco Bay in northern Alameda County,
California. The current population is estimated
to be 117,385.
3 Berkeley was recently named one of
the most livable cities in America based on AARP’s
Livability Index. Health, Transportation/ Walkability,
and access to activities, work and play are among the
assets identified in Berkeley.

Cost of living and cost of housing present some
of the greatest barriers to livability. Median home sale prices remain dramatically higher than the rest of the
nation, now at $1,200,000,
4 fueled by spillover from the
San Francisco housing shortage, a local tech boom,
and population growth. Local parcel taxes, approved
by voters to support important local programs like the
public schools, are generous but add to pressures on
low and moderate income homeowners and renters.

The high cost of living in the Bay Area was raised as
a major challenge by older adults in all surveys and
focus groups.

Historically, Berkeley has been a city of unexpected
diversity and activity in social policy, such as fair
housing legislation, voluntary school desegregation,
and the independent living movement. However,
current challenges threaten the economic and cultural
diversity that make Berkeley a vibrant city. Recent
gentrification has contributed to a 37% decline in
the African American population,
5 especially in some
historically African American neighborhoods in South
Community Profile
3 Population number from the(the City of Berkeley based on projections from the 2010 census 4 Median housing price based on information from Zillow. 5 Summary of Our Beloved Community Proposal: Alameda County Anti-Displacement Funding Policy Plan, January 6, 2017 (unpublished), The Dellums Institute using census analysis 2010-2015.
6 City of Berkeley Health Status Report, 2018
7 American Community Survey 2010-2014, US Census Bureau 8 From the City of Berkeley’s Economic Profile.

Nancy Rubin

10 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
65+ 65+

CITY DEMOGRAPHICS
2,365
2,339
3,285
7,200
8,424
7,072
5,188
4,488
3,057
3,544
1,300
2,011
3,300
1,952
2,486
1,187
531
452
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years +
Male
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years +
Female
2,641
1,856
1,828
7,202
10,712
6,108
4,231
3,532
2,903
2,693
3,159
3,114
2,931
3,903
2,799
1,036
658
847
Gender & Age
From American Community Survey 2016 5-year estimates T able S0101 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
High School Graduate College Graduate
Education of Population 65+
Percent

95.2%
72%
From American Community Survey 2017
1-year estimate T able S1501
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
male female
Adults Over 65 Living Alone
691
3,119
From American Community Survey 2017
1-year estimate T able B09020
Race &  Ethnicity
White: 55.9%
African American: 8.4%
American Indian
or Alaska
Native: 0.3%
Asian: 19.6%
Two or more: 4.8%
Latino: 11.4%
Race & Ethnicity data from:

American Community Survey
2011-2015 5-year estimates
T able B03002
Other: 0.3%
City Demographics
Community Profile

11 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Many older adults live in
the Berkeley hills in the
north eastern part of the
city.
9 These raw estimates
are of people over
age 60 living in each
block group. Some
blocks near the center
of the city have high
numbers because of
the location of high-
density affordable senior
apartments.

The high concentration
of older adults living in
the hills becomes even
more apparent when
looking at the percent
of people over age 60
compared to the total
population living in each
block group.
9 Data are from the 2017 American
Community Survey 5-year
estimates table B01001 and were
mapped using ArcGIS 10.5.1
Where do older adults live?
Community Profile

12 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
ing the affordability of places to live, the inclusivity of social activities, the accessibility of infrastructure, the safety of our public spaces and improving communi-
cation and access to information are activities that will make Berkeley a better place to grow up and grow
old. Addressing the needs of our older population
benefits people of all ages.

To realize this vision, the Age-Friendly Berkeley
initiative pulls together public and private leadership, resources, ideas, and strategies; it builds on infor-
mation gleaned from the community. The leadership
team for this project has local residents and members
from the city, the health sector, and the nonprofit
sector (see Appendix A) who have helped build
partnerships to ensure the recommendations are
relevant and feasible.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Age-
Friendly Cities and Communities Initiative provided
a framework and network of similar efforts that
supported the development of this Action Plan.

T
he Census Bureau projects 2030 to be a trans-
formative decade for the US population.

Advancements in medicine and public health
have led to more people living longer. The Census
Bureau estimates that by 2035, older adults will
outnumber children for the first time in US history. This rapid increase has major implications and will place
un-precedented demands on cities and communities.

In response, the World Health Organization’s (WHO)
Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Initiative was
launched in 2005 in partnership with AARP in the
United States. This network has expanded to over 37
countries around the world and to over 300 cities in
the United States.

The demographic shifts projected nationally
will be mirrored in Berkeley. The population of
older adults in Berkeley will double in the next 10
years, resulting in 1 in 5 adults being over 65 years
of age. Life expectancy in Berkeley is 86.7 years for
women and 83 years for men, compared to 78.8
years nationally and 80.8 years in California. Mortality rates in Berkeley are lower than those of surrounding
Alameda County and California— reflecting the city’s
long life expectancy.
10 As with health status, there are
great disparities in longevity based on race and class
According to a study by AARP and the Age-
Friendly Berkeley community survey, the vast major-
ity of older adults want to age in their homes and
communities. An Age-Friendly community promotes
policies, enhances services, and creates a built envi-
ronment that enables a growing population of older
adults to age in their community while supporting a
more inclusive, equitable and accessible city for all.

Toward an Age-Friendly Berkeley
Age Friendly Berkeley is a collective effort whose goal is to ensure that all Berkeley residents are connected, healthy and engaged in their environments. Enhanc-
10 Health Status Report, City of Berkeley, 2018
Why Now?
Natalie Ornstein, Berkeleyside

13 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY

1. Housing:

Public and private housing options, home
maintenance, home modification, safety
and comfort, proximity to services and
community life

2. Health and Community Services:

Promote, maintain and restore health,
provide home care services, coordinate
service delivery and emergency planning

3. Transportation:

Public and private transit options, reliability,
specialized services for people with
disabilities, priority seating, traffic flow,
roads, driver education, parking

4. Outdoor Spaces and Buildings:

Public areas, green spaces, outdoor and
indoor seating, walkways, bike paths,
lighting, customer service arrangements,
public toilets

5. Social and Civic Participation:

Venues, timing, affordability, events and
activities, inclusion on decision-making
bodies, fostering diversity and inclusion;
combating social isolation

6. Employment and Economic Security:

Volunteer and employment options,
job training, age discrimination,
entrepreneurship, elder fraud abuse, cost
of living

7. Respect and Social Inclusion:

Programs to support cultural and
ethnic diversity, public images of aging,
intergenerational and family dialogue,
public education, recognition of
contributions to past and present, economic
inclusion

8. Communication and Information:

Distribution of information, person-to-
person communication, printed information,
media, access to and use of technology and
the Internet
11 https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health The Age-Friendly Framework
T
he World Health Organization and AARP’s Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities fosters the exchange of experiences and initiatives as cities strive to better meet the needs of their older residents. The Age-Friendly Cities Initiative provides guidance for assessing local conditions and identifying areas for change. The Initiative uses a framework with eight domains which identify social and environmental factors that influence how well we age and how long we live. These domains align closely with the social determinants of health as defined in Healthy People 2020.
11 Based on the information gleaned from the local needs assessment, the domains in this report include:

14 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Our Planning Process
12 12 The Age-Friendly planning process coincides and aligns with the city’s Strategic Planning process, including a focus on affordable housing, improving ADA compatibility, investing in infrastructure and improving access to information. 13 For the detailed Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan of the Berkeley Age-Friendly Continuum’s 2017 report, with reference to Alameda County and national trends, go to www.berkeleycontinuum.org.
14 Thank you to Beatrice Leyva-Cutler and Faye Combs, community volunteers who organized the focus groups. 2016
✔ Convened leadership team and worked with the Mayor to launch the initiative ✔ Completed assessment and was accepted into the national and international Network of Age- Friendly Cities
✔ Included “Age-Friendly” planning in the City of Berkeley’s strategic plan December 2018 -January 2021
➔ Finalize report and submit to AARP and WHO
➔ Implement Action Plan (see page 21)
• Year 1 Set up action framework, convene work teams and begin data collection • Years 2-3: Execute, coordinate, and track progress of action items n Conduct an evaluation of the implementation process
n Determine future needs
n Update Action Plan
2016-2018: Action Planning cycle
✔ Researched background information
• Reviewed WHO guidelines and other cities’ Age-Friendly Action Plans • Researched Age-Friendly assets and resources in Berkeley. • Reviewed Berkeley results from the 2016 Alameda County Plan for Older Adults • Collected relevant information from the 2017 Berkeley Age-Friendly Continuum Needs Assessment
13 ✔ Collected data from the community using WHO’s Global Age-Friendly framework • Conducted a community survey both online and by utilizing local organizations to distribute hard copies in English and Spanish
• Interviewed City staff from all departments to assess how their work could align with Age- Friendly goals, and to assess resources and potential recommendations • Evaluated results
✔ Gathered additional community feedback from public sessions • Added two additional focus groups to the 3 focus groups 14 from the 2017 Berkeley Continuum needs assessment
• Held several meetings and a public forum with the Commission on Aging • Presented progress report and solicited feedback from the Berkeley City Council ✔ Synthesized community data and worked with partners to frame recommendations.

15 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
What Older Berkeley Residents Like Best and Least in Berkeley The ‘word clouds’ below display words that were used to answer an open-response question on the Age- Friendly Berkeley Community Survey. People responded to what they like best and least about Berkeley as a place to age. The more common the response, the larger the font. Transit is highlighted in both positive and negative comments which is most likely linked to where people live, with people in the Berkeley Hills being most concerned about transit.

Top Findings
Reasons for Positive Views of Berkeley as a Place to Age Reasons for Negative Views of Berkeley as a Place to Age

16 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
15 Detailed information for all 8 domains is included in Appendix B where each domain includes relevant resources,current efforts that are in process, survey results and information from focus groups, GIS maps, and information from the 2016 Alameda County Plan for Older Adults and the Berkeley Age-Friendly Continuum needs assessment.

Top Findings
Findings and Priority Areas
There are many programs and services in Berkeley that support an active and healthy community for people of all ages. The recommendations from this Action Plan are designed to build on what is already occurring, improve impact, and address gaps. Given the rapidly changing landscape and the pace of developing technology, we see this action plan as a living document, open to enhancement.

Several themes cut across the plan’s recommendations and actions. These include the need to:
• create complete neighborhoods that have a mix of housing types and land uses, affordable housing and transportation options, and access to healthy foods, schools, retail, employment, community services, parks and recreation options
• foster ongoing collaborations within large organizations, such as municipal entities, and across sectors and community organizations, as these are key to implementing policy and programs • leverage existing resources to support, expand and coordinate a system of services and supports for aging in community
• capture emergent opportunities and leverage innovations in both technology and care/service delivery to support community-based living
• strengthen intergenerational relationships because while programs abound, they are mostly age-specific
• work with other regional jurisdictions and Age-Friendly cities to address overlapping issues and services and to find solutions to common challenges.

Within each of these 4 areas, recommendations fell into 3 categories:

Equity and Inclusion
Information
Infrastructure and Policy
These priority areas and recommendations are summarized in the following pages along with local programs and policies already in development. Detailed information for all 8 domains can be found in Appendix B.

After reviewing community responses and promising local efforts already underway, this Action Plan identified four priority areas:
15 Housing and Economic Security
Transportation and Mobility
Health and Wellness
Social Participation and Civic Engagement

17 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Already In Development
✔ Senior and disabled home loan program
✔ Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policies
✔ Expanded home safety inspection program
✔ Several pilot programs: Homeless Coordinated Entry, Berkeley Home Match and the development of a Service Linked Senior Housing/ Community Center model ✔ Business Succession Planning
Goal and Recommendations
Develop a continuum of affordable, accessible housing options for older adults to age in their community regardless of their health or financial status.
➔ Equity and Inclusion:
• Include targets for the older adult population in the City Housing Element. • Address the need for affordable, accessible housing at all levels of need; expand eligibility criteria for subsidized services to raise access levels to moderate income individuals. • Expand access to supportive housing for vulnerable populations. ➔ Information:
• Provide an online resource and educational workshops at Senior Centers about renters’ rights and strategies to qualify for access to both market and below market rate housing. • Offer workshops and education on financial planning and elder fraud abuse. • Assess and map housing options for the public via written materials and the internet. • Provide broader communication of assistance with local taxes for low income residents. ➔ Infrastructure and Policy:
• Develop a program for housing cost relief for moderate income seniors who do not qualify for income restricted housing.
• Incorporate mixed zoning in all neighborhoods, increasing walkability and access to services and commercial areas.
• Pursue affordable settings for out-of-home assisted living (e.g., CCRC and alternatives). • Enable increased development of accessory dwelling units (ADU) by streamlining the construction approval process.

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
Top Findings
F
inancial and housing worries topped the list of concerns across all income levels. Given housing costs in the San Francisco Bay Area, most housing is no longer affordable; nor, is there a continuum of housing options (including assisted living) available in Berkeley as we age. More affordable housing is needed to prevent further displacement. Should older adults remain in their homes, they need affordable options for safety and accessibility home modifications. While there are several housing programs in Berkeley, and some programs specifically designed to help low income seniors, they are disconnected and it is clear from focus groups that people are unaware of them. Berkeley also needs to work with neighboring communities to expand eligibility criteria for those just above income guidelines who struggle without subsidized programs. Additionally, many residents believed that there are not enough flexible jobs with accommodations for older workers to stay employed. 20% of those who reported that they are retired are, in fact, “gigging” to make ends meet. The scale of these problems requires broad, often regional, policy solutions.

18 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Already In Development
✔ Emergency preparedness and resiliency planning
✔ Healthy food access and cooking programs
✔ Whole Person Care pilot, an Alameda County wrap around program for the homeless ✔ Alameda County’s Senior Injury Prevention Program (SIPP) Goal and Recommendations
Develop a more integrated system of services and supports that are person-centered and ensure that all residents have the opportunity to engage in health promoting activities. ➔ Equity and Inclusion:
• Implement additional health related programs around nutrition and exercise, with special outreach to underserved groups.
• Broaden outreach for dental care to low income and vulnerable seniors. • Expand eligibility criteria for subsidized services to raise access levels to moderate income individuals.
➔ Information:
• Provide affordable, local navigators to help address basic systems navigation needs, e.g., public benefits, housing, and service referrals.
➔ Infrastructure and policy:
• Obtain funding for additional geriatric case managers and navigators. • Convene a summit on memory care to plan a community response to dementia and related diseases.
• Improve the workforce pipeline of home care workers and create a centralized source of vetted referrals.
• Champion lower costs for in-home services, while ensuring a living wage for home health care workers.

HEALTH AND WELLNESS 16
B
erkeley and surrounding cities have abundant healthcare and community service resources; however, most programs do not have the capacity to meet the increasing demand from seniors.

Care navigation for accessing resources, affordable in-home care, and memory care are gaps in local resources. Participants in the Berkeley Continuum, Age-Friendly Berkeley and Alameda County planning consistently voiced a desire to bring services and supports to them in their home rather than requiring institutional care. Residents need access to providers and other health and wellness services such as venues for fitness, especially in South and West Berkeley. Berkeley is unique in having its own public health jurisdiction, however, there needs to be more coordination with the County Public Health Department and neighboring cities’ Age-Friendly efforts to address and prevent common health issues.

Top Findings
16 In this context “wellness” refers to the social determinants of health, defined by the World Health Organization as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life.” https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/ topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health

19 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Already In Development
✔ New street policy and design approaches being used as streets are repaired and developed ✔ Master Pedestrian Plan being developed in commercial areas ✔ City sidewalks being assessed for repairs
✔ Mobility management and travel training being offered to seniors Goal and Recommendations
Advance a network of public and private transportation that equitably serves residents and connects them to services, social activities, and employment opportunities. ➔ Equity and Inclusion:
• Ensure that popular destinations are accessible via various transportation modes, particularly for those in outlying neighborhoods or with mobility challenges. ➔ Information:
• Extend education programs about transit options.
• Promote older driver safety by linking seniors to low-cost defensive driving workshops. ➔ Infrastructure and policy:
• Continue to develop ‘complete streets’ design to ensure safe travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. • Collaborate to advance affordability, availability, and reliability of public transportation. • Improve transportation infrastructure (benches, pavement, shelters). • Create well marked ‘safe routes’ to common destinations with smooth sidewalks, large print signs, and good lighting.

TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
Top Findings
T
ransportation is a major concern for older residents, especially those in isolated areas such as the Berkeley Hills and low-income residents in other areas of the city. Many older adults are unfamiliar with public transportation or do not trust its reliability. Uneven sidewalks and pedestrian safety concerns are also barriers for accessing transportation options. Public transit issues such as the absence of benches or shelter at station stops and inadequate lighting, often prevent people from using services. Better public transportation options can help seniors access needed services and combat feelings of isolation. Safe driving refresher courses are also needed but there are few local options.
“Good public transportation.”
“Walkability in ‘the flats’ “
“Convenient parking in downtown is not easy to find.”
“Poor transportation options”
survey comments of berkeley seniors

20 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Top Findings
Already In Development
✔ Development of a home visit program to isolated seniors ✔ Inclusion of older people in public images
✔ Intergenerational programming in the schools and community (e.g., active volunteers) ✔ Redesign of the city website to make it more accessible and easier to navigate ✔ Plans to increase access to broadband internet, up-to-date devices, and training, in partnership with nonprofit organizations
✔ Redevelopment of Berkeley’s 3-1-1 line, an online service center ✔ Improved access to information about the options for social engagement in Berkeley ✔ Older adult inclusion in concept planning for the North Berkeley Senior Center ✔ Addition of older adult programs in parks and recreation venues and consideration of increased hours at public parks
Goal and Recommendations
Enhance neighborhood cohesion and social connectedness of all Berkeley residents with community events and activities that are inclusive, affordable, and accessible. ➔ Equity and Inclusion:
• Re-frame senior centers and outreach to attract a broader community. • Promote Age-Friendly business practices through an Age-Friendly Business Certification program.
• Seek older adult input into current municipal planning around resiliency and infrastructure. ➔ Information:
• Create an easier to access and navigate directory of Age-Friendly organizations, activities and engagement opportunities.
• Add a link to activities for older adults to the City of Berkeley website. ➔ Infrastructure and policy:
• Create safe routes to common destinations.
• Improve park bathrooms and facilities.
• Re-open Willard Pool to improve public access to swimming in South-East Berkeley.

SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
W
hile many Berkeley residents participate in local activities, organizers need to outreach broadly across race, immigration status, sexual identity and orientation, income level, and housing status. The population of isolated seniors needs to also be considered. Although there are various websites and newsletters indicating what is available in Berkeley, most residents are unaware of the offerings. Multiple modes of communication need to be used to ensure that older adults stay informed and engaged. The city website is difficult to navigate and needs to be regularly updated to be useful. In addition, many people call the county 2-1-1 information line, but data about why people call and how they manage referrals is not tracked. Being the home of the independent living movement, Berkeley was ahead of other cities in terms of accessibility. However, public buildings and parks need to continue to be updated with evolving standards to ensure residents with mobility challenges can participate. For the same reason, amenities to make parks safer and more accessible, like public bathrooms, lighting, and benches, are needed.

21 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Implementation Plan
Form a  Leadership Team
consisting of 5-7 champions  from
relevant  sectors  (the City,
local  residents, health,
transportation,  business, etc.) to
guide  implementation of the
action  plan
Create Communication Network
Identify City staff to be
contacts  for  work within the City.

All City  Departments will be
responsibIe for the Action Plan
recommendations.

Solidify Action Teams
Use the potential pa rtners  list
(page 22) to  identify regional,
city, and community based
team  members for each  priority
area
Commit to the Action Plan & Work on Year 1 Goals
Community partners and city staff coordinate Year 1  activities for  each priority area Leadership team finalizes funding needs and plans strategies to support year 2-3 recommendations Develop Shared Metrics
Action and Leadership team members Identify and agree on high level indicators and set up a  framework using Results Based Accountability to measure progress in years 2-3 Prioritize   and begin work
the remaining recommendations in collaboration with City and community partners Ye a r 1
Ye a r 2 - 3
Monitor & Improve
Monitor progress and continually improve processes  using the Results Based Accountability framework Infrastructure
Designate the City of Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services, Aging Services Division as the Backbone Agency and obtain funding to support the Aging Services Manager in coordinating the initiatives Work on Year 2-3 Initiatives
Community partners and City staff work toward  Year 2-3 targets Communicate Results of Year 1
Develop an online dashboard using the Age Friendly website  to inform the  public and  track progress Ensure that the  Commission on Aging is continually updated and consulted Communicate Results of Year 2-3
Use the online dashboard on the Age-Friendly Berkeley website  to inform the  public and  track progress

22 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
City of Berkeley Local Community
Potential City & Community Partnerships
A critical goal for Year 1 Implementation (see  Plan on page 21) will be to solidify the teams that will  address goals in each priority  area.  Partners come from City of Berkeley departments, local community organizations, county and regional entities, as well as other cities with Age Friendly initiatives.  Below is a table with city departments, a partial list of relevant local organizations, and some regional linkages that can help  address broad areas  such as housing, health and transportation.

Regional
Housing &
Economic
Security
Health &
Wellness
Social
Participation
& Civic
Engagement
Transportation
& Mobility
Housing Authority of
Alameda County
BACS (Bay Area
Community Services)
SAHA (Satellite
Affordable Housing
Associates)
RCD (Resources for
Community Development)
Covia
Rebuilding T ogether
Habitat for Humanity
ASSETS
Encore, Inc.

East Bay Works

AC Transit
BART
East Bay
Paratransit
Alameda County Health
Care Services Agency
IHSS (In-Home Supportive
Services)
LifeLong Medical Care
CEI (Center for Elders'
Independence)

Alzheimer's Services of
the East Bay
Alta Bates Medical Center
Sutter Health
Kaiser Permanente
Alameda County IHSS
Program
CIL (Center for
Independent Living)
Legal assistance for
seniors
California Department of
Aging
CEI (Center for Elders'
Independence)
CIL (Center for
Independent Living)
Covia: Well Connected
Jewish Community Center
of the East Bay
University of  California
Retirement Center
Forget Me Not
Lavender Seniors
Gray Panthers
East Bay Regional Park
District
BORP (Bay Area Outreach
and Recreation Program)
Eden I & R (2-1-1)

Health, Housing and
Community Services
Aging Services Division

Public Works:

Transportation Division
Health Housing &
Community Services:

Housing Services
City Manager's Office:

Office of Economic
Development
Health, Housing, &
Community Services:

Community Services &
Administration
Health, Housing &
Community Services: Aging
Services Division
Parks, Recreation, &
Waterfront Deparment
Information T echnology
Public Works:

Disability Compliance Program
Planning & Development
Health, Housing, &
Community Services:

Public Health Division
Community Services &
Administration
Aging Services Division

CARE T eam

Berkeley Fire Department
Senior Center Shuttles
CIL Shuttles
CEI Shuttles
UC Berkeley: SafeTREC
Ride share companies
SIPP (Senior Injury
Prevention Program)

Lifelong  Over 60 Health
Center
YMCA
Jewish Family Services
Berkeley Continuum

Ashby Village
Alta Bates T ele-Care
UC Botanical Garden
Tilden Regional Park
UC Berkeley: Center for
T echnology & Aging
Berkeleyside
Berkeley Public Libraries
J-Sei
UC Berkeley Osher
LifeLong Learning Institute
UC Berkeley Bears for
Elder Welfare
Berkeley Student Co-op
Elder Action

Ashby Village
BOSS (Building
Opportunities for Self
Sufficiency)

UC Retirement Center
Legal Assistance for
Seniors
Berkeley Chamber of
Commerce
Planning & Development

29 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Public
Health & Community
Services
There is meal delivery and food
assistance available through
Meals on Wheels, CalFresh, Food
Bank, and the  Area Agency on
Aging
Food
Assistance
Community Accessing Resources
Effectively (CARE) is a cross
disciplinary team that looks at
improving care for high utilizers
of emergency services.

City injury prevention
workshops and education about
geriatric health concerns are
available from the Berkeley Fire
Department that often responds
to 9-1-1 calls from seniors.

The Health Status report is a
regular City report that provides
information about residents'
health status.

Health
Status
Report
City Senior Centers
provide recreation, affordable
hot meals, health & wellness
education and other supportive
services.

CARE T eam
Senior
Center
Programs
Senior Injury
Prevention
Berkeley has numerous health care resources, including  Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, part of the Sutter system, and LifeLong Medical Care, a network of community health centers.

The ratio of primary care  doctors to residents is well above the national average.  Berkeley is located between Stanford and UCSF medical schools. Stanford Health Care and John Muir Health recently expanded to Berkeley.   However, there remain stark health inequalities across ethnicity, income, and neighborhood that several community programs are
addressing. These include access to dental care, especially for vulnerable and underserved populations. Additional care navigation and programs that de-stigmatize seeking help for mental health and other basic needs are necessary to improve the well-being of all residents.

Alameda County, with federal,
state, and local funding,
provides personal care services
that help seniors on Medi-Cal
stay safely in their homes as long
as possible.

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
In-Home
Supportive
Services
(IHHS)
T argeted case management for
Medi-Cal beneficiaries  is
available through the city; referrals
are also available through City
Aging Services, Jewish Family
Services, LifeLong Medical Care,
and the Public Health clinic.

Case
Management
AC Care is a county program that
provides complete services for
those experiencing
homelessness, including
behavioral and physical health,
housing, and legal services.

AC Care
Connect
Getting the Most Out of Life is
an Alameda County Health
Care Services Agency program
that promotes planning for end-
of-life and hospice care before a
medical emergency occurs.

GMOL
The CA Dept. of Aging
Multipurpose Senior Services
Program (MSSP) provides
healthcare management for
seniors who qualify for nursing
home care and prefer to remain
in their home.

MSSP
A  mobile van run by the City and
LifeLong Medical Care helps
address inequities in treatment for
hypertension and heart disease in
South Berkeley by connecting
residents with programs,
resources, and services.

Heart to
Heart
Free flu shots and low-cost
immunizations are available at
the Ann Chandler Public Health
Center.

Adult
Immunization City community health
advocates visit churches, parks,
and community centers to let
people know about programs.

Peer-to-
Peer
The city has its own public health
department, allowing a focus on
local health issues residents face.

City Public
Health
Department

30 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
There is a drop-in clinic for
checking blood pressure  at
LifeLong's Over 60 Health
Center to address health
disparity in monitoring
hypertension.

BP Drop-in
Clinic
This center is a nonprofit
organization that, along with
cultural, advocacy, and social
activities, offers family caregiver
support for Ethiopian-American
elders.

Inclusive Community Resources
provides mobility training,
personal assistance, and
attendant management services
for adults with developmental
disabilities.

The YMCA in Berkeley offers
Healthy Living Programs to help
manage chronic diseases, as well
as several senior aquatics,
aerobics, chair exercise, and
gentle yoga classes.

Free peer workshops are
organized by CIL and designed
for seniors (55+) who have a
newly acquired disability.

LifeLong Medical Care offers
Cooking Matters classes for
patients in West Berkeley along
with fresh produce  giveaways.

Living Well
With A
Disability
Legal Assistance for Seniors
(LAS), located in Oakland and
serving all of Alameda County, is
a nonprofit that provides legal
advice, representation, and
education to residents over 60.

Lifelong Medical Care manages a
support program for patients
following hospital discharge.

Transitions
Program
ICR Personal
Assistance
YMCA
classes
Y
LAS
Lifelong Medical Care's Over 60
Health Clinic offers primary
care, chronic disease
management, social services,
and health education specifically
for seniors.

The Center for Elders'
Independence is the only wrap-
around service provider in
Berkeley, offering medical care,
transportation, adult day care,
exercise classes, nutrition
support, and social activities.

This Alameda County program,
with funding from the Older
Americans Act through the Area
Agency on Aging,  ensures
residents of long-term care
facilities are receiving safe,
quality services.

This county program helps
inform people about veteran
services and assists people with
claiming and maintaining
benefits for which  they are
eligible.

County
Veterans
Services

CEI PACE
Program
Ombudsman
Program
LifeLong Medical Care offers a
Geriatric Dental Program at
several locations and  with a
mobile van.

Over 60
Health
Center
Ethiopian
Community
& Cultural
Center
LifeLong
Geriatric
Dental
Program

Cooking
Matters

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
PublicNonprofit
Alzheimer Services is a  nonprofit
organization that provides care
services to people with dementia,
support for caregivers, and
education about dementia care.

Alzheimer's
Services of
the East Bay
A City public health nurse
provides free health
information, referrals, and
education.

A Community Emergency
Response T eam provides
education in disaster
preparedness and training in
basic emergency skills (Fire
Department).

CERT
Nurse of the
Day
Berkeley Fire refers 'at-risk'
seniors to City Aging Services;
emergency forms posted in
seniors' homes notify EMS of
critical health information.

Fire Dept.

Collaboration

31 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B

HEALTH CARE MAP
There are many healthcare options along the main city corridor which runs through downtown. Stanford and John Muir Health care have both moved into South Berkeley, but there are few options available in West Berkeley.

Several service providers such as Alzheimer's Services of the East Bay, CEI,  and Jewish Family & Community Services are also concentrated near downtown.

Alameda County is above the
90th percentile for the ratio of
primary care doctors to
population
John Muir Health/UCSF Health Outpatient Center

32 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
Overall, subjective  reports of health are
good among older adults in Berkeley who
responded to our survey.

Health by Age Group
Excellent
Poor
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
50-64 65-79 80+
However, there are predictable  disparities in self-reported health across income and race.    The graph below shows a trend similar to what is found in most studies nationally of the relationship between health, race, and financial resources.

Berkeley is continuing its work on eliminating disparities.

Health by income
Excellent or Good Fair or Poor
0 50
100
<$16,000 $16,000-$32,000 $32,000-$60,000 $60,000-$90,000 >$90,000 Health by Race
Excellent or Good Fair or Poor
0 50
100
African American Latino Caucasian Asian & Pacific Islander

15.7% of Berkeley residents over 60 have MediCal
48%
of Alameda County older residents have avoided needed
medical care because of cost
39%
of older, low-income Alameda County residents are "very concerned" about being able to prepare healthy food as they get older
According to the Alameda County Plan for Older Adults 2016-2017,

33 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Year 1
CalFresh
Restaurants
Implement additional health related
programs in senior centers and in the
community, e.g., around nutrition and
exercise, and walking groups. with
targeted outreach to under served
groups.

Encourage Berkeley restaurants to
participate in CalFresh so those who
are not able to cook can buy prepared
meals as an alternative to the grocery
program.

Increase awareness of Alameda
Country's Senior Injury Prevention
Program (SIPP) by educating seniors,
healthcare providers, case managers,
and emergency responders about fall
prevention. Ensure there is equitable
access to the program.

SIPP
Exercise &
Nutrition
The schools continue to explore
creating an inter-generational
program that teaches children to cook
healthy food at school so they can
bring those skills home.

Measure GG
The City continues to work on
Measure GG, which focuses on
Emergency Preparedness, resilience,
& community response capacity. One
focus is on utilizing nurses who have
relationships with vulnerable
community members.

Cooking
Classes

ACTION PLAN
In Process
LIfeLong Medical Care provides in-
home primary care for homebound
seniors and they are expanding this
program into Berkeley.

Geriatric
Housecalls
The Berkeley Continuum is piloting a
prevention/intervention program that
helps older adults proactively plan for
their aging experience.

Gateway
Program
Year 2-3
Identify funding for additional
geriatric case managers and
community health workers for the
general population and for people
experiencing homelessness.

Case
Managers
In-home
Service
Providers
Develop and implement a plan,
including new funding streams, to
lower costs and expand access to in-
home services.

Focus efforts to recruit, train, and
retain a quality workforce of home
care workers and develop a
centralized, easily accessible  source
for vetted referrals for in-home care.

Launch a program of affordable
navigators (as opposed to
comprehensive care managers) to help
older adults address basic system
navigation needs (public benefits,
housing, service referral).

Trusted
Referrals
Affordable
Navigators

TAKE AWAYS
Equity and  Inclusion: Most subjective health reports from residents  are good to excellent; however, disparities are apparent in Berkeley along socioeconomic and racial lines. Addressing this is a priority of the City and  County Public Health Departments, and more is being  done. However, this may require expanding current programs, adding new ones, and implementing policy changes.

Information: Even though there are abundant healthcare resources in Berkeley and surrounding cities, care navigation,  in-home care and memory care  are three  areas where there is a gap. Seniors who need support to stay at home often need help finding service providers but may not be able to afford services unless they qualify for Medi-Cal. Those who are just above income guidelines struggle to find affordable services. A clear source of information about these services and their affordability is needed.

Infrastructure and Policy: While Berkeley has many excellent health and community service programs, most are not large or well-funded enough to meet the increasing demand for services.

Also, with the planned closure of the local hospital scheduled for 2030, the city will need to continue to work on ensuring residents have access to emergency care.

Convene a summit on memory care
to plan a community response to
dementia and related diseases
Memory
Care
Planning

34 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Public

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
City Planning & Development
department is addressing
transportation and street safety
to ensure comfortable, safe
environments.

App ride hailing vouchers and
taxi script services are available
through the City.

This American Cancer Society
program provides transportation
to appointments for cancer
patients.

AC Transit and BART have a
senior discount and have
priority seating for seniors.

Free CIL travel training for
people age 55+ and/or with
disabilities: One-on-one
instruction for accessing fixed
route transit, mastering specific
trips, and use of mobility device
on  transit.
511 is the phone number and
website to plan travel on fixed-
route public transportation
throughout the Bay Area.

Bay Area companies like Uber,
Lyft, SilverRide, and Chariot
offer ride sharing services,
including new programs that
doctors can use to order rides
for their patients.

East Bay Paratransit is available
for door-to-door transportation
services for people with
disabilities.

The Center for Elders'
Independence runs a PACE
center in Berkeley and has vans
that provide transit for their
elders to the center, medical
appointments, and field trips.

The Senior Center shuttle is
available to bring people to the
center and for organized
outings.

Transportation
Berkeley is connected to the Bay Area by way of several public transportation options. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has three stations in Berkeley and AC Transit, the bus line for the county, has 155 bus lines throughout the region. Currently, the city is working to improve transportation options with strategic plans that address barriers to walkability and transit safety. There need to be additional resources for addressing driving safety and improved collaboration between
transportation, technology, and aging organizations  in the county to ensure that the public's needs are  met across neighborhoods and all modes of transit.

Public
Transit
Street
Safety
Travel
Vouchers Paratransit
Ride Sharing
CEI Transit
Road to
Recovery
511
Senior
Center
Shuttle
Bicycle Boulevards are streets
with slower, lower traffic
volume. Large painted street
markers and street signs on
each block clearly mark the
designated bicycle  areas.

Community
Connections
Bicycle
Boulevards
NonprofitPrivate

35 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B

TRANSIT MAP
With three BART stations  and  major AC Transit bus lines, most of Berkeley is well connected by public transportation. However, residents who live in the Berkeley  hills have less frequent buses and not all station stops throughout the city are covered or well lit.

Bicycle Boulevards help make cyclists and pedestrians  safer. Plans for additional improvements are underway.

A new ferry boat, Tideline, connects the Berkeley Marina to downtown San Francisco for commuters.

Berkeley
Marina

36 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
One of the main reasons Berkeley was rated positively by survey respondents as a place to age was walkability.

However, sidewalk disrepair and traffic safety are issues raised by  many residents. While Berkeley has made an effort to be accessible (curb cuts, etc.), trees often cause sidewalks to become uneven and some survey respondents also  reported feeling unsafe crossing the street. Most people who responded to the survey said they drive to get around town, and highlighted parking as a problem. Many  people thought driver education for seniors would be  an important resource to have.

DATA
How Seniors Get Around Berkeley
Mode of Transit
0 50 100
% of Survey Respondants
Drive
Walk
Public Transit
T axi/Ride Service
Bicycle
Get Ride from Someone
Use Special Ride Service for People with Disabilities
Top Very or Somewhat Important Transportation Resources Resources
0 50 100
% of Survey Respondents
Driver's Ed/Refresher Course
Affordable Public Parking
Safe Public Parking
Audio/Visual Pedestrian Crossings
Enforced Speed Limits
Special Transit Services for Seniors & People With Disabilities Affordable Public Transit
Safe & Well-Lit Public Transit Stops
According to focus groups conducted by the Berkeley Continuum Participants felt that the City’s taxi voucher system is useful but is too limited by the number of times it can be used and the the purposes for which it can be used. In addition, many people did not know that vouchers were available. Ride sharing apps can be helpful, but they are still too expensive for many people to use regularly.

Participants said they want public transit to be more frequent and more flexible.

37 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Promote older driver safety by linking
them to defensive driving classes,
such as those offered by AARP and
the Safe Driver program promoted in
the Berkeley Senior Center.

Help individuals learn how to use public
transportation options with
educational programs and a pool of
volunteers willing to be companions on
public transportation trips.

Transit
TrainingSupport Safe
Driving
Year
1 A plan considering safety,
walkability, lighting, etc., is in
development for commercial areas .

The City is in the early planning
stages for a new senior shuttle,
funded with County Measure BB
funds, that will address some current
public transportation limitations
Master
Pedestrian
Plan
Senior
Shuttle

ACTION PLAN
In
Process
Sidewalk
Review The City is developing a plan to
address broken sidewalks
throughout the city and working to
prevent future problems.

Berkeley's Strategic Transportation
(BeST) plan strives to allow residents,
students, and visitors of any age,
background, and ability to have equal
access to move throughout the city.

BeST
Plan
Year
2-3
Improve citizen experience of
transportation infrastructure, e.g.,
benches, shelters, traffic signals, and
pavement on pedestrian sidewalks.

Improve collaborative planning
between City Planning, Aging
Services, and local transportation
companies to increase public transit
access for older adults; partner with
carpool and private transportation
services .

Transit
InfastructurePartnering &
Planning
A new Aging Services Transportation
Coordinator will oversee paratransit
and senior center shuttles, will
expand the senior shopper shuttle,
and will expand mobility management
and travel training.

Senior
Transit
Coordinator
Advance the  reliability, frequency,
and local travel destinations for
transit, especially in such areas as the
Berkeley hills that have limited
access.

Transit Partner with community agencies to
increase transportation options by
better utilizing and organizing shuttles
during off-hours
Utilize
Shuttles
Equity and  Inclusion: Social activities, volunteer opportunities, and jobs are important, but without thoughtful infrastructure and transit programs that help seniors get where they need to go, these resources will not be utilized to their fullest extent.  BART and AC Transit help connect Berkeley to the rest of the Bay Area, but issues like the "last mile, " not having benches at station stops,  and inadequate lighting can be a problem for some older people and prevent them from using these services.

TAKE AWAYS
Information: Even with abundant public transportation options, many people want to maintain the freedom of driving, and want to do so safely. Many people are interested in safe driving refresher courses, but there are limited local options for these courses. Stigma may be an issue and classes should be advertised carefully to prevent promoting stereotypes and to make sure people feel comfortable attending.

Infrastructure and Policy: Many survey respondents felt that one of Berkeley's best traits is its walkability. However, sidewalk disrepair and pedestrian safety concerns can be a barrier. The Bicycle Boulevards and some new protected bike lanes are a safety improvement, but there is still more work to do.

38 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Outdoor Spaces &
Buildings
Berkeley values it's green space, with many city parks, parklets, and miles of walking trails. Thanks to Ed Roberts, who led the disability rights movement as a student at UC Berkeley in the 1960's, accessibility of outdoor spaces and public buildings was advanced with nearly universal curb cuts, accessible city-owned buildings, and a robust set of non-profit organizations dedic ated to ensuring that the needs of all residents and visitors are considered in the built environment. Improvements that go beyond ADA
compliance and additional programs for older adults with varied physical abilities will make the city even more livable for everyone.

BORP provides opportunities
for people with disabilities to
enjoy the outdoors, including
special programs for veterans.

Berkeley Walks organizes 30
minute  walks 3 days a week for
all levels of UC Berkeley faculty
and staff.

East Bay Regional Park District,
the largest urban regional park
district in the US with about
120,000 acres, has a variety of
free and affordable outdoor
activities and volunteer
opportunities.

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
Bay Area
Outreach &
Recreation
Berkeley
Walks
The UC Botanical Garden is 34-
acres with over 10,000 different
plant species. With paved paths
throughout the garden, it is an
accessible place to enjoy nature
and learn about conservation.

EBRPD
UC Botanical
Garden
Sidewalks, curb cuts, street
lighting, benches, and traffic
calming devices are developed in
most areas.

New businesses, housing
developments and
redevelopments are required by
the City to be ADA compliant.

City Parks & Recreation
programs include adult classes
such as painting, yoga, and T ai
Chi.

A city ordinance has allowed
several ‘parklets’ to be built,
which provide outdoor seating
and tables in commercial areas;
at least six more are planned.

The City's Customer Service
Center has been renovated to be
more accessible with lower
counters, better lighting, and
large screens.

City Parks & Recreation
organizes several aquatics
classes specifically for older
adults and people with
disabilities.

Parks & Rec
Adult Classes
Accessible
Streets
ADA
Compliant
Buildings
Customer
Service
Center
Senior
Aquatics
PublicParklets
Nonprofit &
University

39 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B

PARK MAP
With parks spread out across the city, there are many opportunities to enjoy the outdoors. However, the quality and availability of amenities such as bathrooms, benches, and lighting vary across parks. There is a bus from downtown directly to the Marina and the Botanical garden, but public transit access to some other parks is limited.  It may be necessary to drive to some parks, especially for  those traveling from destinations other than downtown.

One of the top reasons survey respondents rated Berkeley positively as a place to age was walkability. 59% said they walk  18% said they bike
...as a form of transportation for errands and appointments However, sidewalk disrepair and traffic safety are issues raised by the community.  While Berkeley has made an effort to be accessible (e.g., curb cuts), trees often cause sidewalks to become uneven and some survey respondents reported feeling unsafe crossing the street.

DATA
Berkeley
Marina

40 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
City Parks & Recreation staff are
considering additional classes and
programs for older adults.

Ensure that green spaces are
accessible by various
transportation modes and to those
with mobility challenges, including
shuttle access, smooth pathways,
and room for wheelchairs next to
benches.

The Public Works department is
implementing a self-evaluation to
review the built environment for
ADA compliance, inviting
comments from older adults
The City Planning Department is
using ‘Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design’ (CPTED) to
address safety issues and
uncomfortable spaces.

Funds from local Measure T1 will
be used to improve existing
infrastructure and facilities in the
city.

Assess needs and secure funding to
improve park bathrooms, lighting,
parking, and other facilities for the
older population; identify and
advertise parks that are already Age-
Friendly.

CPTED T1 Funds
Encourage large, easily visible street
numbers on businesses and houses.

Add a link on the City of Berkeley
website to outdoor recreation
activities for older adults.

ADA Self-
Evaluation
More
Classes
In  ProcessYear 1
Age-Friendly
Parks Park Access
Signage Web
Information
Year  2-3
Create safe routes to common
destinations that have well maintained
sidewalks, large signs, and good
lighting,; create safe route maps.

Open public park exercise areas
(James Kenney & Live Oak Parks)
during the day in addition to the
current 3 nights/week.

Ensure that older adults have
opportunities for input into the
development of the Master
Pedestrian Plan by reviewing
meeting times and consulting the
Commission on Aging.

Extend Park
Hours
Safe Routes Older
Pedestrian
Input
Re-open the Willard Pool to
improve public access to
recreational swimming in South-
East Berkeley
Re-Open
Pool
Infrastructure and  Policy: While there are many green spaces around the city, amenities to make spaces safer and accessible, like public bathrooms, lighting, and benches, are variable. In addition, while some areas of the city, such as downtown, have various public transportation options, accessing parks from other areas requires a car or multiple bus lines.

TAKE AWAYS
Equity and  Inclusion: The city started implementing accessibility standards ahead of many other places, but improvements to sidewalks, bus stations, and other outdoor spaces have not continued with the same momentum. The city is aware of these problems and assessing where to invest in additional accessibility efforts.

Information:  There are many wonderful parks throughout Berkeley, but information about these parks, their programs, and the accessibility of  activities are not easy to find and the city website is not always up to date with information.

ACTION PLAN

41 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Public

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
A new advocacy and social
justice interest group growing
out of Ashby Village meets to
discuss and plan advocacy
efforts.

The Center for Independent
Living advocates with and for
people of all ages with disabilities
and offers organized social
activities.

Social Participation
& Civic Engagement
Senior Centers serve hundreds
of people daily with  group
classes and activities including
meals, foreign language, memoir
writing, music, field trips, dance,
and birding.  They also have
voter registration materials.

The East Bay Gray Panthers are
an intergenerational advocacy
group fighting  for social
justice  and combating ageism.

J-Sei is a community center that
offers a space for inter-
generational activities and
services  that pass on Nikkei
values and traditions.

The Center for Elders'
Independence organizes social
activities and has an adult day
health center as part of their
PACE program.

Ashby Village members organize
events, volunteer activities and
various interest groups that
meet regularly including
advocacy, poetry, bridge, movies,
and technology.

The Berkeley Lawn Bowling Club
is a nonprofit outdoor sport club
that has been active since 1928.

Members  offer free classes to the
public.

A support and advocacy group for
LGBTQ seniors, Lavender Seniors
has a 'Friendly Visitor' program
and monthly lunches to keep
members connected.

The Berkeley Continuum is a
non-profit group that is working
to ensure that a continuum of
services and supports are
available for older people to age
in their communities.

A variety of social opportunities are available for
older adults in Berkeley. These include fitness, art ,
education, political and and cultural activities. While the vast majority of survey respondents indicated
that they participate in social activities at least a few times a week, transportation and affordability of
activities were raised as barriers. Making activities
more affordable, accessible, and widely advertised
would help residents, particularly isolated seniors,
participate.

Elder-Action
Group
As a major local employer, the
UC Berkeley retirement center
connects 2,245  UC retirees in
Berkeley and Albany with
volunteer opportunities, book
clubs, workshops, and Retirees'
Associations.

The Jewish Community Center
organizes group "Trips Around
T own" for seniors and has adult
classes, lunches, clubs, and
events.

UC Berkeley Osher Lifelong
Learning Institute offers a wide
variety of classes for adults 50
and older.

Berkeley
Continuum
Gray
Panthers
CEI Social
Activities
BLBC
J-Sei
Activities
OLLI @
Berkeley
JCC
Lavender
Seniors Group
The City’s 43 Boards &
Commissions attract numerous
seniors from across the city,
including to the Commission on
Aging.

City Boards
&
Commissions
CIL
Senior
Centers
UC
Retirement
Center
Ashby
Village
Nonprofit & University

42 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
One of the top reasons Berkeley was rated positively by survey respondents as a place to age was the availability of many different services and activities. The vast majority of survey respondents said they are actively participating in social activities. However, various surveys indicate that 6-11% of Berkeley seniors socialize less that once week and follow up is needed to identify the needs of these isolated seniors.
89%
said they socialize
at least a few
times a week
60%
said they participate
in continuing
education or self-
improvement
classes
>75%
said their community
has volunteer and
civic engagement
opportunities
31%
said they have
transportation to
and from volunteer
activities
DATA
54%
said it is very important
to have opportunities to
participate in local
government and
decision making
80%
said it is important for
them to have
opportunities to
participate in local
councils and committees
Berkeley has a long history of being at the center of social movements. Older adults in the community are heavily involved in local politics.
91%
said it is important for
them to have a range
of opportunities to
volunteer

78.1%
of registered Berkeley
voters participated in
the 2016 election, higher
than the county turnout
(75.42%)
According to focus groups
moderated by the Berkeley
Continuum
Some people had been to the senior
centers and liked them. However, a few
people said they did not like the senior
center, with some adding that it seemed
"depressing" .

Participants who lived in multi-unit
housing indicated that they needed more
information about what activities were
happening in the community.

Those living in single family homes
showed more interest in finding ways to
be connected to social activities.

Where people go for self-
improvement or continuing
education
33 22
19 12 12 11
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Organization
% of responses
University/Adult Ed
Senior Center
Local Orgs & Businesses
Parks & Rec Dept.Community  Center
Faith Community

43 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Plan additional intergenerational
community activities that encourage
participation of different ages and
cultures.

Reframe “senior centers” and modify
programming to attract “younger”
seniors.

Help neighborhood associations,
formal and informal groups, and city
agencies focus on providing
opportunities for older people to
participate, especially low-income,
isolated and disabled seniors.

Create an easy to access directory of
Age-Friendly organizations, activities
and engagement opportunities for
older adults.

The North Berkeley Senior Center
building is being upgraded with $5.8
million in local T1 funds to accommodate
additional community programs. Input
from older adults who use the senior
centers was used in developing the plan.

Senior
Center
Upgrade
Activity
DirectoryCollaborate
Diversify
Activities
Senior
Centers
Year 1Year  2-3 In Process

ACTION PLAN
Older adults are included  in Measure
GG (emergency preparedness)
outreach and workshops, especially
to consider isolated and low-income
seniors.

Measure
GG
Consider older adult comments and
public input to T1
infrastructure expenditures to ensure
public spaces are developed with the
needs of older adults in mind.

When possible, schedule public
meetings when it is convenient for
older adults and offer transportation
options for people who may not feel
comfortable traveling alone at night.

Meeting
Timing
T1
Spending
Equity and  Inclusion: Active civic engagement has been a prominent part of Berkeley's history and continues to be important to residents of all ages. Opportunities for older adults with a variety of physical abilities, cultural backgrounds, and languages will help foster a stronger sense of community, both intergenerationally and among older adults in Berkeley.

TAKE AWAYS
Information: Having activities available will not be enough to ensure that everyone has a way to participate. We want to also ensure that there are various modes of communicating information about the programs so that those without computer access or who are more isolated will have information about services and activities they can participate in. This will also require communicating information in multiple languages and in written and audio formats.

Infrastructure and Policy: Transportation to activities, language accommodations, and making activities accessible is especially important for seniors who are at risk of isolation and are not typically included in community events. Reducing barriers to participation with infrastructure and policy improvements will make community events and activities more inclusive.

44 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Public
Employment &
Economic Security
ASSETS Senior Employment
Program  provides job training
and job search assistance for
Alameda County residents age
55+.

Encore is a Bay Area company
that helps adults 50+ find
impactful work in the social
sector, mentor younger adults,
and participate in advocacy for
older adults.

The Berkeley Adult School &
Career Center offers
workshops, career fairs,
computer access for job
searching, and one-on-one
assistance to help adult job
seekers.

The UC Berkeley Retirement
Center gathers information
about resources for retirees
who are looking for part-time
work or volunteer
opportunities.

Our community survey and focus groups found that the cost of living throughout the Bay Area is a prominent concern among older adults. Many older people are worried they
won't be able to afford their property taxes or rent, and the cost of transportation and food continue to rise. Retiring may be a financial impossibility for many people in Berkeley.

It is critical to ensure there are local job  opportunities for people of all ages and abilities and adequate financial support and advice for those who can no longer work. .

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
ASSETS  East Bay
Works
Encore
The Clean City Program,
managed by BOSS, hires people
experiencing homelessness for
temporary jobs cleaning
sidewalks in the City while BOSS
helps them navigate their
housing and health services.

Clean City
Program
UC
Retirement
Center
In October 2018, Berkeley
adopted a $15 minimum wage
which will help all those
who work in Berkeley make a
basic wage.

For seniors 65+ who have a
household income less than
$46,500, certain city taxes can
be refunded, such as Sanitary
Sewer fees and the  School
Maintenance tax.

LAS is a nonprofit legal
assistance organization that
helps senior clients with legal
problems such as changes to
public benefit payments and
elder abuse cases including
financial abuse.

Minimum
Wage
Very Low
Income T ax
Refund
Legal
Assistance
for Seniors
Nonprofit & University

45 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
While many older adults expressed interest in job training, flexible jobs for older people, and jobs that are adapted for older people, few thought these resources were available.

DATA
Important and available
employment resources
Flexible Jobs Job Training Adapted Jobs
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Important Available
% Responents
Work Status
Full- or Part-time Unemployed Retired
Not working: Other
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
50-64 65-79 80+
% Responents
Focus groups and survey respondents consistently named financial security and the cost of living in the Bay Area as their top issues.  When looking at how older adults rated Berkeley as a place to age on the survey, answers vary by income group, with higher income groups more likely to rate Berkeley as "Excellent/Good" and less likely to rate it as "Not so Good/Poor"
Rating of Berkeley as a place to age by income group
Excellent/Good Okay Not so good/Poor
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 <$16K $16K-$32K $32K-$60K $60K-$90K >$90K
% Responents
51%
of Berkeley residents age 60+
said they were "concerned" or
"very concerned" about having
enough income to meet their
basic needs
According to the Alameda County Plan for Older Adults 2016-2017, "Income for basic needs"
was the top concern among
older adults  county-wide and in
Berkeley

46 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Consider a program of Elder Friendly
business certification (Elders in
Action provides this in Portland )
which would indicate businesses that
accommodate both older workers
and customers.

The City Economic Development
department is working on outreach
and a small business forum
regarding succession planning and
how to help older adults plan for
their next phase.

Age Friendly
Business
Year 1Year 2-3 In Process

ACTION PLAN
Succession
Planning
Offer workshops and education on
financial planning and elder fraud
abuse.

Financial
Planning Broaden communication of
assistance with local taxes for low
income residents.

T axes

TAKE AWAYS
Infrastructure and Policy:  Financial stress is common among older adults in Berkeley. There is a wide range of incomes that are creating a disparity in how residents view the city as a place where they can stay as they age. T o prevent further displacement, there needs to be more affordable housing units and other programs to help people stay in their communities.

Equity and  Inclusion: There are not enough jobs that offer the flexibility and accommodations that some older workers are looking for. This is a major issue for those who are choosing to work longer and those who  need to because of financial concerns. Access to jobs needs to be addressed through policy and business incentives.

Information: Though the city has a number of programs designed to help low-income seniors, it is clear from focus groups that not everyone is aware of these programs. Additionally, there is a need to expand these programs beyond what is considered "low-income" for the purposes of federal benefit programs because the cost of living in the Bay Area is so  much higher than the national average.

47 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Public
Respect &
Social Inclusion
Large print materials of public
documents are available through
the City Clerk’s office.

Bears for Elder Welfare is a
student organization at UC
Berkeley intended to help
improve the well-being of local
older adults and to foster respect
for elders among Berkeley
students.

The students at UC Berkeley are an excellent example
of a  volunteer resource, from student groups
specifically created to improve the welfare of older
adults to individuals who sign up to volunteer, for
example at the Senior Centers, Meals on Wheels and
Ashby Village.  Seniors in Berkeley are diverse and may have many intersecting identities that make them more
or less vulnerable to agism and other forms of
discrimination. Volunteer and service programs keep
these issues  in mind when engaging with local
residents. Counters in all city public service
areas are accessible and staff are
trained to assist people with
disabilities.

Members of UC Berkeley's
student Co-Op volunteer to
assist Berkeley seniors to remain
in their homes as long as
possible.

Volunteers of all ages help
facilitate Ashby Village activities,
including support groups.

Lavender Seniors give service
providers who are LGBTQ
allies"The Emblem" which is a
marker that states "Safe, Visible
and Celebrated. ”
CIL runs 10 week workshops for
older adults with new limitations
that helps them gain skills they
need to overcome barriers to
independent living and so they
can continue to participate in
their communities.

AltaBates Medical Center runs a
program  where volunteers call
daily to check-in on people who
opt-in to the program and alert
emergency contacts if unable to
reach someone.

Forget me Not is a phone call
program that partners socially
isolated older adults with
compassionate high school
volunteers for conversation and
to forge social bonds.

Covia manages Well Connected,
an online and over the phone
support for individuals and social
groups.

Volunteers in the community
bring hot meals to isolated and
frail seniors and socialize with
them.

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
Accessible
Customer
Service
Accessible
Documents
Berkeley
Student
Co-Op
Lavender
Seniors
AV
Volunteers
Well
connected
CIL Wellness
Program
Forget Me
Not
AltaBates
T ele-Care
Meals on
Wheels
Bears for
Elder
Welfare
Nonprofit & University

48 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
As a "college town" , there are many activities and organizations in Berkeley that are focused on attracting the younger generations. Older adults are also active in the community and identified a wide variety of social resources they consider important. 94%
of survey respondents
socialize at least once a
week
68%
of survey respondents
would turn to family, a
friend, or a neighbor if
they needed information
about servies

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
The vast majority of our survey respondents have someone to socialize with at least weekly and have friends or family to turn to when they need help. At least 6% of the respondents, however, socialize less than once a week and the survey did not capture some of the more isolated seniors.

Top Responses for Important Social Resources
At least somewhat important Very important
64%
25%
77%
36%
85%
39%
79%
39%
88%
47%
87%
47%
87%
52%
89%
52%
89%
54%
92%
56%
93%
58%
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Activiti.. Activiti.. Activiti.. Local sc.. Social c.. Mixed ag.. Diverse .. Clear pu.. Oppties.. Continu.. Conveni..

Activities specifically for
LGBTQ older adults
Activities and restaurantsthat offer senior discounts
Activities specifically for
older adults
Local schools that involve
older adults
Social clubs e.g.: book
groups, gardening, crafts or
hobbies
Mixed age activities
Diverse cultural activitiesfor diverse populations
Clear publicity about social
activities
Opportunities to participate in localgovt/community decisio n-making
Continuing education
classes
Convenient entertainment
venues

49 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Year 1Year  2-3

ACTION PLAN
Inter-generational programming is
continuing to be fostered in schools
and in the community, such as
student interns and volunteers .

Working with the Berkeley
Continuum and  established
student groups, home visits are
being offered to socially isolated
seniors.

Older adults are included in public
imagery of local media campaigns,
positively and without stereotypes;
community members are consulted
as to how best to portray older
people.

Media
CampaignPrevent
Isolation
In Process
Public
Schools
When "family" events or activities
are organized by the City or other
organizations, include older adults as
part of the target audience, not only
children and families.

Part of the
Family
Organize an annual inter-generational
event that celebrates the value of
people of different ages and fosters
understanding across generations
Inter-
generational
Event

TAKE AWAYS
Information: The people who filled out our survey are involved in activities in the community and most are socially connected. However, we know this is not representative of the larger community because our survey relied on community organizations and social networks for distribution.  Some of the reasons people don't participate in the  community is because they are isolated and/or  don't know about the activities or resources that  could help them participate. The City and organizations need to communicate information clearly and reach out to people who may be more isolated.

Equity and  Inclusion: Seniors in Berkeley are a diverse group, some with many intersecting identities. Language, race, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender, income level, housing status, and other factors all play a role in the way seniors experience life in Berkeley and it is important for volunteers and service providers to keep this in mind.

Communication devices are
available to ensure that seniors
with hearing difficulty are able to
participate in public meetings.

Public
meetings
Year 1Year  2-3

ACTION PLAN
Inter-generational programming is
continuing to be fostered in schools
and in the community, such as
student interns and volunteers .

Working with the Berkeley
Continuum and  established
student groups, home visits are
being offered to socially isolated
seniors.

Older adults are included in public
imagery of local media campaigns,
positively and without stereotypes;
community members are consulted
as to how best to portray older
people.

Media
CampaignPrevent
Isolation
In Process
Public
Schools
When "family" events or activities
are organized by the City or other
organizations, include older adults as
part of the target audience, not only
children and families.

Part of the
Family
Organize an annual inter-generational
event that celebrates the value of
people of different ages and fosters
understanding across generations
Inter-
generational
Event

TAKE AWAYS
Information: The people who filled out our survey are involved in activities in the community and most are socially connected. However, we know this is not representative of the larger community because our survey relied on community organizations and social networks for distribution.  Some of the reasons people don't participate in the  community is because they are isolated and/or  don't know about the activities or resources that  could help them participate. The City and organizations need to communicate information clearly and reach out to people who may be more isolated.

Equity and  Inclusion: Seniors in Berkeley are a diverse group, some with many intersecting identities. Language, race, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender, income level, housing status, and other factors all play a role in the way seniors experience life in Berkeley and it is important for volunteers and service providers to keep this in mind.

Communication devices are
available to ensure that seniors
with hearing difficulty are able to
participate in public meetings.

Public
meetings

50 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Public
Communication &
Information
3-1-1 is a non-emergency single
point of contact for the City that
helps direct people to the
appropriate department for
information or services.

This App is available  in senior
centers for information about
daily activities and for internal
tracking.

While there are a myriad of programs, events, and activities throughout Berkeley, it is often difficult for older adults to find what they want or need. Many older adults have internet access either through their mobile phone or at home, but websites are not intuitive or easy to navigate. Input from older adults about their needs and how they are currently getting information will help tailor existing communication to better meet their needs.

Large text and alternate formats
of public records are available.

Alameda County residents have
access to a 2-1-1 phone line,
managed by the nonprofit Eden
I&R, for information and referral
services.

The Center for T echnology &
Aging (CTA) at UC Berkeley is
designed specifically to
encourage and enhance the
development of new
technologies for the aging
population.

The Center for Independent
Living's  (CIL)  Information and
Referral (I&R) is a program that
provides information on free
disability-relevant community
resources.

AGE FRIENDL Y RESOURCES
Accessible
Documents

CTACIL I&R
The monthly newsletter for
Berkeley's senior centers is
distributed to 200 seniors via
email and is available in hard
copy at the centers.  It
announces class schedules and
events.

Berkeleyside is a local
independent news site for
Berkeley residents reporting on
local events and issues that has
an average of 270,000 unique
users each month.

Berkeleyside
The Nugget
My Senior
Center App
The NextDoor website helps
neighbors communicate.

Individuals need to verify their
address through the mail to use
it.  Many older people in
Berkeley accessed our survey
through announcements on this
site.

Nextdoor
3-1-1
Eden I&R
2-1-1
Nonprofit &
UniversityPrivate
There are 5 public libraries in
Berkeley. They host the Berkeley
Information Network,  an online
database of local resources that
can be accessed on their website
and that has a specific section for
seniors.

Public
Libraries
Richard Bermack

51 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
46%
of survey respondents would be at
least somewhat likely to use
Internet/T echnology training if it was
free or low-cost
Internet Access
Home (27%) Phone (3%) None (5%)
Both (65%)
Comfort Using Internet
Very Comfortable Somewhat Comfortable
Not Very Comfortable Not at All Comfortable
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Internet comfort
DATA
Some information regarding internet use among seniors emerged from the community survey.  Many residents who submitted the survey did so online, making the sample slightly skewed towards more internet savvy people. Even though the majority of respondents said that they were comfortable using the internet, almost half indicated they would be interested in internet/technology classes if they were available. 270,000
people on average read Berkeleyside
each month
3,492
2-1-1 calls were made by Berkeley
residents between January and
August 2018
5,211
2-1-1 referrals were made between
January and August 2018
An independent needs assessment contracted by the city as part of their Digital Divide project found that some of the barriers for older adults in  using technology include:

Basic
Training
Quality
Devices
Reliable
Internet
According to focus groups done by
the Berkeley Continuum and the
Age-Friendly Berkeley Initiative
Many older people are concerned about how to navigate
different systems in the city, including resources for
transportation, housing, and healthcare

Most people want to be able to call someone or go
somewhere to find information about services, but they
don't know of any "one stop shop" for  different kinds of information.

While people who are members of an organization like
Ashby Village or who live in affordable housing with a
service coordinator know where to go for help, this
situation does not exist for most people.

Most people said they prefer getting information from a person, either over the phone or face-to-face,  rather
than online. However, the number of people who can
find information online if they need it is increasing.

Appendix B

52 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix B
Consider developing a City of
Berkeley Mobile app, to facilitate
how people in the field triage
incidents involving older adults.

Look at the frequency of 311 calls
for different services from older
residents in order to better
understand and support  the
resources they are seeking.

As part of the City's IT strategic plan,
gather input from older adults about
how content can be best presented to
them .

IT StrategyMonitor
3-1-1
Mobile
App
Year 1Year  2-3

ACTION PLAN
The City website is being
redesigned to reduce the number of
pages (now 18,000 pages), make it
more searchable, and address ADA
compliance throughout.

A Master Plan is being created that
includes improvement to
infrastructure for high
speed broadband internet
access and technology for seniors;
and that  includes a collaboration
with non-profit groups.

In Process
The 311 line is being redevloped with a
new online solution; expected to roll
out in 18 months.

Improving
3-1-1
City
Website
Digital
Divide
Create an Age Friendly website that
provides updates on services, news,
projects, and activities.

Age Friendly
Website
Piggyback on the popularity of local
newspapers with a Senior Newsletter,
similar to the one in Fremont, California,
or an Age-Friendly page or link in local
newspapers.

City
Newsletter

TAKE AWAYS
Equity and  Inclusion: While most survey respondents said they use the internet, this may be a skewed sample because of the many surveys completed online. Focus groups indicated that older people also get information from schools, their children,  or their neighbors.  Multiple modes of communication, including paper and online formats , should be used to ensure that older adults are able to stay informed, particularly those who are isolated.

Information: While 2-1-1 receives hundreds of calls each month from Berkeley residents and makes referrals to services, it is not clear how many older people use this service and follow through on referrals (the system does not collect this data).  This site is also difficult to navigate and does not contain information regarding activities and opportunities for social engagement.

Infrastructure and  Policy: The city website is difficult to navigate and needs to be updated more regularly in order to be a useful source of information for residents with varying degrees of comfort using the internet.

53 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
A. Survey: The AARP Age-Friendly Community Survey was used with a few minor adjustments

1. Circulation: The survey was available between March 1st and April 10 • A link to the online version of the survey was posted on NextDoor and sent as an email blast through the following organizations:
o The Mayor and City Council Member’s websites
o A City website news announcement
o Ashby Village
o University of California Retirement Center Newsletter o AARP mailing to local members
o Member organizations of the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County • A press release announcing the survey was sent out by the local paper, Berkeleyside, • Hard copies were made available at organizations:
o All 5 Berkeley Public Library Locations
o 2 Resources for Community Development senior housing locations o 6 Satellite Affordable Housing Associate senior housing locations o Both Senior Centers
o J-Sei
o Ashby Village
o Meals on Wheels
o LifeLong Medical Care Over 60 Health Center
o Jewish Community Center of the East Bay

2. 1402 residents responded. Analysis provided by Nancy Frank & Associates, Piedmont, CA B. Supplemental local reports:
• See www.berkeleycontinuum.org 2017 needs assessment and focus group information used in this report
• See Alameda County Plan for older adults, May 2016 https://alamedasocialservices.org/public/ services/elders_and_disabled_adults/docs/planning_committee/5.2016_County_Area_Plan.pdf C Interviews with 18 city staff in 9 City of Berkeley departments: April-May 2018 D Additional Focus Groups, Public Forum, City Council Presentation and meetings with the Commission on Aging
• City Council Presentation and Workshop: July 17, 2018 • Additional Focus Groups: September 22, 2018, October 24, 2018 • Public Forum co-hosted with the Commission on Aging: October 27, 2018 • Several meetings with the Commission on Aging throughout project Appendix C: Data Collection

54 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix C

FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY
Latinx Focus Group
Location: Bahia , inc.

Group size: 10
Average age: 59.4
All lived in Berkeley >20 years
Income
<$17K
$17K-$35K
$35K-$60K
>$60K

1. Affordable housing

2. Cost of living

3. Affordable health insurance

4. Accessible places to get services
T op Concerns
What is working well?
Good Schools
Living close to work
Latinx community
Cultural diversity
Advocacy for rights  &  equality
Neighborhood is safe
What is NOT working well?
Not informed about resources
Feel like we're being pushed out
Growing homelessness issue
Cost of living; children can't afford to live
nearby
"Low-income" program cut-off doesn't match
cost of living
Neighborhood permit parking
Homeowner sidewalk responsibility
High taxes
Disruption in church community;
congregation spread out

Some  Recommendations
Linguistically/Culturally
appropriate assisted living options
Affordable dental care resources
African American (faith-based
Focus Group
Location: St, Paul's AME Church
Group size: 9
Average age: 59.4
What is working well?
Feel safe, not threatened: Berkeley is like a
“Garden of Eden”
Diversity
Church as support system
T axi scrip resource through Senior Centers
What is NOT working well?
Vandalism
Not enough senior housing
Lack of community cohesion, support
Maintaining diversity;  many are leaving for
more affordable communities
Cost of living, pressure to sell home
Family/children live far away

1.  Cost of living

2.  Affordable housing

3. Pressure to move out
T op Concerns
Some Recommendations
Centralized information in a senior
resource guide
Fill gaps in public transportation
(more bus lines and stops) Berkeley Continuum Focus Groups Group size: 57 across 3 groups
Age range:  48-93
53% lived in Berkeley >10 years

See Berkeley Continuum Needs Assessment for details
www.berkeleycontinuum.org
Income
<$17K
$17K-$35K
$35K-$60K
>$60K
Berkeley Commission on Aging Forum (2)
Location: St, Paul's AME Church
Group size: 36
Age range:  48-93
53% lived in Berkeley >10 years
Concerns were similar to those heard elsewhere and
focused on:
how older adults can learn about what goes on in the
community[housing health care and transportation were
mentioned] and needing online and in‐person ways to
learn that);
need for affordable housing
need for sidewalk safety
Main concerns:

Housing cost is too high, fear
of having to leave Berkeley,
affordable housing waitlists
too long
People want in-home
supports, but are worried
about where to find them,
who to trust, and
affordability
Need more access to  face-to-
face or personalized over the
phone systems for
navigation support
Need more frequent and
flexible public transport
Concerns about sidewalk
safety
Location: North Berkeley Senior Center
Group size: 18
Concerns and needs were similar to those heard
elsewhere and focused on:
more employment opportunities
affordable meals
community navigators/advocates
transportation in the hills
more housing for seniors with different levels of care
more help for those just above "low-income" level
access to and knowledge of community events (not just
for parents and children)

55 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix C
Focus Group Question Guide
Question 1: Imagine that you are describing to people the experience you are having in Berkeley as you grow older. What do you like best about it? What is working well for you? What has been most challenging for you? What are the “age friendly” characteristics that are most important to you? Question 2: Which of the characteristics we just mentioned are strongest or currently lacking in Berkeley? Question 3: Of all the things we’ve listed here, what do think are the priorities? Where should we start if we are going to develop new services, supports or conditions? As time allows and depending on focus of discussion:

Question 5: Do you have concerns about whether you will be able to live out your years in Berkeley? If so, why? Where would you go?
Question 6: How many of you have access to a computer and the internet in your home or building? Do you ever skype? Other uses?
Question 7: How do you want to be able to learn about resources that are available to you as your health and/or everyday needs change? A place (like a center?), a person (like a navigator?) the internet ? Question 8: If someone offered to come to your home to check it out for fall hazards, talk to you about what is available in the community, needs you might have, help you plan and provide you with referrals and linkages, would that be attractive to you?
Question 9: If you had to move out of your home because you need more help day-to-day than you can get at home, where would you go? What would be your fears about living in assisted living or nursing situation? Focus Group Survey

1. How old are you? _______________

2. What is your zip code? _______________

3. Did you participate in any recent survey about aging either from Berkeley or Alameda County?

4. Are you on Medicare or MediCal?

5. Where do you get your medical care?

6. Income: What would you estimate was your income last year from ALL sources (social security, retirement, pension, savings, employment, tenants, other)
Does that income support: Only you, Yourself and a partner/spouse with no other income, Yourself and a partner/spouse with additional income from them, Includes another dependent

8. What are the biggest challenges you are facing (or anticipating) as you age in Berkeley:

Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

56 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix C

ALAMEDA COUNTY PLAN FOR OLDER ADULTS
2016-2017
Berkeley Results from the
Survey T op 10 Concerns

1.  Income for Basic Needs

2.  Inclusion in Decisions

3.  Housing Affordable

4.  Income for Future

5.  Stay in Home

6.  Maintain Home

7.  Falling

8.  Prepare Healthy Food

9.  Anxiety of Stress

10.   Confusion or Memory
Rating

3.4 3.3

3.3 3.3

3.3 3.2

3.0 2.9

2.7 2.6
Survey T op 10 Resources Lacking

1.  Job Opportunities

2.  Clean & Well-kept Sidewalks

3. Affordable Housing

4.  Safe & Well-lit Streets

5.  A Computer You FeelComfortable Using

6.  Housing Suited to Your Needs

7.  Resources to Feel Safe

8.  Fresh Vegetables & Fruit I Can Afford

9.  A Trusted Source to Go for Needs

10. Health Services Culturally/Language Appropriate
% Without

31.9%

21.3%

19.9%

16.9%

16.1%

15.3%

14.9%

12.2%

11.8%

11.2%
Notes: Older Adults=60+; Survey Results from AC Older Adults Survey 2015; Concerns rated from high (5) to low (1) with the average of all ratings shown; Bar graphs from the US Census, ACS 2010-2014 T able S0102 and ESRI 2015

This page was copied from the Alameda County Plan for Older Adults 2016-2017 Appendix D Medi-Cal Enrolled IHHS EnrolledVeterans
1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
14,661 14,320 13,879
19,516
22,031
White
2+ Races
American Indian
Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Asian
Black 13.5%
12%

4.7%

1.8%

0.1%
0%
Other 0.3%

67.5%
Earnings Soc. Security SSI Pub. Assis.

Cash
Retirement
$92,694
$18,219 $9,832 $7,009
$44,960
Earnings Soc. Security SSI Pub. Assis.

Cash
Retirement
57%
66%
8%
1%
40%
Living
Alone
Married
Couple
48%

36.5%
3,458
2,733
1,188
Foreign born Non-citizen Non-English at
Home
Not English
Proficient

17.3%

3.8%

17.9%

6.9%
Growth of 60+ population % Race/Ethnicity
Household avg. income by source % Households with income source Living Arrangements >30% Income on Housing
27%
55%
Own RentOwn Rent
69%
31%
Own vs Rent
English Proficiency & Citizenship

57 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Appendix D: Useful References
AARP Livable Communities
http://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/network-age-friendly-communities/ AARP Livable Communities: Great Places to Age
https://states.aarp.org/aarp-livable-communities-great-places-for-all-ages/ Age-Friendly BusinessCertification Programs
http://www.programsforelderly.com/awareness-elders-in-action-age-friendly-business-certification. php
Age-Friendly Communities,
Grantmakers in Aging https://www.giaging.org/issues/community-development/ Scharlach, Andrew E.; Amanda Lehning, “Creating aging-friendly communities,” Generations, vol. 33, no. 2
Aging Survey-The United States of Aging; American Association of Retired Persons [AARP] (2012). https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/learn/research-trends/info-12-2012/the-united-states-of- aging-2012.html
Alameda County Plan for Older Adults
https://alamedasocialservices.org/public/services/elders_and_disabled_adults/docs/planning_ committee/5.2016_County_Area_Plan.pdf
American Community Survey
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
Berkeley Reports
Age-Friendly Berkeley Continuum Executive Summary and Needs Assessment, 2016 www.berkeleycontinuum.or
g
Health Status Report (2018)
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Health_Human_Services/Level_3_-_Public_Health/2018- health-status-report-berkeley.pdf
Berkeley on AARP list of Top Ten “Livable Cities,” Str eetsblog Cal, June 21, 2018
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2018/06/21/san-francisco-berkeley-on-aarp-list-of-top-ten-livable-cities/ Broadband Equity Research Report, May 1, 2018, Nutter Consulting https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Manager/Economic_Development/2018-06-19%20 WS%20Item%2002%20Referral%20Response%20Addressing.pdf
Community Need Assessment
Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Community Health Needs Assessment 2016 https://www.sutterhealth. org/pdf/for
-patients/chna/absmc-2016-chna.pdf
Fall Pr
evention
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/falls/adultfalls.html https://www.ncoa.org/healthy-aging/falls-prevention/preventing-falls-tips-for-older-adults-and- caregivers/

58 AGE - FRIENDLY BERKELEY
Food Assistance
http://www.alamedasocialservices.org/public/services/food_assistance/index.cfm Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide
http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf Poverty
Kushel, MD, Margot. “Growing Older, Getting Poor.” New American Media, April, 2015, San Francisco Senior Center Transformation
https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/act/civic-community/info-12-2012/transforming-senior-center- into-21st-century-wellness-centers.html
Senior Center without Walls
http://www.seniorcenterwithoutwalls.org/about/
Social Determinants of Health
https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/beyond-health-care-the-role-of-social-determinants-in- promoting-health-and-health-equity/
https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health Technology, David Lindeman, MPH
https://citris-uc.or
g/technology-older-adults-new-era-connected-aging/
Transportation Needs in an Aging Friendly Community
https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/learn/transportation-mobility/info-12-2012/meeting- transportation-needs-in-an-aging-friendly-community.html Appendix D

Attachment 2
City Departmental Budgets

Attachment 3
HHCS Departmental Summary

Attachment 4
HHCS Division Summary

Attachment 5
Berkeley’s Unique Structure for Aging Services
Aging Division Activities Summary

Aging in Alameda County:

A Changing Landscape
July 2022
1 The Senior Services Coalition represents 45 nonprofit and public community-based organizations that provide health and supportive services to over 85,000 older adults in Alameda County.

Our Mission is to strengthen and improve the network of support for older people in Alameda County, especially those disproportionately impacted or at risk because of fragile health, cognitive impairment, disability, language, culture, race, financial status, sexual orientation or gender identity.

We do that by advancing county and state policy change and facilitating collaborative solutions that bridge silos and sectors.
2

The Shifting Landscape of Needs and the
Ecosystem of Supports…
● We are aging
● Increasing economic insecurity
● Medical and LTC increasingly out of reach
● High preventable use of ER and hospital
● Social isolation
● The pandemic toll
● From housing insecurity to homelessness
3 We are Aging
● Older adults are the fastest growing segment in Alameda County ● By 2030, older adults will make up 20% of the population ● Number of people with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) is expected to triple among Alameda County residents over the age of 65, from 26,480 in 2020 to 89,792 in 2060
https://agefriendly.acgov.org/aging-in-ac/aging-in-ac-overview.page 4

https://www.healthyalamedacounty.org/ 5
6

Increasing Economic Insecurity
● Cost of Living & Inflation are outpacing income
● Half of single older adults in Alameda County can’t cover basic living expenses
● One in six older adults in California lacks reliable access to enough affordable, nutritious food
● Income, wealth & savings at retirement all characterized by disparities “There is a disproportionate burden on people of color, women and LGBTQ individuals. These groups have less retirement savings and face a greater likelihood of aging into poverty.”
- Report on Employment & Older Adults in Alameda County; Kakama, Chaudhuri; Alameda County Age-Friendly Council, July 27, 2020 7 8

Medical & Long-Term Care Increasingly out of Reach
● For those of modest income who have Medicare coverage:
○ Out-of-pocket costs (copays & deductible) are unaffordable for many ○ Nursing Home covered first 90 days but a qualifying hospital stay is the entry point and copays apply after day 20
○ Assisted Living, Board & Care, and Adult Day Care are not covered ○ In-home support and care are not covered by Medicare
○ Those who are immigrants or who didn’t work enough quarters may have to pay for Part A as well as Part B and D
● Medi-Cal Share of Cost
○ Older adults might be $1 over the threshold to qualify for full-scope (free) Medi-Cal, and if so they must pay more than half their income towards health care in order to access Medi-Cal coverage in any given month
● Long-term care is unaffordable for the 83,000 seniors in the county with incomes below the Elder Index (Insight Center, 2017 HCBS LTC Costs).
9 Preventable is the Theme in ER & Hospital use
Of the total 34,819 people age 65
visiting ERs in 2018:
● 25.9% (9,017) had two or more
ADL deficits;
● 34.2% (11,897 people) had both
two or more ADL deficits and
cognitive impairment.
● A very small percentage (1.87%
had cognitive impairment but no
ADL deficits
https://eldercare.shinyapps.io/eldercaredata_shinyapps/ 10

Living Alone at Risk of Social Isolation
Individuals 65 and older have the highest rate of suicide deaths: 1 in 4 older adults who attempt suicide die, versus 1 in 200 younger persons 11 The Pandemic Toll
● Social and Health Impacts
○ Social Isolation
○ Deconditioning
○ Deferred health care
○ Family support networks destabilized
● Stark disproportionate impacts reflect historic disparities and structures of racism
○ Infection and death rates
○ Vaccination rates
○ Economic impacts
○ Need for and access to government aid
○ Use of virtual/telemedicine opportunities 12

From Housing Insecurity to Homelessness
● In 2019, 47.6% of senior renters in Alameda County are “housing cost burdened” (over 30% of their income goes to housing); 30% spend over half their income on housing.
● Of the 4,209 complete applications for COVID Rent Relief (2021/22 ERAP) from Oaklanders, 9.64% were from people between age 61 and 80; 71.2% were from people of color
● Financial, medical or other emergencies later in life can push those who were already struggling to make ends meet into homelessness. ● People over 50 now account for over half of the unhoused population in Oakland; People 65+ were over 10% of homeless Point In Time count. ● 2022 Point In Time count - Oakland’s unhoused population increased by 25% from 2019 (data re older adult component not yet available) 13 14https://agefriendly.acgov.org/aging-in-ac/housing.page?

The shifting ecosystem of supports:
● Capacity is not adequate across the continuum
● Workforce needs to grow
● Caregivers need support
18 State and Local Funding for Older Adults and
Aging Services:
● State funding opportunities
● Potential state funding opportunities
● Local funding
21

Questions?
Wendy Peterson
[email protected]
(510) 332-4669
32

Breakdown of Alameda Area on Aging Funds for Berkeley
Amounts below indicate FY2024 amounts; the percentages indicate the general breakdown overall, every year:
● Congregate Nutrition (dine-in lunch service): $73,381 (15%) ● Home-Delivered Meals: $140,192 (25%)
● Famil
y Caregiver Support: $99,528 (20%)
● Information Assistance: $156,803 (30%)
● Senior Center Activities: $47,363 (10%)

Attachment 8
Highlights of Census Data on Aging in Berkeley
Changes in >60 Population 2010 and 2020
Red-orange high; blue low.

First two figures show absolute numbers. Second two are percentages of population.

Some narratives about the figures:
• About 8% of residents > 65 years either without a computer at home or internet access, ~1500 people
• About 2000 people > 60 below the poverty line in the last 12 months • About 4000 people 65 years and older below 200% of the poverty line, ~20% of Berkeley's seniors
• About 700 kids living with "a grandparent householder" which I take to mean being raised by their grandparent
• About 5500 people over 65 who live alone
• About 4500 people > 65 work. Only 1900ish drive alone. 400 take transit, 200 carpool, 350 walk, 1500 work from home. Only 150 take a taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means
• Median household income in $93,000
• About 2000 are on medicaid or other means tested public health insurance • About 3000 > 65 with an ambulatory difficulty
• About 1200 with a cognitive difficulty
Margins of error on all these estimates are around 10-20%

Understanding California's Middle-
Income Older Adult Population
NORC | The SCAN Foundation | West Health Institute
October 3, 2022

3PROJECT OVERVIEW : BACKGROUND
The first Forgotten Middle studies brought national attention to the unmet needs of future middle-income seniors
The original Forgotten
Middle study
Forgotten Middle
2022 “refresh”
• Released in 2019 • Released in 2022
Purpose: To forecast
the size, demographics,
health needs, and
financial resources of
middle-income seniors
aged 75 and older
• Forecasted the senior
population through 2029
• Forecasted the senior
population through 2033
• Relied on 2014 Health and
Retirement Study (HRS) data
• Updated the original analysis
using 2018 HRS data
• Fifth most read Health Affairs
article of 2019

21CA NEAR DUALS : HEALTH AND FUNCTIONAL STATUS
Within California’s near duals group, 57% will have mobility limitations and nearly half will have 3+ chronic conditions in 2033 Over two-thirds of near duals
over the age of 85 will have
mobility limitations in 2033
Health or Functional Limitations All Seniors 75+ 75-84 85+ 3+ Chronic Conditions 48% 49% 47%
3+ Limits in Activities of Daily Living 11% 7% 16%
High Needs* 16% 12% 22%
Cognitive Impairment 31% 20% 46%
Mobility Limitations 57% 50% 67%
*High-needs is defined as those with three or more chronic conditions and one or more limitations in ADLs. Not mutually exclusive with other categories.
4PROJECT OVERVIEW : NATIONAL MODEL DESIGN
The 2022 Forgotten Middle model uses the 2018 HRS to
forecast characteristics of seniors in 2033
2018 2033
Age Cohort 60-69; 70+ 75-84; 85+
Life Expectancy Entire Cohort Those predicted to still
be alive
Health
Chronic conditions, mobility
limitations, and cognitive
impairments
Projected rates of
underlying conditions
Financial
Resources
Actual income and annuitized
assets for each individual
Projected financial
resources
Mortality model based on
sociodemographics, health, and mobility
Assume consistent prevalence by
sociodemographic group
Grow based on recent rate of change
by resource category
Increase age by 15 years

5PROJECT OVERVIEW : NATIONAL FINDINGS
Summary of findings from the 2022 Forgotten Middle update Over the next decade, the number of middle-income seniors will almost double by 2033—reaching 16M adults ages 75+ by 2033 Many older adults will have health needs, like mobility limitations and cognitive impairments, that make it hard to live independently Without selling their homes, three-quarters (11.5M) of middle-income seniors have insufficient resources to pay for private assisted living 20CA NEAR DUALS : RACE & ETHNICITY
Nearly 46% of California’s near duals cohort will consist of people of color in 2033

45.4% 54.1%

65.6%

45.8% 26.1%

17.9%

4.0% 4.4% 4.4%

4.8% 15.3% 12.1%
< 139% FPL 139 - 400% FPL > 400% FPL
California Lower-Middle Income Seniors by Race & Ethnicity and FPL, 2033
White Hispanic Black Other
The lower-middle income
cohort in California will
have the highest
percentage of “Other”
races and ethnicities,
compared to the <139%
FPL and >400% FPL
groups
Likely Medicaid Eligible “Near Duals”

19CA NEAR DUALS : POPULATION SIZE
By 2033, over 1M seniors in California are projected to have incomes within 139% to 400% of FPL
127K
171K
190K
249K
271K

12.6% 17.0% 18.9% 24.7% 26.9%
-
50K
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
139-200%
FPL
201-250%
FPL
251-300%
FPL
301-350%
FPL
351-400%
FPL
Projected Distribution of Low-Middle Income Seniors in
California by FPL Range, 2033
693K
574K
278K 434K
971K 1008K
2018 2033
California's Lower-Middle Income
Population by Age Group, 2018 & 2033
75-84 85+
+56%
-17%
+4%
6PROJECT OVERVIEW : CALIFORNIA -SPECIFIC ESTIMATES
Why create a California-specific model?
* Utilizes the 2021 Genworth Cost of Care Survey data converted to 2018 dollars † Based on 44 hours of care per week
The sociodemographics and senior housing costs in California are meaningfully different from national averages
Average assisted living cost is 17% more
expensive in California
More likely to not have children living
within 10 miles
Significantly more racially and ethnically
diverse than the U.S. overall
Higher percentage of individuals with less
than a high school education and those
with a college degree
Senior housing and care costs are higher in California. 23%
19%
9%
17%
24%
35%
Personal Care Services†
Home Health Aide†
Adult Day Health Care
Assisted Living Facility
Nursing Home Semi-Private
Nursing Home Private Room
Percent Difference in California Housing and Care Costs Compared to the U.S. Average, 2018*

Key Findings from California
18CA NEAR DUALS : OVERVIEW
NORC also examined California’s “near duals” cohort, which includes seniors with income-only resources close to Medicaid eligibility • NORC’s national “Forgotten Middle” was designed to focus on individuals who are unlikely to qualify for Medicaid
• To understand the population at risk of spending down to Medicaid eligibility, NORC took an additional step to analyze the size California’s “near dual eligible” seniors in 2033
• Income thresholds for California’s near duals:

To align with Medi-Cal rules, this analysis only considers sources of income, not other assets or housing equity.

Lower: 139% FPL – Ineligible for Medi-Cal
Aged & Disabled Program (138% FPL)
Upper: 400% FPL – Eligibility cutoff for
federal marketplace exchange subsidies

California Near Dual Eligibles
10KEY FINDINGS : POPULATION SIZE
California is estimated to have 1.6M middle-income seniors age 75 and above in 2033
The size of California’s middle-
income senior population will
increase by 60% (601K) by 2033
The number of California’s middle-
income seniors aged 85+ is
expected to more than double
(increasing by 233K)
773K
1,141K
230K
463K
2018 2033
Number of California's Middle-Income Seniors by Age
Group, 2018 and 2033
75-84 85+
1,003K
1,604K +60%
+102%
+48%

11KEY FINDINGS : INCOME AND RACE
California’s middle-income seniors will be more diverse in 2033, with people of color making up 47% of the population
California remains significantly
more racially and ethnically diverse
than the U.S. overall
Policymaking will require high levels
of cultural sensitivity to meet the
needs of all older adults
66%
89%
53%
78%
20%
4%
29%
10%
10% 2%
13% 4%
4% 6% 5% 8%
California National California National
2018 2033
Middle-Income Seniors 75+ by Race and Ethnicity, California vs. National, 2018 and 2033
White Hispanic Other Black
34%
47%
• California:
• National:
16KEY FINDINGS : AL AFFORDABILITY WITH HOUSING EQUITY Even if they sold their homes, half of California’s middle-income seniors still will not have sufficient resources to pay for private assisted living 34K
114K
210K 216K 209K 197K
147K
478K
K
50K
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
350K
400K
450K
500K
$25,984 - $35,000 $35,001 - $45,000 $45,001 - $55,000 $55,001 - $65,000 $65,001 - $75,000 $75,001 - $85,000 $85,001 - $95,000 > $95,000 Projected Financial Resources of California Middle-Income Seniors Including Housing Equity Compared to Assisted Living Costs, 75+ 2033
Average Assisted Living Rent
+ Medical Costs = $75,000
783K (49%) Middle-income seniors in CA will have annual financial resources <$75,000 including housing equity
Average private-pay assisted living rent for California generated by applying the percent difference between national and California costs of assisted living in the 2021 Genworth Cost of Care Survey (17%) to the 2018 average cost of assisted living provided by the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care. Average out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums from Kaiser Family Foundation.

15KEY FINDINGS : AL AFFORDABILITY WITHOUT HOUSING EQUITY Excluding home equity, 89% of California’s middle-income seniors will have insufficient resources for private-pay assisted living Average private-pay assisted living rent for California generated by applying the percent difference between national and California costs of assisted living in the 2021 Genworth Cost of Care Survey (17%) to the 2018 average cost of assisted living provided by the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care. Average out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums from Kaiser Family Foundation. 213K
303K
277K
311K
328K
118K
39K
14K
K
50K
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
350K
$25,984 - $35,000 $35,001 - $45,000 $45,001 - $55,000 $55,001 - $65,000 $65,001 - $75,000 $75,001 - $85,000 $85,001 - $95,000 > $95,000 Projected Financial Resources of California Middle-Income Seniors Excluding Housing Equity Compared to Assisted Living Costs, 75+ 2033 Average Assisted Living Rent in CA + Medical Costs
= $75,000

1.4M (89%) Middle-income seniors in CA will have annual financial resources <$75,000 excluding housing equity
Why excluding home equity matters:
• Spouse may still live in the home
• May want to keep house as “nest egg”
12KEY FINDINGS : HEALTH, COGNITIVE AND MOBILITY LIMITATIONS By 2033, the majority of California middle-income seniors 75+ will have 3+ chronic conditions and mobility limitations Those over 85 are even more likely
to have limitations in activities of
daily living
Many seniors will need additional
caregiving support and may not be
able to continue living
independently
*”High-needs” is defined as those with three or more chronic conditions and one or more limitations in ADLs. Not mutually exclusive with other categories. 58%
9%
20%
21%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
3+ Chronic Conditions
3+ Limits in Activities of Daily Living
High Needs*
Cognitive Impairment
Mobility Limitations
Health & Functional Status of Middle-Income Seniors in
California, 2033

13KEY FINDINGS : FAMILY STRUCTURES
Nearly 60% of California’s middle-income seniors will be unmarried in 2033 and 43% may not have children living within 10 miles Family members, including
spouses and adult children,
provide most caregiving for
older adults
Seniors who are unmarried
(divorced or widowed) and
those without children nearby
may not have unpaid sources
of care52%
42%
48%
58%
2018 2033
Martial Status of Middle-Income Seniors in
California, 2018 and 2033
Married Unmarried
43%
51%
7%
California
California Middle-Income Seniors'
Proximity to Children, 2018
No Children Nearby Children within 10 Miles
Children in Residence
14KEY FINDINGS : FINANCIAL RESOURCES
For California’s forgotten middle, income is the most important financial resource; 1 in 5 have significant housing equity 1 2 3 4 5
Housing $7,817 $13,287 $17,485 $29,431 $179,306
Assets $4,057 $7,478 $12,490 $20,511 $24,157
Income $31,650 $39,969 $45,769 $44,492 $45,335
Total $43,524 $60,734 $75,745 $94,434 $248,797
$43,524
$60,734
$75,745
$94,434
$248,797
$K
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
Financial Resources of California's Middle-Income Seniors 75+, by Quintile, 2033 Income Assets Housing Total

Attachment 10

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/

ACTION CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Tanya Bustamante, Interim Deputy Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Department
Subject: Companion Report: Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to review and prioritize the recommendations of the City of Berkeley’s Age-Friendly Action Plan, in conjunction with the results of the Community Health Assessment that will be conducted by the Health, Housing, and Community Services Department in the 2024 calendar year. In addition, to consider the following referrals:

1. Refer to the Transportation Commission to collaborate with the Commission on Aging to assess the equitable accessibility of public transportation options for the older adult and disabled community in Berkeley

2. Refer to Housing Advisory Commission to collaborate with staff to assess the level of affordable, accessible housing options for older adults to age in the Berkeley community.

3. Refer the Commission on Aging’s request for increased funding to the Budget and Finance Policy Committees for further deliberation.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On September 17, 2024, the Budget & Finance Committee adopted the following action:

M/S/C (Arreguin/Hahn) to refer the item from the Commission and the City Manager Companion Report item to the City Council with a qualified positive recommendation to consider sending both items to the City Manager for evaluation of the age-friendly action plan and the provision of recommendations. Vote: All Ayes.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this recommendation.

21b

Companion Report: Achieving Goals of 2018 Berkeley ACTION CALENDAR Age-Friendly Action Plan October 29, 2024

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Commission on Aging has requested that the City Manager take steps to act on the recommendations of Berkeley’s Age-Friendly Action Plan, and address gaps by increasing funding for personnel and other services provided by the City. The City Manager does not disagree with the potential merit of this request, but rather recommends that Council consider a more specific and streamlined recommendation that encourages relevant commissions and staff to work together to outline feasible and realistic options that are evidence-based and community-driven.

BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting on February 21, 2024, the Commission on Aging voted to recommend to Council to refer to the City Manager steps to develop plans to revisit and act on the recommendations in the Berkeley Age-Friendly Action Plan by building on what is already occurring in the community, expanding the Plan’s impact, and addressing gaps, by increasing funding for personnel and other services currently being offered as well as others identified in the Age-Friendly Plan.

M/S/C: Chisholm, Cochran, Collins, Evans, Lavault, Orrick, Porter, Smith, Yamaguchi.

Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Aging Services Division of the City’s Health, Housing, and Community Services Department provides a wealth of services to Berkeley’s older adult community, including senior center classes and activities, food and nutrition services, transportation services, and case management for high need older adults with complex needs. Given that the older adult population is the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States1, it is prudent to clearly and thoughtfully assess the current needs of this population alongside the gaps and strengths that the results of the upcoming Community Health Assessment will highlight, and the thoughtful planning and deliberation of relevant commissions and staff.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could refer this request directly to the budget process.

CONTACT PERSON
Tanya Bustamante, Interim Deputy Director, HHCS, 510-981-5178. 1 https://www.census.gov

Homeless Services Panel of Experts
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/

ACTION CALENDAR
October 29, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Homeless Services Panel of Experts
Submitted by: Carole Marasovic, Chair, Homeless Services Panel of Experts Subject: Measure P Allocations, Fiscal Year 2025-2026

RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the Homeless Services Panel of Experts recommendations to allocate Measure P revenue providing homeless services as detailed in Attachment 1, Exhibit A.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On September 17, 2024, the Budget & Finance Committee adopted the following action:

M/S/C (Arreguin/Kesarwani) to refer the item from the Commission and the City Manager Companion Report item to the City Council with a negative recommendation that no further action is required, as the Council has already taken action through the adoption of the 2025-26 Bi-annual Budget. Vote: All Ayes.

SUMMARY
The Homeless Services Panel of Experts (HSPE) reviewed P funding requests for programs, and City staff personnel costs associated with Measure P, for the current annual funding cycle. This review directly followed 3 meetings associated with reviewing community agency allocation funding, a process that considers community agency allocation funding requests every 4 years (the current cycle last considered in 2019, 5 years ago, due to the pandemic), and made recommendations under that process.

During the community agency allocation funding process, HSPE commissioners independently reviewed and scored funding proposals and as a whole, made recommendations. HSPE recommendations were directed to the City Manager who considered them, the City Manager returning with her own recommendations. HSPE found that the earlier recommendations that they had made closely aligned with the City Manager's recommendations and made minor adjustments in some cases to almost perfectly align with the exception of one additional proposed new program.

While it was hoped that other funding gaps for homeless services needs could be addressed through Measure P monies, upon learning that the steep decline in projected Measure P revenue available had substantially decreased from $10,189,500 to

22a

Measure P Allocations, Fiscal Year 2025-2026 ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024
$6,500,000, HSPE commissioners acknowledged that P revenue was in dire straits limiting funding for homeless services.

With one critical exception, HSPE commissioners aligned with the City Manager's recommendations for P monies with a caveat. That caveat was that there should be further discussion regarding the effectiveness and accountability of programs. However, rather than decreasing funding to providers, HSPE believed that funding for those programs should be sustained and that following the current funding process, discussion was merited so that HSPE commissioners could receive additional information about the contract monitoring process, possibly making recommendations.

The one exception to the City Manager's recommendations for the use of P monies, where HSPE held steadfast, as it has in previous Measure P funding cycles, was that 5150 transports should not be funded under Measure P monies. While HSPE is fully aware that the language of Measure P provides that transportation can be funded with P revenue, the commissioners did not perceive 5150 transports as a wise use for over 1.3 million in P monies particularly with less monies currently available for needed homeless services.

In other annual P funding cycles, 40%-50% of unhoused persons, were identified as utilizers of 5150 transports. Also in those cycles, the City committed to identifying an alternative source of funding, other than Measure P, to fund 5150 transports.

Historically, funding for 5150 transports had been funded by the County until recent years following the County's decision that the City of Berkeley should fund its own 5150 transports given that the City of Berkeley has an independent mental health division with its own funding.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
As earlier stated, the current Measure P property tax revenue is projected as a substantial decrease from $10,189,500 to $6,500,000. The City's budget director issued a report on March 28. 2024 as follows:

Measure P Allocations, Fiscal Year 2025-2026 ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
With Measure P revenue diminished by over one-third, HSPE aligned with the City Manager to preserve the current homeless service programs, providing necessary services, as best could be done with the exception of recommending the 1,321,605 million in 5150 transports, continuing to contend that another source of funding for this purpose should be identified.

BACKGROUND
The Homeless Services Panel of Experts reviewed Measure P recommendations at its April 10, 2024 meeting and made the following recommendations as follows:

Action: M/S/C Jones/Meany HSPE does not recommend funding the 5150 transport out of Measure P monies.

Vote: Ayes: Meany, Marasovic, Kealoha-Blake, Jones, and Palmatier.

Noes: Segal. Abstain: None. Absent: Bookstein.

Action: M/S/C Marasovic/Meany the HSPE align with all of the city manager’s recommendations except for the $1.3 million for 5150 transport.

Measure P Allocations, Fiscal Year 2025-2026 ACTION CALENDAR October 29, 2024
Vote: Ayes: Meany, Marasovic, Kealoha-Blake, Jones, and Palmatier.

Noes: None. Abstain: Segal. Absent: Bookstein.

Action: M/S/C Marasovic/Jones HSPE will incorporate in the report that the reasoning behind not recommending the allocation for the $1.3 million in 5150 transport is that the city should look towards alternative methods for funding and Measure P monies should be used for homeless services. This rationale is due to the diminished revenue needed for homeless services which do not make 5150 transport a priority for this stream of funding.

Vote: Ayes: Meany, Marasovic, Kealoha-Blake, Jones, and Palmatier.

Noes: Segal. Abstain: None. Absent: Bookstein.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental impacts excepting that whenever unhoused persons are housed in Berkeley, it leads to a better, healthier environment for all whether that be formerly homeless persons or the general community.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Homeless Services Panel of Experts generally concurred with the City Manager's recommendations as they were thoughtfully made with attention to the current budgetary limitations. HSPE could not concur with the proposed 1.3 million allocation for 5150 transports which is 20% of the total projected 6.5 million in this year's P revenue. Another source of funding needs to be identified so that Measure P monies can be used to fund homeless services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Homeless Services Panel of Experts could have concurred on the 5150 transports but was uncomfortable in doing so given the standing objection to Measure P monies used for 5150 transports when there are so many other needed homeless services and less P revenue available.

CITY MANAGER
See City Manager companion report.

CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, (510) 225-8035 Attachments:

1. Exhibit A: HSPE and City Manager Recommendations for P Funding.

2. City of Berkeley Budget Director report, March 26, 2024.

Public
Category of Spending FY 2024 Adopted FY 2024 Adopted
Mid-Biennial
FY 2024 Preliminary Estimate FY 2025 Estimate FY 2026
Estimate
FY 2027
Estimate
FY 2028
Estimate
FY 2029 Estimate
Revenues
Beginning Fund Balance 19,887,422$ 19,887,422$ 19,887,422$ 5,391,019$ 3,142,708$ (1,877,883)$ (6,645,169)$ (6,722,411)$ Measure P Revenues* 14,073,750$ 10,189,500$ 6,500,000$ 8,199,580$ 8,609,559$ 9,040,037$ 9,492,039$ 4,746,020$ Total Revenues and Balance of Funds 33,961,172$ 30,076,922$ 26,387,422$ 13,590,599$ 11,752,267$ 7,162,154$ 2,846,870$ (1,976,392)$ LESS: Total Expenses 14,045,913$ 19,160,846$ 20,996,403$ 10,447,891$ 13,630,150$ 13,807,322$ 9,569,282$ 10,077,605$ Personnel Costs (1) 722,413$ 722,413$ 722,413$ 780,206$ 842,623$ 910,032$ 982,835$ 1,061,462$ CMO: Homeless Services Coordinator Staffing/Infrastructure 202,899$ 202,899$ 202,899$ 219,131$ 236,661$ 255,594$ 276,042$ 298,125$ Finance: Accountant II Staffing/Infrastructure 193,441$ 193,441$ 193,441$ 208,916$ 225,630$ 243,680$ 263,174$ 284,228$ HHCS: 50% Senior Management Analyst Staffing/Infrastructure 116,560$ 116,560$ 116,560$ 125,885$ 135,956$ 146,832$ 158,579$ 171,265$ HHCS: 2 Year Limited Term Community Services Specialist II Staffing/Infrastructure 209,513$ 209,513$ 209,513$ 226,274$ 244,376$ 263,926$ 285,040$ 307,843$ Non-Personnel Costs/ Program Expenses 13,323,500$ 18,438,433$ 20,273,990$ 9,667,685$ 12,787,528$ 12,897,290$ 8,586,447$ 9,016,143$ Fire: 5150 Response & Transport - Measure P portion of contract Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 1,556,857$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Dorothy Day House Shelter Emergency Shelter 566,000$ 566,000$ 566,000$ 580,150$ 594,654$ 609,520$ 624,758$ 640,377$ Dorothy Day House Drop In Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 182,000$ 182,000$ 182,000$ 205,916$ BACS Pathways STAIR Center Emergency Shelter 2,499,525$ 2,499,525$ 2,499,525$ 2,002,768$ 2,499,527$ 2,499,528$ 2,499,529$ 2,499,530$ BACS Coordinated Entry System (BACS HRC & Shallow Subsidies) Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 1,000,000$ 829,498$ 829,498$ $1,371,411 $1,371,411 1,371,411$ 1,371,411$ 1,371,411$ BACS Permanent Housing Subsidies / Shallow Subsidies Permanent Housing No Place Like Home - Scattered Unit Supportive Services Permanent Housing 105,000$ 105,000$ 105,000$ No Place Like Home - Scattered Unit Supportive Services 138,800$ 138,800$ 138,800$ 138,800$ 43,800$ LifeLong Medical - Maudelle Shirek Affordable Housing (NPLH) 105,000$ 15,300$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ Insight Housing Hope Center (NPLH) Permanent Housing 95,000$ 95,000$ 95,000$ 95,000$ Insight Housing - Men's Housing Program Emergency Shelter -$ 170,502$ 170,502$ 170,502$ COVID-19 Emergency Housing Assistance - Housing Retention Program (EDC) Homelessness Prevention -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Anti-Displacement Programs (Legal Assistance, Housing Retention Program, Flexible Housing Funds) (100k to BACS HRC; 275K to EDC and remaining to EBCLC) - to be funded by U1 in FY 24 Homelessness Prevention -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ BDIC Locker Program Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ LifeLong Medical - Street Medicine Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,001$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ YSA Tiny Home Emergency Shelter 78,000$ 78,000$ 78,000$ -$ DBA- Homeless Outreach Worker Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Downtown Streets Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ Shelter at 742 Grayson Street Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Shelter at 1720 San Pablo Ave Lease Emergency Shelter 908,796$ 908,796$ 908,796$ 935,160$ 962,315$ 990,284$ -$ -$ Dorothy Day House Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter (Winter Shelter) Emergency Shelter 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 358,750$ 367,719$ 376,912$ 386,335$ 395,993$ Dorothy Day House - Inclement Weather Shelter Emergency Shelter -$ 412,185$ 412,185$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ Dorothy Day House Beyond Horizon - 1720 San Pablo Avenue - Supportive Services Emergency Shelter 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ -$ -$ 1367 University Avenue Step Up Housing Project* Permanent Housing 1,040,027 1,066,027 1,092,678 1,119,995 1,147,995 Russell Street Residence Acquisition Permanent Housing -$ 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ HHCS: Square One Hotel Vouchers Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Training and Evaluation Staffing/Infrastructure 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ Homeless Response Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ Berkeley Relief Fund Homelessness Prevention -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Portable Toilets Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ Old City Hall Sprinkler system Emergency Shelter -$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 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$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Equitable Clean Streets Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
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 -$ 88,000$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Public facilities improvement Staffing/Infrastructure -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Encampment Resolution Fund 2 Awarded Grant Match- Rodeway Inn Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,496,456$ 2,527,538$ -$ -$ HCEB Contract- Interim Housing at Rodeway Inn 1,925,256$ Encampment Resolution Fund 3 Tentative Grant Match
Fiscal Year Surplus (Shortfall) 27,837$ (8,971,346)$ (14,496,403)$ (2,248,311)$ (5,020,591)$ (4,767,285)$ (77,243)$ (5,331,585)$ Ending Fund Balance 19,915,259$ 10,916,076$ 5,391,019$ 3,142,708$ (1,877,883)$ (6,645,169)$ (6,722,411)$ (12,053,997)$

HSPE TRANSFER TAX -- MEASURE P PROGRAM LONG-TERM FORECAST-----DRAFT

Public
Category of Spending FY 2024 Adopted FY 2024 Adopted
Mid-Biennial
FY 2024 Preliminary Estimate FY 2025 Estimate FY 2026
Estimate
FY 2027
Estimate
FY 2028
Estimate
FY 2029 Estimate
Revenues
Beginning Fund Balance 19,887,422$ 19,887,422$ 19,887,422$ 5,391,019$ 1,957,103$ (4,249,093)$ (10,201,984)$ (11,464,831)$ Measure P Revenues* 14,073,750$ 10,189,500$ 6,500,000$ 8,199,580$ 8,609,559$ 9,040,037$ 9,492,039$ 4,746,020$ Total Revenues and Balance of Funds 33,961,172$ 30,076,922$ 26,387,422$ 13,590,599$ 10,566,662$ 4,790,944$ (709,945)$ (6,718,812)$ LESS: Total Expenses 14,045,913$ 19,160,846$ 20,996,403$ 11,633,496$ 14,815,755$ 14,992,927$ 10,754,887$ 11,263,210$ Personnel Costs (1) 722,413$ 722,413$ 722,413$ 780,206$ 842,623$ 910,032$ 982,835$ 1,061,462$ CMO: Homeless Services Coordinator Staffing/Infrastructure 202,899$ 202,899$ 202,899$ 219,131$ 236,661$ 255,594$ 276,042$ 298,125$ Finance: Accountant II Staffing/Infrastructure 193,441$ 193,441$ 193,441$ 208,916$ 225,630$ 243,680$ 263,174$ 284,228$ HHCS: 50% Senior Management Analyst Staffing/Infrastructure 116,560$ 116,560$ 116,560$ 125,885$ 135,956$ 146,832$ 158,579$ 171,265$ HHCS: 2 Year Limited Term Community Services Specialist II Staffing/Infrastructure 209,513$ 209,513$ 209,513$ 226,274$ 244,376$ 263,926$ 285,040$ 307,843$ Non-Personnel Costs/ Program Expenses 13,323,500$ 18,438,433$ 20,273,990$ 10,853,290$ 13,973,133$ 14,082,895$ 9,772,052$ 10,201,748$ Fire: 5150 Response & Transport - Measure P portion of contract Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 1,556,857$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ 1,321,605$ Dorothy Day House Shelter Emergency Shelter 566,000$ 566,000$ 566,000$ 580,150$ 594,654$ 609,520$ 624,758$ 640,377$ Dorothy Day House Drop In Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 182,000$ 182,000$ 182,000$ 205,916$ BACS Pathways STAIR Center Emergency Shelter 2,499,525$ 2,499,525$ 2,499,525$ 2,002,768$ 2,499,527$ 2,499,528$ 2,499,529$ 2,499,530$ BACS Coordinated Entry System (BACS HRC & Shallow Subsidies) Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 1,000,000$ 829,498$ 829,498$ $1,235,411 $1,235,411 1,235,411$ 1,235,411$ 1,235,411$ BACS Permanent Housing Subsidies / Shallow Subsidies Permanent Housing No Place Like Home - Scattered Unit Supportive Services Permanent Housing 105,000$ 105,000$ 105,000$ No Place Like Home - Scattered Unit Supportive Services 138,800$ 138,800$ 138,800$ 138,800$ 43,800$ LifeLong Medical - Maudelle Shirek Affordable Housing (NPLH) 105,000$ 15,300$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ 61,200$ Insight Housing Hope Center (NPLH) Permanent Housing 95,000$ 95,000$ 95,000$ 95,000$ Insight Housing - Men's Housing Program Emergency Shelter -$ 170,502$ 170,502$ 170,502$ COVID-19 Emergency Housing Assistance - Housing Retention Program (EDC) Homelessness Prevention -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Anti-Displacement Programs (Legal Assistance, Housing Retention Program, Flexible Housing Funds) (100k to BACS HRC; 275K to EDC and remaining to EBCLC) - to be funded by U1 in FY 24 Homelessness Prevention -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ BDIC Locker Program Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ LifeLong Medical - Street Medicine Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,001$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ 525,000$ YSA Tiny Home Emergency Shelter 78,000$ 78,000$ 78,000$ -$ DBA- Homeless Outreach Worker Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Downtown Streets Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ Shelter at 742 Grayson Street Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Shelter at 1720 San Pablo Ave Lease Emergency Shelter 908,796$ 908,796$ 908,796$ 935,160$ 962,315$ 990,284$ -$ -$ Dorothy Day House Berkeley Emergency Storm Shelter (Winter Shelter) Emergency Shelter 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 358,750$ 367,719$ 376,912$ 386,335$ 395,993$ Dorothy Day House - Inclement Weather Shelter Emergency Shelter -$ 412,185$ 412,185$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ Dorothy Day House Beyond Horizon - 1720 San Pablo Avenue - Supportive Services Emergency Shelter 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ 950,000$ -$ -$ 1367 University Avenue Step Up Housing Project* Permanent Housing 1,040,027 1,066,027 1,092,678 1,119,995 1,147,995 Russell Street Residence Acquisition Permanent Housing -$ 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ HHCS: Square One Hotel Vouchers Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Training and Evaluation Staffing/Infrastructure 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ 133,334$ Homeless Response Team Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ 920,085$ Berkeley Relief Fund Homelessness Prevention -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Portable Toilets Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ 96,000$ Old City Hall Sprinkler system Emergency Shelter -$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 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$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Equitable Clean Streets Immediate Street Conditions and Hygiene -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 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 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
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 -$ 88,000$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Public facilities improvement Staffing/Infrastructure -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Encampment Resolution Fund 2 Awarded Grant Match- Rodeway Inn Emergency Shelter -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,496,456$ 2,527,538$ -$ -$ HCEB Contract- Interim Housing at Rodeway Inn 1,925,256$ Encampment Resolution Fund 3 Tentative Grant Match
Fiscal Year Surplus (Shortfall) 27,837$ (8,971,346)$ (14,496,403)$ (3,433,916)$ (6,206,196)$ (5,952,890)$ (1,262,848)$ (6,517,190)$ Ending Fund Balance 19,915,259$ 10,916,076$ 5,391,019$ 1,957,103$ (4,249,093)$ (10,201,984)$ (11,464,831)$ (17,982,022)$

STAFF TRANSFER TAX -- MEASURE P PROGRAM LONG-TERM FORECAST-----DRAFT

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager
Henry Oyekanmi, Finance Director
Subject: Fiscal Year 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update

RECOMMENDATION
Council receive and file the Fiscal Year 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update.

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the Fiscal Year 2024 (“FY 2024”) Mid-Year Budget Update including actual General Fund and Special Fund expenditures incurred from July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023.

It also provides an estimate of anticipated General Fund revenues and expenditures by June 30, 2024 and projected expenditures for All Funds by department for FY 2024.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley is currently in FY 2024, which covers the period of July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. On June 27, 2023 the City Council adopted the FY 2024 Budget, authorizing gross appropriations of $728,631,293 and net appropriations of $621,229,929 (net of dual appropriations). The General Fund portion of this appropriation is $276,548,969.

As depicted on the next page, the FY 2024 Mid-Year General Budget at a Glance, shows that, as of December 31, 2023, General Fund revenues actuals are at 45.32% of the revised budget projection. Revenues received are less than 50% with half of the fiscal year elapsed, although the timing of the receipt of revenues varies through the course of the fiscal year. The year-end projected revenue is expected at $1.67 million less than the Adopted and Revised revenue.

General Fund expenses are at 55.54%, compared to the projected 50%, halfway through the fiscal year. Based on the mid-year trend, expenditures are projected to end over the revised budget by approximately $2.4 million. The FY 2024 mid-year projected ending shortfall is mostly due to increased personnel costs based upon approved labor agreements and public safety overtime offset by salary savings related to vacancies in other departments. However, the projections do not reflect all expenditures approved on January 16, 2024 by Council in the Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO#1).

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

FY 2024 Mid-Year General Budget at a Glance
FY 2024 Mid-Year Summary
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Revenue and Transfer In FY 2024 Mid-Year vs FY 2023 Mid-Year Comparison, on the next page, shows FY 2024 General Fund Revenues through the first six months of the current fiscal year and compares the year-to-date revenues received to the first six months of FY 2023. General Fund revenue and transfers decreased $7,143,655 or 5.59%, from $127,875,604 in the first half of FY 2023, to $120,731,949 for the same period in FY 2024.

Notable declines during the first half of FY 2024 were the following:

1. Property Transfer Taxes $ 6,619,374

2. Measure P Property Transfer Taxes 5,523,564

3. Transfers In 2,411,463

4. Sales Taxes 382,339
As staff indicated in the FY 2023 General Fund Revenue report to Council, the City General Fund has, for the near term, lost at least two of its three primary drivers of annual growth (Property Transfer Taxes and Measure P Property Transfer Taxes). These drivers of annual growth are experiencing negative growth that will eventually lower growth for Secured Property Taxes as they have continued to decline sharply in the first half of FY 2024. As a result, the General Fund revenue and transfers projection for FY 2024 has been reduced by $1,672,971 or .6% from $266,418,342 to $264,745,371.

The City’s Sales Tax Consultant has noted softening in sales activity in several sales tax categories since the Adopted Budget was passed, resulting in a reduction in the Sales Tax revenue projection of $1,278,425, from $19,654,225 to $18,375,800. The decline in Transfers In was due to a decline of $4,507,934 in transfers from the American Rescue Plan Fund. $'s in Millions Revenues Expenditures
FY 2024 Adopted Budget $266.42 ($276.55)
FY 2024 Revised Budget $266.42 ($307.53)
FY 2024 Mid-Year Actuals $120.73 ($170.81)
Percentage of Revenue Received/
Expended and Encumbered
compared to Revised Budget

45.32% 55.54%
FY 2024 Year-End Projected $264.75 ($309.96)
Variance between Revised and
Projected ($1.67) ($2.43)

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

Three notable increases during the first half of FY 2024 were Unsecured Property Taxes (+$729,509), Ambulance Fees (+$1,335,904) and Interest Income (+$2,580,861), which resulted in increases in the revenue projections for those revenue categories. Excluding Transfers, General Fund revenue decreased $4,327,473 or 3.55%, from $121,916,745 in the first half of FY 2023, to $116,589,272 in the first half of FY 2024.

Notes: This statement is presented on a budgetary basis (i.e., cash).

Before getting into the FY 2024 General Fund revenue details, staff also want to point out that the City’s General Fund revenue challenges have not ended now that the Feds have apparently stopped raising short-term rates, for the following reasons:

1.The Fed’s monetary tightening includes a program to sell $95 billion/month (or $1.14 trillion per year) of Agency and Mortgage-Backed securities from its Balance Sheet, which increases the supply of these securities and puts additional upward pressure on long-term rates, including mortgage rates. Prior to the monetary policy change, as the Feds was the major purchaser of these long-term securities;

2. The proposed $1.8 trillion federal budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year will require the issuance of an additional $1.8 trillion in Treasury Bonds to fund the deficit; and,

3. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index (the Fed’s favored inflation index) has declined from almost 9% during the pandemic to 2.93% in December 2023, close to the Fed’s

2.0% target.

Revenue Categories Adopted Actual Variance % Received Adopted Actual Variance % Received Amount % Secured Property $84,725,717 $42,904,620 ($41,821,097) 50.64% $75,664,920 $40,237,811 ($35,427,109) 53.18% 2,666,809 6.63% Redemptions -Regular 831,441 524,404 (307,037) 63.07% 831,441 461,026 -370,415 55.45% 63,378 13.75% Supplemental Taxes 3,400,000 1,197,265 (2,202,735) 35.21% 2,000,000 1,229,929 -770,071 61.50% (32,664) -2.66% Unsecured Property Taxes 3,806,995 3,881,280 74,285 101.95% 3,516,000 3,151,771 -364,229 89.64% 729,509 23.15% Property Transfer Tax 22,873,786 10,056,934 (12,816,852) 43.97% 34,462,172 16,676,308 -17,785,864 48.39% (6,619,374) -39.69% Property Transfer Tax-Measure P (New December 21, 2018) 10,189,500 2,840,259 (7,349,241) 27.87% 14,073,750 8,363,823 -5,709,927 59.43% (5,523,564) -66.04% Sales Taxes 19,654,225 9,305,556 (10,348,669) 47.35% 19,016,546 9,687,895 -9,328,651 50.94% (382,339) -3.95% Soda Taxes 1,147,387 581,705 (565,682) 50.70% 990,210 642,874 -347,336 64.92% (61,169) -9.51% Utility Users Taxes 17,454,320 7,801,328 (9,652,992) 44.70% 13,800,000 7,638,612 -6,161,388 55.35% 162,716 2.13% Transient Occupancy Taxes 8,374,588 4,393,772 (3,980,816) 52.47% 5,000,000 4,785,735 -214,265 95.71% (391,963) -8.19% Less: TOT rebates owed (3) (546,224) (498,566) (47,658) 9.56% Short-term Rentals 1,400,000 687,271 (712,729) 49.09% 1,000,000 712,661 -287,339 1,000,000 (25,390) -3.56% Business License Tax 21,560,783 1,592,902 (19,967,881) 7.39% 19,000,000 1,010,143 -17,989,857 5.32% 582,759 57.69% Recreational Cannabis 1,000,000 76,512 (923,488) 7.65% 1,400,000 237,669 -1,162,331 16.98% (161,157) -67.81% U1 Revenues 5,900,000 181,607 (5,718,393) 3.08% 4,900,000 113,893 -4,786,107 2.32% 67,714 59.45% Other Taxes (excluding Redemptions-Regular) 2,593,129 1,899,156 (693,973) 73.24% 1,800,000 1,500,099 -299,901 83.34% 399,057 26.60% Vehicle In-Lieu Taxes 17,811,134 8,937,911 (8,873,223) 50.18% 15,926,168 8,329,833 -7,596,335 52.30% 608,078 7.30% Parking Fines-Regular Collections 5,800,000 3,253,087 (2,546,913) 56.09% 4,326,450 3,104,161 -1,222,289 71.75% 148,926 4.80% Moving Violations 132,600 96,254 (36,346) 72.59% 132,600 71,415 -61,185 53.86% 24,839 34.78% Ambulance Fees 5,350,779 3,815,272 (1,535,507) 71.30% 3,880,779 2,479,368 -1,401,411 63.89% 1,335,904 53.88% Interest Income 8,826,211 6,619,791 (2,206,420) 75.00% 6,000,000 4,038,930 -1,961,070 67.32% 2,580,861 63.90% Franchise Fees 1,720,056 307,634 (1,412,422) 17.89% 1,613,283 335,043 -1,278,240 20.77% (27,409) -8.18% Other Revenue 7,668,797 3,018,612 (4,650,185) 39.36% 6,729,977 3,902,132 -2,827,845 57.98% (883,520) -22.64% IDC Reimbursement 6,104,970 3,259,079 (2,845,891) 53.38% 5,490,000 3,205,614 -2,284,386 58.39% 53,465 1.67% Transfers 8,091,924 4,045,962 (4,045,962) 50.00% 17,096,148 6,457,425 -10,638,723 37.77% (2,411,463) -37.34% Total Revenue: $266,418,342 $120,731,949 -$145,686,393 45.32% $258,650,444 $127,875,604 -$130,774,840 49.44% ($7,143,655) -5.59% FY 2024 FY 2023 Comparision FY24 vs FY23
General Fund Revenue and Transfer In FY 2024 Mid-Year vs FY 2023 Mid-Year Comparison

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

Despite that, the Feds is reluctant to lower short-term interest rates as soon as the market expected. The Fed Chairman indicated at the January 31, 2024 meeting that it will not start lowering interest rates until it is certain that inflation is on a sustainable path to the Fed’s 2% goal.

The additional huge supply of bonds from these macroeconomic factors will probably overwhelm demand for long-term bonds and continue to put pressure on long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates. In addition to reducing consumer spending and slowing down the economy, it will keep mortgage rates high.

FY 2024 FIRST HALF GENERAL FUND REVENUE DETAILS
Supplemental Taxes (-$32,664 less than FY 2023 Actual)
During the first half of FY 2024, Supplemental Taxes totaled $1,197,265, which was $32,664 or

2.7% less than the $1,229,929 received for the same period in FY 2023 Secured Property Tax (+$2,666,809 more than FY 2023 Actual) During the first half of FY 2024, Secured Property Tax revenues totaled $42,904,620, which was $2,666,809 or 6.63% more than the $40,237,811 received for the same period in FY 2023.

This result was consistent with the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation (received from the County in August 2023), which reflects growth of 7.256%. However, the FY 2024 Adopted Budget assumed a 6.895% increase for FY 2024, so actual Secured Property Taxes are expected to be $286,128 or .361% more than the Adopted Budget amount of $84,725,717. The Secured Property Tax Revenue projection is being increased from $84,725,717 to $85,011,845.

Unsecured Property Tax (+$729,509 more than FY 2023 Actual) During the first half of FY 2024, Unsecured Property Tax revenues totaled $3,881,280, which was $729,509 or 23.2% more than the amount of $3,151,771 received for the same period in FY 2023.

This amount is greater than the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation growth of 9.1% for FY 2024. The Unsecured Property Tax Revenue projection is being increased from $3,806,995 to $3,881,280.

Property Transfer Tax (-$6,619,374 less than FY 2023 Actual) During the first half of FY 2024, Property Transfer Tax totaled $10,056,934, which was $6,619,374 or 39.7% less than the $16,676,308 received for the same period in FY 2023.

The primary reasons for the $6,619,374 decrease in Property Transfer Tax were the following:
(1) The dollar value of property sales decreased by $487.2 billion or 42.2%, from $1.154.7 billion in the first half of FY 2023 to $667.5 million during the same period of FY 2024, as illustrated in Table 1 below.
(2) There were ten property sales of $10 million or more, with total sales of $411 million in the first half of FY 2023 compared to 4 property sales of $10 million or more, with total sales of $74.9 million in the first half of FY 2024; and,

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

(3) The number of property sales transactions decreased by 126 or 23.7% from 532 in the first half of FY 2023 to 406 during the same period of FY 2024, as illustrated in the Table 3 below.

This decline in real estate activity is generally attributed to high and increasing mortgage rates and a slowing economy resulting from the Federal Reserve Board’s aggressive attempt to reduce the money supply and slowing down the US economy in order to reduce inflation, by sharply raising interest rates and selling $95 billion/month of Agency and Mortgage-Backed securities from its Balance Sheet. The Property Transfer Tax Revenue projection is being decreased from $22,873,786 to $16,873,786.

Property Sales In Million $
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2024 $129.2 $152.5 $99.9 $95.7 $95.8 $94.4 $667.5
FY 2023 188.9 320.0 134.6 113.9 254.9 142.4 1,154.7
Change -59.7 -167.5 -34.7 -18.2 159.1 -48.0 -487.2
% Change -

31.6%
-52.3% -25.8% -16.0% -62.4% -33.7% -42.2%
Number of Property Sales Transactions
Measure P-Property Transfer Tax (-$5,523,564 less than FY 2023 Actual) Measure P taxes totaling $2,840,259 was collected during the first half of FY 2024, which was $5,523,564 or 66.0% less than the $8,363,823 collected during the same period of FY 2023. This decrease resulted primarily from the following: (1) A decrease of 61.0% in the dollar value of property sales amount in the first half of FY 2024 versus those in the first half of FY 2023 as reflected in Table 3; (2) The number of property sales transactions decreased by 131 or 60.9% during the first half of FY 2024, as illustrated in the table below; and,(3) There were only four property sales of $10 million or more totaling $75 million during this six-month period in FY 2024, compared to 9 transactions with total property sales of $401 million for the same period in FY 2023. The Measure P1 Property Transfer Tax Revenue projection is being decreased from $10,189,500 to $6,500,000.

Property Sales $1.5 million+ In Million $
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2024 $62.8 $87.2 $48.5 $51.9 $33.6 $42.5 $326.5
FY 2023 114.4 271.1 84.1 63.3 203.7 99.8 836.4
Change - 51.6 -183.9 -35.6 -11.4 -170.1 -57.3 -509.9
% Change -45.1% -67.8% -42.3% -18.0% -83.5% -57.4% -61.0% July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2024 79 73 64 61 67 62 406
FY 2023 113 101 108 79 74 57 532
Change -34 -28 -44 -18 -7 5 -126
% Change -.30.1% -27.7% 40.7% -22.8% -9.5% 8.8% -23.7%

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

Property Transactions $1.5 Million and Above
Sales Tax (-$382,339 less than FY 2023 Actual)
For the first half of FY 2024, Sales Tax revenue totaled $9,305,556, which was $382,339 or 3.95% less than the $9,687,895 received for the same period in FY 2023. The City’s Sales Tax Consultant has noticed a significant softening of sales in several categories since the Adopted Budget was passed and has revised revenue projections in the following categories:

Category Adopted Budget Amount Revised Projection Difference General Retail $ 4,514,430 $ 4,037,541 ($ 476,889)
Food Products 5,584,993 5,332,044 ( 252,949)
Transportation 3,060,135 2,566,985 ( 493,150)
Construction 1,697,060 1,430,481 ( 266,579)
Business to Business 1,692,394 1,729,113 36,719
Miscellaneous 211,692 563,185 351,493
County Pool 4,091,330 3,437,856 ( 653,474)
State Pool 9,402 8,989 (413)
County Sharing (1,043,072) (955,310) 87,762
CDTFA Administration (164,139) (137,311) 26,828 Total $19,654,225 $ 18,013,573 ($1,640,652)
As a result, the FY 2024 Sales Tax Revenue projection is being decreased from $19,654,225 to $18,375,800.

Utility Users Taxes (+$162,716 more than FY 2023 Actual) Utility Users Tax revenue for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $7,801,328, which was $162,716 or

2.13% more than the $7,638,612 received for FY 2023. This increase of $162,716 resulted from increases/decreases in the following categories:

FY 2024 Actual Revenues Compared to FY 2023 Actual Revenues FY2024 FY 2023 $ Change % Change
Telephone $ 515,199 $ 545,243 $ -30,044 -5.96%
Cable 475,793 503,785 - 27,992 -5.56%
Cellular 881,338 898,459 -17,121 -1.91%
Electric 4,792,052 4,346,334 445,718 10.26%
Gas 1,136,946 1,344,791 -207,845 -15.46%
Total $7,801,328 $7,638,612 $162,716 2.13%
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2024 18 17 12 15 12 10 84
FY 2023 52 41 48 31 24 19 215
Change -34 -24 -36 -16 -12 -9 -131
% Change -65.4% -58.5% -75.0% -51.6% -50.0% -47.4% -60.9%

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

PG&E received an 8% increase in electricity rates in January 2022, another increase of 8.9% in March 2023, and another ranging between 1%-4.1% effective September 1, 2023. The UUT Revenue projection is being increased from $17,454,320 to $17,700,000.

Transient Occupancy Tax (-$391,963 less than FY 2023 Actual) The total gross Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue reported for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $4,393,772 (before deducting $546,224 in TOT rebates owed), which was $391,963 or

8.2% less than the $4,785,735 (before deducting $498,566 in TOT rebates owed) received for the same period in 2023. The decline reported was $439,621 or 10.3% after deducting the TOT rebates owed for the respective period.

However, four hotels with a total of $293,467 in TOT and $92,312 in TOT rebates owed were not reported in the period ending December 31, 2023. After considering these transactions, gross TOT revenue in the first half of FY 2024 declined $98,496 or 2.1% and net TOT (after deducting TOT rebates owed) declined $238,466 or 5.6%.

The revised decrease in the first half of FY 2024 was primarily attributable to a gross decrease of

3.7% and a net decrease of .2% at the six largest hotels in Berkeley.

Short-Term Rentals (-$25,390 less than FY 2023 Actual)
Short-Term Rentals revenue for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $687,271, which was $25,390 or

3.6% less than the $712,661 received for the same period in FY 2023.

Business License Taxes (+$582,759 more than FY 2023 Actual) Business license Taxes (BLT) revenue for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $1,592,902, which was $582,759 or 57.7% more than the $1,010,143 received for the same period in FY 2023.

It is too soon to determine if this increase is due to growth or due to the timing of the processing of the Business License Tax receipts, as these taxes are not delinquent until March 1st.

U1 Revenues (+$67,714 more than FY 2023 Actual)
U1 revenues for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $181,607, which was $67,714 or 59.5% more than the $113,893 received for the same period in FY 2023.

It is too soon to determine if this increase is due to growth or due to the timing of the processing of the U1 receipts, as these taxes are not delinquent until March 1st.

Vehicle In Lieu Taxes (+$608,078 more than FY 2023 Actual) Vehicle in Lieu Taxes (VLF) for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $8,937,911, which was $608,078 or 7.30% more than the $8,329,833 received for the same period in FY 2023. This result was consistent with the County’s Certification of Assessed Valuation (received in August 2022), which reflects growth of 7.256%. Changes in VLF revenues are based on the growth in assessed values.

However, the Adopted Budget reflects growth of 6.912%, so actual Vehicle In Lieu Taxes are expected to be $57,356 or .3443% more than the Adopted Budget amount of $17,811,134. The FY 2024 Vehicle In Lieu Tax projection is being increased from $17,811,134 to $17,868,490.

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

Other Taxes (+$399,057 more than FY 2023 Actual)
Other Taxes (excluding Redemptions-Regular) for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $1,899,156 which was $399,047 or 26.6% more than the $1,500,099 received for the same period in FY 2023.

The primary reason for the increase was (1) an increase of $199,570 in Parking Lot Taxes; (2) a decline of $191,035 in BLT penalties; (3) a decline of $97,637 in BLT interest; and, (4) $406,213 in Transportation Network Company User Tax (i.e., a tax on ride sharing companies enacted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic) was recorded as Other Revenue, instead of Other Taxes in FY 2023. After including Transportation Network Company User Taxes as Other Taxes, instead of Other Income, the FY 2024 Other Taxes projection is being increased from $2,593,129 to $4,621,618.

Parking Fines (+$148,926 more than FY 2023 Actual)
Parking Fines revenue for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $3,253,087, which was $148,926 or

4.8% more than the $3,104,161 received for the same period in FY 2023. The primary reason for the increase was the continued increase in ticket writing. For the first half of FY 2024, ticket writing increased by 4,986 or 7.06% from 70,592 in the first half of FY 2023 to 75,578 in the same period in FY 2024, as follows:

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
FY 2024 12,318 13,865 12,931 12,819 12,213 11,432 75,578 FY 2023 10,881 11,414 12,984 12,419 12,369 10,525 70,592 Difference 1,437 2,451 -53 400 -156 907 4,986 % Difference 13.2% 21.5% -.4% 12.6% -1.26% 8.62% 7.06% Ambulance Fees (+$1,335,904 more than FY 2023 Actual)
Ambulance Fees revenue for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $3,815,272, which was $1,335,904 or 53.9% more than the $3,833,730 received for the same period in FY 2023. This increase was primarily due to (1) an increase in the number of transports, which increased by 205 or 7% in the first half of FY 2024, from 2,941 to 3,146; and (2) the Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (PPGEMT) program replacing the Quality Assurance Fee Program (QAF); The MEDI-CAL and MCAL HMO reimbursement rate increased to $1,062 under the PPGEMT Program from $339 under the QAF Program. As a result, the FY 2024 Ambulance Fee revenue projection is being increased from $5,350,779 to $6,944,117 in FY 2024.

Interest Income (+$2,580,861 more than FY 2023 Actual)
For the first half of FY 2024, Interest Income totaled $6,619,791, which was $2,580,861 or 63.9% more than the total of $4,038,930 received for the same period in FY 2023.This increase was primarily attributable to a significant increase in average interest rates earned after the Federal Reserve reversed course and started raising interest rates on March 17, 2022. Primarily as a result of the Fed’s actions, the net interest rate earned by the City increased from a range of

1.837%-2.616% during the first half of FY 2023, to a range of 2.84%-3.10% during the first half of FY 2024, as follows:

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

Monthly Net Interest Rate Earned
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
FY 2024 3.10% 3.02% 2.95% 2.95% 2.88% 2.84%
FY 2023 1.837% 2.025% 1.972% 2.258% 2.390% 2.616%
The FY 2024 Interest Income projection is being increased from $8,826,211 to $12,615,354.

Indirect Cost Reimbursements (+$53,465 more than FY 2023 Actual) Indirect Cost Reimbursements (IDC) for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $3,259,079, which was $53,465 or 1.67% more than the $3,205,614 received for the same period in FY 2023. This increase was primarily accounted for by an increase in the indirect cost allocation base (total direct salaries and wages) from $14,360,779 in the first half of FY 2023 to $14,846,041 in FY 2024. The FY 2024 IDC revenue projection is being increased from $6,104,970 to $6,800,000.

Transfers (-$2,411,463 less than FY 2023 Actual)
Transfers from other funds for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $4,045,962 which was $2,411,463 or 37.3% less than the $6,457,425 received for the same period in FY 2023. This was primarily attributable to the Transfer of $1,627,872 from the American Rescue Plan Fund to recover from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in FY 2024, compared to the Transfer of $6,135,806 from the American Rescue Plan Fund for the same period in FY 2023.

Other Revenues (-$883,520 less than FY 2023 Actual)
Other Revenues primarily consists of licenses and permits; grants; preferential parking fees; general government charges for services; public safety charges for services; health charges for services; culture and recreation charges for services; rents and royalties; and other miscellaneous revenues that are not considered major.

Other Revenues for the first half of FY 2024 totaled $3,018,612 which was $883,520 or 22.6% less than the $3,902,132 received for the same period in FY 2023. This decrease of $883,520 was primarily attributable to (1) the inclusion of $406,213 in TNC User Taxes to Other Income, rather than Other Taxes in the first half of FY 2023; and (2) A premium of $687,680 on the issuance of the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRAN) in FY 2023 versus $457,283 in FY 2024. The premium paid to the City was not actually revenue; it was a liability that was paid by the purchaser of the City’s Notes when the coupon interest rate was higher than the market rate when the Notes were issued. It will be used to offset the interest expense paid by the City on the Notes.

The FY 2023 total for Other Revenue was $9,043,937, while the Adopted Budget total was $7,668,797. The FY 2024 Other Revenue projection is being increased from $7,668,797 to $8,468,797.

Based on the FY 2024 Mid-Year, the revised projection for the FY 2024 General Fund Revenues are $264.75 million.

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

General Fund Expenditures
On June 27, 2023 the City Council adopted the FY 2024 Budget, which authorized General Fund expenditures in FY 2024 of $276.55 million. Subsequently, on December 12, 2023, the City Council approved General Fund recommended encumbered rollovers, unencumbered carryovers, and adjustments totaling $50.04 million in the Amendment to the FY 2024 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO#1) as shown in the table below:

FY 2024 General Fund Revised Budget
*FY 24 Revised Budget at mid-year totaled $307.5 million. With AAO#1 amendment approved in January 2024, revised budget increases to $326.6 million.

The encumbered rollovers of $16.75 million reflect contractual obligations entered in FY 2023, which had not been paid as of June 30, 2023. Unencumbered carryovers of $12.52 million are approved by Council for specific purposes that had not been completed by the end of FY 2023.

Funding for these commitments is brought forward into the current fiscal year to provide for payment of these obligations. Adjustments are new allocations for projects and Council priorities as detailed in the AAO. Included in the other adjustments of $20.76 million are Council authorized allocations approved through the adoption of the Amendment to the AAO on December 12, 2023 (first reading) and January 16, 2024 (second reading).

General Fund expenditures incurred by department as of December 31, 2023 are shown in the following chart along with projections regarding the expenditures likely to be incurred through June 30, 2024. The two projected savings/deficit columns in the chart below are an estimate of whether the department will be under or over the revised budget and their respective appropriation limit based upon the first six months of the year. Not all of the adopted AAO#1 funding is reflected in the FY 2024 Revised Budget as of December 31, 2023.

The General Fund expenditure is projected to be over original revised budget of $3.08 million by $2.43 million at the end of FY 2024 (Revised Budget minus Projected Expenses). The planned expenditures reflect increased personnel costs based upon approved labor agreements, and public safety overtime offset by salary savings related to vacancies in other departments and adjustments approved by Council on January 16, 2024 in the Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO#1). Projected expenditures will also fluctuate as departments (1) fill vacant positions; (2) increase overtime spending to provide critical public safety services; (3) spend more on consultants and other professional services (“non-personnel costs”) to mitigate vacant staff positions and/or respond to unanticipated events and (4) implementation of projects.

FY 2024 Adopted
Budget
Encumbered
Recommended
Unencumbered
Recommended
Other
Adjustments
FY 2024 Revised
Budget
276,548,969$ 16,752,951$ 12,523,938$ 20,763,498$ 326,589,356$

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

FY 2024 Mid-Year General Fund Expenditures (as of December 21, 2023) *FY 2024 Revised does not reflect as of December 31, 2023 all Council approved allocations included in the FY 2024 AAO #1.

Explanations for significant projected savings and overages are as follows:
 City Auditor’s Office, $132,177: The projected balance is mostly due to salary savings by underfilled positions and a vacancy.
 Office of the Director of Police Accountability, (-$46,237): The projected deficit results from expenditure patterns driven by one-time investments in office infrastructure, which were funded as part of AAO1, but not reflected at this point in time.

DEPARTMENT FY 2024

ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY 2024

REVISED
BUDGET*

YEAR TO
DATE

EXPENDED

ENCUMBRANCES AVAILABLE
BUDGET

PERSONNEL

PERCENTAGE
USED
NON-

PERSONNEL

PERCENTAGE
USED
TOTAL

PERCENTAGE
USED
FY 2024

PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES
FY 2024 PROJECTED
ENDING

BALANCE/(DEFICIT)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL 4,772,190 4,849,542 1,923,297 62,410 2,863,835 40.5% 44.7% 40.9% 4,849,542 - CITY AUDITOR 3,136,323 3,221,934 1,391,210 102,047 1,728,678 43.9% 63.1% 46.3% 3,089,758 132,177 RENT STABILIZATION BOARD 550,000 651,588 302,231 349,356 1 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 651,588 - POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 1,142,593 1,310,290 515,732 159,357 635,201 34.4% 77.3% 51.5% 1,597,102 (286,812) CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 13,150,234 16,294,107 7,458,276 2,303,030 6,532,801 45.4% 81.4% 59.9% 15,758,044 536,063 CITY ATTORNEY 4,304,039 5,003,419 2,038,057 395,637 2,569,725 39.6% 77.3% 48.6% 5,273,499 (270,080) CITY CLERK 2,547,276 2,759,548 972,288 325,627 1,461,633 48.0% 45.7% 47.0% 2,886,744 (127,196) FINANCE 8,179,370 9,110,602 3,281,701 1,063,527 4,765,374 39.6% 71.4% 47.7% 8,047,068 1,063,534 HUMAN RESOURCES 3,467,541 4,127,222 1,728,648 142,944 2,255,629 45.6% 44.8% 45.3% 4,125,275 1,947 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,526,760 2,233,165 891,132 308,646 1,033,388 0.0% 53.7% 53.7% 1,702,432 530,733

HEALTH, HSG & COMMUNITY
SVC
31,429,102 47,457,711 16,578,721 9,486,685 21,392,304 40.7% 60.9% 54.9% 45,656,435 1,801,276

PARKS, RECREATION &

WATERFRONT
9,359,349 11,766,832 5,828,846 997,780 4,940,206 49.7% 66.8% 58.0% 16,256,832 (4,490,000) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 3,277,246 6,494,510 1,469,787 171,732 4,852,991 43.4% 12.2% 25.3% 6,132,221 362,289 PUBLIC WORKS 6,558,529 12,160,727 3,144,927 1,972,562 7,043,238 30.8% 49.4% 42.1% 9,264,376 2,896,351 POLICE 83,606,570 81,617,830 41,085,284 1,081,010 39,451,536 49.5% 70.3% 51.7% 85,155,524 (3,537,694) FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES 39,546,063 43,205,216 22,830,487 4,951,735 15,422,994 62.6% 67.8% 64.3% 49,455,394 (6,250,178) NON DEPARTMENTAL 59,995,782 55,262,131 35,120,397 378,568 19,763,166 1564.8% 64.1% 64.2% 50,055,826 5,206,305 GRAND TOTAL 276,548,969 307,526,375 146,561,021 24,252,653 136,712,701 49.1% 62.7% 55.5% 309,957,660 (2,431,285)

FY 2024 Mid-Year Budget Update INFORMATION CALENDAR
March 26, 2024

 City Manager’s Office, $536,063: Projected balance from vacancies during the first half of the fiscal year as well as timing-related delays in implementing new programs.  City Attorney’s Office, (-$270,080): Projected deficit is timing related as the report does not reflect Council approved increases in funding in the AAO#1. Based upon AAO#1, the department is projecting a positive balance due to not incremental filling of vacancies and the possible partial use of funding for outside legal counsel.  City Clerk, (-$127,196): Projected deficit is due to unplanned special elections costs.  Finance, $1,063,534: Projected balance due to vacancies and challenges in finding qualified candidates to fill specialized positions funded by the General Fund.  Information Technology, $530,733: Projected balance is due to various projects that will not be completed in FY 2024.
 Health, Housing & Community Services, $1,801,276: Projected balance due to vacancies and challenges in hiring for specialized positions.
 Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront, (-$4,490,000): Projected deficit is timing-related as the report does not include Council approved AAO#1 funding. Once the additional funding is accounted for, the department is expecting to be on budget. The projection includes projections for predictability pay, $4.05M of General Fund FY 2024 contribution to the Workers Compensation Fund redirected to fill the T1 funding gap, $300,000 for Dreamland design and $140,000 for the Miyawaki Forest.
 Planning, $362,289: Projected balance is primarily comprised of $284,000 in salary savings due to vacancies.
 Public Works, $2,896,351: Projected savings is primarily due to Facilities and Transportation projects that are expected to not be completed by FY 2024.  Police, (-$3,537,694): Projected deficit based on mid-year numbers do not reflect the Council approved funding in AAO#1 of $4.3 million for the Berkeley Police Association Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Once adjusted, the projected year-end is positive due to savings from vacant positions. It also consists of cost overruns related to Police fleet replacement fund contributions and fuel and maintenance costs.  Fire, (-$6,250.178): Projected deficit of $6.25 million compared to the FY 2024 revised budget as of mid-year. This is expected to decrease once the $1.89 million of approved AAO#1 funding for the Berkeley Fire Fighters Association’s new MOU is entered into the financial system. However, the Fire department is still expected to end the fiscal year with a deficit due to challenges in staffing and increases in overtime cost and fringe benefits.  Non-Departmental, $5,206,305: Projected balance due to timing of implementation of various projects and programs.
 In addition, the Rent Board and Human Resources, are expected to finish the year either on budget or very slightly under budget.