Downtown Berkeley PBID October 2025
Management District Plan Page 27 of 31
APN Owner Site Address
Parcel
Assessment
057- -2028-002-00 Fu Jihwa & Ji H Trs 2270 Shattuck Ave $2,800.96 055- -1896-002-00
Fujikawa Mark A & Georgia Trs & Chun S R & Do
Etal 2414 Shattuck Ave $466.86
057- -2049-040-00 Gedr Hillside Llc 2102 Delaware St $6,978.44 055- -1895-015-01 Genirberg Siblings Llc 2000 Durant Ave $6,186.83 057- -2049-022-00 Giebeler Persis A 1849 Shattuck Ave 204 $120.83 057- -2049-026-00 Gilmour Susan R & Thomas S 1849 Shattuck Ave 305 $120.83 055- -1825-015-02 Global Alliance For Progress Llc 2621 Shattuck Ave $9,711.42 055- -1825-019-00 Global Alliance For Progress Llc 2609 Shattuck Ave $4,319.71 057- -2034-009-00 Golden Ca Property 1 Llc 2017 Kala Bagai Way $2,306.64 055- -1892-014-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 2375 Shattuck Ave $1,176.30 055- -1897-006-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 2450 Shattuck Ave $5,637.29 057- -2024-021-01 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 1952 University Ave $5,731.15 057- -2025-005-02 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 2024 Shattuck Ave $7,622.02 057- -2025-006-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 2036 Shattuck Ave $10,911.47 057- -2025-019-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 2058 University Ave $5,472.92 057- -2025-022-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 2014 Shattuck Ave $2,133.54 057- -2029-011-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis L Trs & Gordon Etal 2277 Shattuck Ave $2,999.67 057- -2025-004-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis Trs & Gordon M Etal 2020 Shattuck Ave $3,873.24 057- -2030-011-00 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis Trs & Gordon M Etal 2225 Shattuck Ave $1,388.33 057- -2053-004-02 Gordon John K & Mitchell Janis Trs & Gordon M Etal 2071 University Ave $3,436.62 057- -2049-029-00 Gottlieb Sharona D 1849 Shattuck Ave 306 $120.83 057- -2024-015-03 Greenlining Institute 1916 University Ave $3,191.12 057- -2029-012-00 H Drake Corporation 2271 Shattuck Ave $3,312.79 055- -1821-028-00 Ha Yangwon K 2030 Blake Sta $334.42
057- -2016-027-02 Hadjian Simin & Payvand Etal 1840 University Ave $4,291.98 057- -2060-036-00 Hammond Lucia Tr 1801 University Ave 206 $239.33 057- -2059-006-00 Han Chang S & Yoon J 1941 University Ave $2,403.84 057- -2060-043-00 Hart Elizabeth 1801 University Ave 308 $239.33 057- -2027-002-02 Head Lama Tibetan Nyingma Meditation Center 2210 Harold Way $2,307.68 057- -2027-002-03 Head Lama Tibetan Nyingma Meditation Center 2018 Allston Way $7,728.24 057- -2027-004-00 Head Lama Tibetan Nyingmapa Meditation Center 2222 Harold Way $10,137.92 057- -2060-037-00 Hernandez Karyn L 1801 University Ave 306 $239.33 057- -2031-006-00 Hirahara Family Limited Partnership 2187 Shattuck Ave $7,306.30 057- -2027-010-00 Hsr Berkeley Investments Llc 2060 Allston Way A $40,899.38 057- -2049-015-00 Hu Victoria L 1849 Shattuck Ave 401 $120.83 057- -2059-010-00 Hultgren Robert P & Susan S Trs 1909 University Ave $1,941.80 057- -2049-019-00 Huynh Matthew & Regina Trs 1849 Shattuck Ave 203 $120.83 057- -2032-015-00 Janta Realty Inc & Batra Manjul Tr 2100 Kala Bagai Way $2,018.47 055- -1894-002-00 Jindo Ventures Llc 2037 Durant Ave $5,162.19 057- -2053-001-00 Jlljar Llc 1950 Shattuck Ave $4,399.01 055- -1821-003-00 Johnston Stewart L 2558 Shattuck Ave $2,410.27 055- -1821-004-00 Johnston Stewart L 2576 Shattuck Ave $1,385.91 057- -2025-013-01 K & M 2000 University Llc 2000 University $12,871.01 057- -2032-011-00 K K & C Holdings Llc 2101 Kala Bagai Way $5,326.72 057- -2049-023-00 Kalofonos Angeliki & Maria S 1849 Shattuck Ave 304 $120.83 057- -2025-016-00 Kam Yiu Lam & Shun To Lo Lam Lp 2042 University Ave $4,722.57
Downtown Berkeley PBID October 2025
Management District Plan Page 28 of 31
APN Owner Site Address
Parcel
Assessment
057- -2060-006-00 Kami Barry G & Cathy J Trs 1813 University Ave $2,716.95 057- -2060-004-00 Kang Bu U & Jeong H Trs & Kang Phillip T 1823 University Ave $2,111.62 057- -2060-005-00 Kang Bu U & Jeong H Trs & Kang Phillip T 1821 University Ave $1,681.14 057- -2032-019-00 Kaplan Educational Centers Inc 2144 Kala Bagai Way $5,011.98 057- -2031-002-00 Kashani Nasser & Pamela L Trs 2171 Allston Way $12,712.64 057- -2060-031-00 Keas Mabel E 1801 University Ave 304 $239.33 057- -2060-044-00 Kehret Joseph G 1801 University Ave 408 $239.33 057- -2060-050-05 Kennedy Patrick C & Julie M Trs 1805 University Ave $127.62 057- -2060-050-06 Kennedy Patrick C & Julie M Trs 1807 University Ave $136.26 057- -2060-050-07 Kennedy Patrick C & Julie Trs 1807 University Ave A $40.40 057- -2049-034-00 Kho Eric L 1849 Shattuck Ave 208 $120.83 057- -2053-005-00 Kl2067 University Llc 2067 University Ave $9,250.33 057- -2060-003-00 Klatt Thomas E 1849 University Ave $2,520.20 057- -2030-012-00 Kooyman Steven P& Susan J Trs 2219 Shattuck Ave $3,244.07 057- -2049-016-00 Lai Roger Y 1849 Shattuck Ave 202 $120.83 055- -1896-005-00 Lair Qozb Llc 2440 Shattuck Ave $9,389.19 055- -1893-015-01 Lakireddy Prasad R & Santi 2323 Shattuck Ave $5,750.42 057- -2024-018-01 Lakireddy Prasad R & Santi 1942 University Ave $7,100.98 055- -1897-002-00 Lakireddy Prasad R & Santi & Hanimireddy 2484 Shattuck Ave $11,569.62 057- -2059-008-00 Lam Pauline P Etal 1921 University Ave $1,600.75 057- -2023-012-00 Language Studies Inc 2015 Center St $5,668.38 057- -2025-001-00 Lauson Llc 2000 Shattuck Ave $8,822.98 057- -2024-011-00 Lee Sang H & Chung Eunjung 1915 Addison St $2,652.64 057- -2049-017-00 Lhakey Pema 1849 Shattuck Ave 302 $120.83 057- -2060-022-00 Lin Diana M Tr 1801 University Ave 301 $239.33 057- -2060-024-00 Lin Diana M Tr 1801 University Ave 202 $239.33 057- -2026-004-05 Lmp Shattuck Property Owner Llc 2190 Shattuck Ave $24,100.73 057- -2034-010-00 Lore Bca 2120 L P 2015 Kala Bagai Way $20,408.03 057- -2060-032-00 Lyon David 1801 University Ave 404 $239.33 057- -2031-004-00 Magnes Museum Foundation 2121 Allston Way $8,259.25 057- -2053-012-00 Mahrat Abdul & Reem Trs 1949 Milvia St $3,452.35 057- -2025-010-01 Maia Holdings Llc 2001 Addison St $14,342.58 057- -2060-034-00 Mak Kwan & Lishan 1801 University Ave 305 $239.33 057- -2050-005-00 Malin Robert O Inc 1848 Shattuck Ave $1,593.72 057- -2049-014-00 Mamin Adrienne & Mamin Harry J & Marjorie Trs 1849 Shattuck Ave 301 $120.83 057- -2060-025-00 Mao Yuli 1801 University Ave 302 $239.33 057- -2031-005-00 Martin David J & Reid B Etal 2115 Allston Way $2,915.39 057- -2051-053-00 Martin Reid & John 1912Shattuck Ave $961.66 057- -2031-007-00 Martin Reid B & David R Etal 2181 Shattuck Ave $3,312.47 057- -2051-004-00 Martin Reid B & David R Etal 1920 Shattuck Ave $1,266.33 057- -2046-008-04 Mcref Achenson Llc 2125 University Ave $49,309.36 057- -2046-011-01 Mcref Achenson Llc 1987 Shattuck Ave $22,092.08 057- -2046-009-00 Mcref Bachenheimer Llc 2119 University Ave $15,197.58 057- -2049-036-00 Mejia Cesar A 1849 Shattuck Ave 408 $120.83 057- -2123-001-00 Mevlanarumi Llc 2025 Kala Bagai Way $7,201.14 057- -2033-001-01 Mgm Shattuck Llc 2000 Kala Bagai Way $11,051.50 057- -2023-016-01 Milvia Berkeley Llc 0 Milvia St $2,353.64
Downtown Berkeley PBID October 2025
Management District Plan Page 29 of 31
APN Owner Site Address
Parcel
Assessment
055- -1822-002-01 Mmp Chestnut Llc 2506 Shattuck Ave $1,625.67 057- -2016-002-00 Moaven Saghi Tr 2054 M L King Jr Way $464.37 057- -2051-006-01 Moran Everett S Jr & Catharine Trs 1936 Shattuck Ave $3,000.53 055- -1821-001-01 Natural Green Corporation 2550 Shattuck Ave $5,638.90 057- -2051-005-00 Nineteen Hundred Twenty Six Shattuck Investors 1926 Shattuck Ave $1,222.52 057- -2049-031-00 Niramol Chitrcharatn 2016 Living Trust 1849 Shattuck Ave 207 $120.83 057- -2049-032-00 Nisen Frederick P 1849 Shattuck Ave 307 $120.83 057- -2024-014-00 Norcal Properties Llc 1900 University Ave $5,015.38 057- -2016-024-01 Ohay Philip L & Barbara L Trs 1824 University Ave $4,176.22 057- -2034-006-00 Okada Bros Inc 2037 Kala Bagai Way $9,659.93 057- -2120-002-00 Oxford Commercial Llc 2200 Fulton St C $11,452.47 057- -2121-001-00 Oxford Plaza Lp 2175 Kittredge St $30,226.15 057- -2016-018-01 P P M&B Berkeley Llc 1800 University Ave $3,414.73 055- -1893-019-00 P T & T Co 279-1-12-6 0 Durant Ave $21,627.71 055- -1893-020-00 P T & T Co 279-1-1-4 0 Bancroft Way $1,306.32 055- -1820-001-01 Parkershattuck Owner Llc 2600 Shattuck Ave $27,452.95 055- -1821-005-00 Parkershattuck Owner Llc 2598 Shattuck Ave $5,642.12 057- -2028-004-00 Pasand Courtyard Llc 2276 Shattuck Ave $15,088.12 057- -2060-048-00 Pathmarajah Canagaratnam Tr 1801 University Ave 210 $239.33 057- -2029-014-00 Peleg Yoram & Barbara L Trs & Weil Ben 2124 Kittredge St $3,999.66 057- -2022-005-01 Peralta Community College District 2118 Milvia St $6,590.29 057- -2026-010-00 Peralta Community College District 2016 Center St $1,801.43 057- -2026-014-00 Peralta Community College District 2048 Center St $34,169.97 055- -1894-003-01 Persian Center 2029 Durant Ave $1,303.68 057- -2025-021-00 Reddy Hanumandla J & Hanumandla J Trs 2066 University Ave $7,388.03 057- -2053-006-00 Reddy Hanumandla J & Hanumandla J Trs 2057 University Ave $7,772.75 057- -2046-002-00 Regency 2120 Berkeley Way Llc 2120 Berkeley Way $10,848.73 055- -1891-014-01 Regents Of The University Of California 2401 Shattuck Ave $8,629.70 057- -2029-007-02 Regents Of The University Of California 2113 Bancroft Way $6,014.39 057- -2029-009-00 Regents Of The University Of California 2105 Bancroft Way $15,062.19 057- -2032-014-01 Regents Of The University Of California 2120 Oxford St $18,817.69 057- -2034-003-00 Regents Of The University Of California 0 Addison St $1,019.89 057- -2034-004-00 Regents Of The University Of California 2123 Addison St $337.75 057- -2034-011-00 Regents Of The University Of California 2138 University Ave $978.87 057- -2034-012-00 Regents Of The University Of California 2154 University Ave $2,553.42 057- -2034-014-02 Regents Of The University Of California 2199 Addison St $92.57 057- -2034-014-03 Regents Of The University Of California 2199 Addison St $9,291.89 057- -2045-006-01 Regents Of The University Of California 1950 Oxford St $90,499.79 057- -2047-004-00 Regents Of The University Of California 1900 Oxford St $51,069.17 057- -2054-012-01 Regents Of The University Of California 1995 University Ave $22,423.97 057- -2023-023-00 Rilco Addison Llc 2030 Addison St $14,722.15 057- -2023-024-00 Rilco Addison Llc 2040 Addison St $6,314.40 057- -2023-025-00 Ruegg & Ellsworth 2072 Addison St $16,715.52 057- -2049-033-00 Ryu David J & Wu Christina L Trs 1849 Shattuck Ave 407 $120.83 055- -1895-018-01 Satellite First Communities L P 2020 Durant Ave $3,724.07 057- -2049-028-00 Schirle Ann M Tr 1849 Shattuck Ave 206 $120.83 055- -1893-016-00 Segerberg Kenneth Tr 2301 Shattuck Ave $3,053.99
Downtown Berkeley PBID October 2025
Management District Plan Page 30 of 31
APN Owner Site Address
Parcel
Assessment
057- -2024-016-02 Severy Michelle A Tr & Aaronia Michael Jr Tr 1926 University Ave $763.85 057- -2022-009-02 Shamszad Sasha G & Merideth B Trs 2105 M L King Jr Way $3,397.45 057- -2022-013-04 Shamszad Sasha G & Merideth B Trs 1900 Addison St $5,147.12 057- -2024-002-02 Shamszad Sasha G & Merideth B Trs 2020 Milvia St $11,473.95 057- -2033-003-00 Shamszad Sasha G & Merideth B Trs 2021 Shattuck Ave $9,060.59 057- -2049-024-00 Sharma Gauri Tr 1849 Shattuck Ave 404 $120.83 055- -1891-013-01 Shattuck Senior Homes Associates 2421 Shattuck Ave $1,984.96 055- -1897-001-03 Shattuck Wicks Partnership Ltd 2480 Shattuck Ave $3,591.59 055- -1822-006-00 Shen Tsui Y & Wu Yeu B 2530 Shattuck Ave $2,089.92 057- -2060-038-00 Shoji Joseph 1801 University Ave 406 $239.33 057- -2016-022-00 Shree Laxmi Llc 1822 University Ave $4,601.88 057- -2053-014-02 Shrimatis Limited Inc 2011 University Ave $2,915.06 057- -2060-045-00 Sikaffy Amal 1801 University Ave 209 $239.33 057- -2049-013-00 Song Jia Y 1849 Shattuck Ave 201 $120.83 055- -1824-016-00 Southwick Timothy K & Susan E Trs 2555 Shattuck Ave $1,721.54 055- -1892-018-01 Southwick Timothy K & Susan E Trs 2110 Durant Ave $3,918.97 055- -1896-001-00 Southwick Timothy K & Susan E Trs 2410 Shattuck Ave $4,466.63 057- -2060-002-00 Southwick Timothy Sr & Susan Trs 1865 University Ave $3,776.28 057- -2023-017-01 Sterling Berkeley Addison L P 2101 Milvia St $8,988.01 057- -2030-002-00 Sterling Berkeley Allston Lp 2116 Allston Way $24,874.12 055- -1890-013-02 Sterling Berkeley Haste Lp 2451 Shattuck Ave $17,299.51 057- -2047-002-01 Sterling Berkeley Oxford Lp 1910 Oxford St $7,377.36 057- -2025-014-00 Sterling Berkeley University Ave Lp 2004 University Ave $9,467.45 057- -2024-001-02 Stonefire Partners Llc 1974 University Ave $20,160.17 055- -1823-011-01 Sutter Bay Hospitals 2104 Dwight Way $3,892.39 057- -2060-035-00 Swanson Linda L 1801 University Ave 405 $239.33 057- -2049-025-00 Sweeney Zephyr & Dennis A 1849 Shattuck Ave 205 $120.83 057- -2060-042-00 Szabo Marshika L 1801 University Ave 208 $239.33 057- -2053-008-01 Talai Mohammad E & Kokab S Trs & Kashani Mans 2035 University Ave $7,145.52 057- -2060-033-00 Tavakolizadeh Mehdi 1801 University Ave 205 $239.33 055- -1824-014-00 Thallaug Kirsten Tr & Thallaug Haakon E 2105 Parker St $5,204.00 057- -2060-027-00 Thevanayagam Sabanayagam & Vasuki Etal 1801 University Ave 203 $239.33 057- -2060-049-00 Thomas Herb Tr 1801 University Ave 310 $239.33 057- -2049-018-00 Tiphane Bibiane Tr 1849 Shattuck Ave 402 $120.83 057- -2051-051-00 Tipping Zeniada L Tr 1900 Shattuck Ave $2,381.87 057- -2051-052-00 Tipping Zeniada L Tr 1908 Shattuck Ave $1,240.41 057- -2053-007-00 Trilink Real Estate Investment & Development Inc 2041 University Ave $9,863.18 057- -2025-015-00 U C Studios Lp 2018 University Ave $16,603.49 057- -20270-05-00 United States Postal Service 0 Milvia St $15,687.63 057- -2060-047-00 Vajjravel Muralli & Rajalakshmi Hema 1801 University Ave 409 $239.33 057- -2024-012-00 Vedensky Properties Llc 1911 Addison St $3,401.27 055- -1893-018-00 Vero Properties Llc 2126 Bancroft Way $1,316.99 057- -2051-007-00 Vinland Property Invetment Llc 2053 Berkeley Way $1,503.06 057- -2060-039-00 Wagele Nicholas 1801 University Ave 207 $239.33 057- -2028-012-00 Wander Robert H & Ingrid 2235 Milvia St $845.90 057- -2030-009-00 Wise Stanley & Wise Addington L Jr Heirs Of E Etal 2115 Kittredge St $8,736.44 055- -1822-001-00 Wong Franklin & Pui T Etal 2500 Shattuck Ave $2,250.25
Downtown Berkeley PBID October 2025
Management District Plan Page 31 of 31
APN Owner Site Address
Parcel
Assessment
057- -2060-029-00 Wong Mei L & Kuochen 1801 University Ave 403 $239.33 057- -2031-010-00 Wu Shu F Tr 2124 Center St $4,523.16 057- -2049-027-00 Yang Judy C Tr & Yang Lucinda Etal 1849 Shattuck Ave 405 $120.83 057- -2034-005-00 Yaniv Gershon Tr & Nevo Dalia Tr 2119 Addison St $7,096.60 057- -2059-011-00 Yearwood Ines L & Kahlil & Rodriguez R U Trs Etal 1901 University Ave $2,012.08 057- -2053-011-00 Yee David 2017 University Ave $4,504.68 057- -2060-021-00 Yeh Jeng R & Yang Chingmei Trs 1801 University Ave 201 $239.33 057- -2029-010-02 Young James C & Eddie Jr 2281 Shattuck Ave $1,262.88 057- -2029-010-01 Young James C & Young Eddie Jr 2283 Shattuck Ave $945.86 057- -2022-018-00 Young Mens Christian Association Of The East Bay 2109 M L King Jr Way $2,508.98 057- -2026-015-00 Young Mens Christian Association Of The East Bay 2001 Allston Way $25,378.05 057- -2049-035-00 Yu David T & Lisa L Trs 1849 Shattuck Ave 308 $120.83 055- -1893-001-00 Yu Inn N Tr 2190 Bancroft Way $2,641.59 055- -1822-004-00 Yu Wah Y & Rui C Trs 2520 Shattuck Ave $964.67 057- -2059-009-00 Z & L Pm Llc 1915 University Ave $1,933.96 057- -2023-002-00 Zac Enterprise Llc 2116 Shattuck Ave $1,769.85 TOTAL: $2,668,086.26
Attachment A
Downtown Berkeley
Business Improvement District
Draft
Engineer’s Report
Berkeley, California
December 2025
Prepared by:
Kristin Lowell Inc.
Prepared pursuant to the State of California
Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994
And Article XIIID of the California Constitution
to create a property-based business improvement district
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENGINEER’S STATEMENT ................................................................................. 1 ENGINEER’S REPORT:
SECTION A: Legislative and Judicial Review .................................................. 2 SECTION B: Improvements and Activities....................................................... 4 SECTION C: Benefitting Parcels ....................................................................... 5 SECTION D: Proportional Benefits ................................................................... 6 SECTION E: Special and General Benefits ...................................................... 9 SECTION F: Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 13 SECTION G: Apportionment Method .............................................................. 14
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 1 of 17
This Report is prepared pursuant to Article XIIID of the California State Constitution (Proposition 218) and the State of California Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 as amended.
The Downtown Berkeley Property Based Business Improvement District (“PBID”) will provide activities either currently not provided or are above and beyond what the City of Berkeley provides.
These activities will specially benefit each individual assessable parcel in the PBID. Every individual assessed parcel within the PBID receives special benefit from the activities identified under Section B of this Report. Only those individual assessed parcels within the PBID receive the special benefit of these proposed activities.
The duration of the proposed PBID is ten (10) years, commencing January 1, 2027, and ending December 31, 2036. An estimated budget for the PBID improvements and activities is set forth in Section D . Assessments will be subject to an annual increase of up to 5% per year as determined by the Owners’ Association . Assessment increases must stay between 0 % and 5% in any given year. Funding for the PBID improvements and activities shall be derived from a property-based assessment of each specially benefitted parcel in the PBID. A detailed description of the methodology for determining the proportional special benefit each individual assessable parcel receives from the service and the assessment for each parcel is set forth in Section F.
I hereby certify to the best of my professional knowledge that each of the identified assessable parcels located within the PBID will receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred to those parcels outside of the PBID boundary and to the public at large and that the amount of the proposed special assessment is proportional to, and no greater than the special benefits received.
Respectfully submitted,
Terrance E. Lowell, P.E.
ENGINEER’S STATEMENT
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 2 of 17
SECTION A: LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994
The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (the “State Law”) is the legislation that authorizes the City to levy assessments upon real property for the purposes of providing improvements and activities that specially benefit each individual assessed parcel in the PBID.
The purpose of the PBID is to encourage commerce, investment, and business activities. To meet these goals PBIDs typically fund activities and improvements, such as enhanced safety and cleaning. Unlike other assessment distr icts which fund the construction of public capital improvements or maintenance thereof, PBIDs provide activities and improvements “to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of the business districts of its cities in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts.” (Streets and Highways Code Section 36601(b)). The improvements and activities funded through the PBID are over and above those already provided by the City within the PBID’s boundaries. Each of the PBID activities or improvements is intended to increase building occupancy and lease rates, to encourage new business development, attract businesses that benefit the parcels, and improve the economic vitality of parcels.
Specifically, the State Law defines “Improvements” and “Activities” as follows:
“Improvement" means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years…”1
"Activities" means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property in the district:
(a) Promotion of public events.
(b) Furnishing of music in any public place within the district. (c) Promotion of tourism within the district.
(d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing safety, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f)Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district.2
As of July 19, 2022, the State Law, Section 36615.5 (b), was amended to further define special benefit as it relates to the improvements and activities these districts provide. Specifically, the amendment states: “Special benefit also includes, for purpose s of a property -based district, a particular and distinct benefit provided directly to each assessed parcel within the district. Merely because parcels throughout an assessment district share the same special benefits does not make the benefits general.”3
1 California Streets and Highways Code, Section 36610.
2 California Streets and Highways Code, Section 36606.
3 California Streets and Highways Code, Section 36615.5(b)
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 3 of 17
Article XIIID of the State Constitution
In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, codified in part as Article XIIID of the State Constitution. Among other requirements, Article XIIID changes the way local agencies enact local taxes and levy assessments on real property. Section 4 of Article XIIID states, in relevant part, that:
(a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be dete rmined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit.
(b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California.4
Section 2(i) of Article XIIID States in relevant part:
"Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over, and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit."5
Judicial Guidance
Since the enactment of Article XIIID, the courts have rendered opinions regarding various aspects of Article XIIID. The notable portion of a case that applies to PBIDs in particular is noted below.
“The engineer’s report describes the services to be provided by the PBID [i.e. the PBID]; (1) security, (2) streetscape maintenance (e.g., street sweeping, gutter cleaning, graffiti removal), and (3) marketing, promotion, and special events. They are all services over and above those already provided by the City within the boundaries of the PBID. And they are particular and distinct benefits to be provided only to the properties within the PBID, not to the public at large—they ‘affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from [their] effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share.’”6
The contents of this Engineer’s Report are prepared in compliance with the above noted authorizing State Law, the State Constitution and the judicial opinion.
4 Section 4(a), Article XIIID of the State Constitution. 5 Section 2(i), Article XIIID of the State Constitution. 6 Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District (2009) 174 Cal.App. 4th 708, 722.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 4 of 17
SECTION B: IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES
Informed by a participatory strategic planning process that included extensive community outreach (including stakeholder roundtables with property, business owners, residents, and neighbors; online surveys; and meetings with the DBA Board of Directors), the PBID priorities continue to be, and will expand upon, Clean, Safe and Beautiful activities, as well as Marketing, Activation, Economic Development, Management and Operations. Specifically, the PBID shall provide the activities described in greater detail in Section 3 of this Management District Plan:
District Improvement and Activity Plan.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 5 of 17
SECTION C: BENEFITTING PARCELS
PBID Boundary Description and Benefit Zones
The description and map of the PBID district boundary and benefit zones is described in detail in Section 2 of this Management District Plan.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 6 of 17
SECTION D: PROPORTIONAL BENEFITS
Methodology
Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36622(k)(2), the PBID must “separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on the assessed parcels” and must ensure that “only special benefits are financed with assessment revenues.”
In accordance with this requirement, the Downtown Berkeley PBID has identified and quantified the reasonably estimated general benefits associated with PBID improvements and activities.
These general benefits have been expressly removed from the assessment budget and will be funded by sources other than assessment revenues.
The PBID’s remaining budget funds only special benefits, defined as the particular and distinct benefits provided exclusively to parcels within the District and not shared by property outside the District boundary. Each parcel’s assessment is therefore pro portionate to, and no greater than, the special benefit received, consistent with the requirements of the California Constitution, Article XIII D (Proposition 218) and Streets and Highways Code section 36622(k)(2).
To comply with Section 36622(k)(2), all improvements and activities have been carefully evaluated to determine the share of services that provide general benefit to the public at large, and that portion —calculated at 2.0% of the total PBID budget —has been deducted from the assessment budget and will be funded separately from non-assessment sources.
Determining the proportionate special benefit among the parcels of real property within the proposed assessment district, which benefits from the proposed improvements, services, and activities is the result of a four-step process:
1. Defining the proposed activities,
2. Determining which parcels specially benefit from the proposed activities,
3. Determining the amount of special benefit each parcel receives,
4. Determining the proportional special benefit a parcel receives in relation to the amount of special benefit all other parcels in the PBID receive.
Each identified parcel within the PBID will be assessed based upon each parcel’s unique characteristics in relationship to all other specially benefitted parcels’ characteristics. Due to the proportionate special benefits received by each parcel from the PBID services, each parcel will be assessed a rate which is commensurate with the number of special benefits received.
Special Benefit Factor
The method used to determine proportional special benefits are measured by each parcel’s lot square footage plus building square footage . Each parcel’s proportional lot size and building square footage represents each parcel’s proportional special benefit compared to other parcels within each respective benefit zone. Lot square footage is relevant to the best use of a property and will reflect the long term special benefit implications of the improvement district. Building square footage is relevant to the interim use of a property and is utilized to measure short and mid-term impacts. Together, these land use factors serve as the basic unit of measure to calculate how much special benefit each parcel receives in relationship to the district as a whole. This is the basis then to proportionately allocate the cost of the special benefits to each assessed parcel.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 7 of 17
The PBID improvements and activities are designed to provide special benefits to the mix of land uses found within the district, i.e. commercial, office, retail, residential, and publicly owned. Each parcel’s building square footage or lot square footage is the best unit of measure to convey the special benefits of the PBID services, as the intent of these services is to improve the safety and cleanliness of each individual parcel, to increase building occupancy and lease rates, to encourage new business development and attract ancillary businesses and services for parcels within the PBID. The most equitable way to determine each parcel’s proportionate special benefit from the PBID services is to relate each individual parcel’s Building Square Footage plus Lot Square Footage to the Building Square Footage plus Lot Square Footage of all other parcels in the PBID.
Lot Square Footage Defined . Lot square footage is defined as the total amount of area within the borders of the parcel. The borders of a parcel are defined on the County Assessor parcel maps.
Building Square Footage Defined. Building square footage is defined as gross building square footage as determined by the outside measurements of a building.
Each one of these land use factors represents the Benefit Units allocated to each specially benefitted parcel. The total number of assessable Benefit Units in the PBID by Benefit Zone are:
Benefit Zone
Assessable Units
Lot + Building SF
Premium Zone
Commercial 6,208,030
Residential 2,630,490
Tax Exempt & Government 3,600,390
Total Premium Zone 12,438,910
Standard Zone
Commercial 2,165,251
Residential 1,888,365
Tax Exempt & Government 1,840,319
Total Standard Zone 5,893,935
TOTAL: 18,332,845
Parcel Use Consideration
The methodology provides the following treatments for property used exclusively for residential, nonprofit and government, and parking structures:
• Treatment of Residential Property: Residential uses will fully benefit from the Clean, Safe and Beautiful services and will pay a full share of these services; however, Economic Development services will not benefit residential uses, and the residential rate is adjusted accordingly. The residential building square footage portion of commercial and mixed -use parcels will be subject to the adjusted residential assessment rate.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 8 of 17
• Assessment Policy on Nonprofit & Governmental Properties: Properties that are exempt from property tax, including educational and governmental institutions, and nonprofit organizations (e.g. faith-based, low income housing, cultural, community services, etc.), will not benefit from increased commercial activity resulting from PBID services and thereby will receive reduced benefits from PBID services. An owner of real property located within the PBID boundaries may reduce their assessment if ALL the following conditions are met:
6. The property owner is a nonprofit corporation that has obtained federal tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code section 501c3 or California franchise tax -exemption under the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23701d.
7. The class or category of real property has been granted an exemption, in whole or in part, from real property taxation.
8. The nonprofit or governmental property owner occupies a majority of building square footage within the subject property.
9. The property owner makes the request in writing to the City of Berkeley prior to the submission of the PBID assessment rolls to the Alameda County Assessor (to accommodate periodic changes in ownership or use, on or before July 1 of each year), accompanied by documentation of the tax -exempt status of the property owner and the class or category of real property.
10. The City of Berkeley may verify the documentation of tax -exempt status and classification of the property for assessment purposes prior to submitting the assessments to the County Assessor.
If ALL of these conditions are met, the amount of the PBID assessment to be levied will be for three-quarters (75%) of the Clean, Safe and Beautiful services. In addition, these parcels will not benefit from the Economic Development services and thus will not be assessed for these services.
Treatment of Parking Structures: Parking structures receive different levels of benefit from PBID improvements and services based upon their use and ownership. Parking structures will be subject to one of the following methodologies:
c. Parking structure square footage that is integrated within and/or dedicated to a building, has the same ownership as the building, and the building has uses in addition to parking where parking is just an ancillary use, does not receive benefit from the PBID services and therefore square footage of the parking structure will not be assessed. d. Stand-alone parking structures that are not ancillary to a building will receive the full benefit from PBID improvements and activities and will be assessed at standard assessment rates.
Change in Land Use: If at any time a parcel changes its land use that parcel then will be subject to the assessment methodology for the new land use. As a result, the PBID may experience the addition or subtraction of assessable lot or building square footage for parcels included and assessed within the PBID boundaries. The modification of land use of assessed parcels within the PBID may then change upwards or downwards the amount of total lot and building square footage assessment for these parcels. In future years, the assessments for the special benefits bestowed upon individual assessed parcels may change in accordance with the as sessment methodology formula listed in the Management District Plan and Engineer’s Report, provided the assessment formula does not change.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 9 of 17
SECTION E: SPECIAL and GENERAL BENEFITS
Special Benefit Defined
PBID Law, Article XIIID of the State Constitution, and judicial opinions require that assessments be levied according to the estimated special benefit each assessed parcel receives from the activities and improvements. Article XIIID Section 4(a) of the California Constitution in part states that “only special benefits are assessable,” which requires that we separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits provided by the proposed activities and improvements.
As of January 1, 2015, the State Legislature amended the PBID Law to clarify and define both special benefit and general benefit as they relate to the improvements and activities these districts provide. Specifically, the amendment (Section 36615.5 of the Streets and Highways Code) defines special benefit as follows: “‘Special benefit’ means, for purposes of a property -based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property -based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed.”
In addition, the amendment (Section 36609.5 of the Streets and Highways Code) defines general benefit as follows: “‘General benefit’ means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a ‘special benefit’ as defined in Section 36615.5.”
Furthermore, the amendment (Section 36601(h)(2)) states: “Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed. Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits. The mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits.”
Special Benefit Analysis
As required by Streets and Highways Code section 36622(l), this Management District Plan must state the total amount of all special benefits that will be financed with assessment revenues.
For the Downtown Berkeley PBID, the total amount of special benefits conferred on the assessed parcels and funded by PBID assessments for the first year of operation is $ 2,668,086. This amount represents the net special benefit budget, after deducting all general benefit costs in accordance with Streets and Highways Code section 36622(k)(2). Only this $ 2,668,086 amount is financed through property -based assessments, and it reflects the cost of improvements and activities that provide direct, particular, and distinct special benefits to the assessed parcels within the PBID.
General benefit costs have been identified, quantified, separated, and removed from the assessment budget consistent with Streets and Highways Code section 36622(k)(2); therefore, the stated amount of $2,668,086 represents only special-benefit expenditures.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 10 of 17
All special benefits derived from the assessments outlined in this Management District Plan are for property -related activities that directly benefit each individual assessed parcel. A special benefit must provide an advantage or enhancement to a parcel that is particular and distinct from benefits enjoyed by non -assessed parcels, other parcels in general, or the public at large. No parcel’s assessment shall exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit received.
Streets and Highways Code section 36601(e) states that “Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits: (1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8 -percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 di stricts studied. (2) Job creation. (3) Business attraction. (4) Business retention. (5) Economic growth. (6) New investments.” The PBID’s goal is to fund improvements and activities that create a cleaner and safer environment, as outlined in Section B. Improving the economic vitality of the District includes enhancing the safety and cleanliness of each specially benefitted parcel to increase commerce, strengthen building occupancy and lease rates, and attract more customers, employees, tenants, and investors.
Each parcel will specially benefit from:
• Cleaner sidewalks, streets and common areas
• Real and perceived public safety improvements
• Greater pedestrian traffic
• Enhanced rental incomes
• Improved business climate
• New business and investment
• Well managed PBID programs and services
Specifically, each parcel benefits from each of the PBID activities as defined below.
Clean, Safe and Beautiful
Keeping Downtown Berkeley safe, clean, and welcoming is the top priority for local property and business owners. People who live, work, and visit the area want to feel comfortable and secure.
The cleaning activities specially benefit each assessed parcel within the PBID by providing a clean and aesthetically appealing environment. The PBID will fund daily maintenance and security crews to help keep Downtown Berkeley clean and safe.
These efforts will help make each property more attractive, encourage more visitors, and bring new business investment to the corridor. A clean, safe, and well -maintained downtown benefits everyone — from small businesses and nonprofits to residents and customers.
The Clean, Safe and Beautiful activities are expected to provide special benefits to the assessed parcels in a variety of ways. For example:
• Security Ambassadors: Regular patrols by security personnel to deter crime and ensure safety.
• Cleaning/Hospitality Ambassadors: Sidewalk cleaning, pressure washing, trash collection, graffiti removal, bulky item collection, and landscaping.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 11 of 17
• Homeless Outreach Ambassador: Engage with the unhoused community and connect them with critical resources.
• Beautification and Placemaking: Cosmetic enhancements that improve the appearance and walkability within the PBID.
These enhanced activities make the area more attractive for businesses, customers, residents, and ultimately private investment. When business location decisions are made, “lower levels of public safety lead to increased uncertainty in decision making and can be perceived as a signal of a socio-institutional environment unfavorable for investment. Uncertainty affects the investment environment in general. But in particular, it increases the fear of physical damage to investment assets (or to people) or their returns…Almost universally, places with lower crime rates are perceived as more desirable”.7 Once economic investment occurs within the district, pedestrian traffic and commercial activity will increase. The special benefit to assessed parcels from these services is the likelihood of increased lease rates and tenant occupancy due to the increase of commercial activity , and an increase in customers that follow from having a safer and more welcoming environment.
Marketing and Economic Development
The myriad of the marketing and economic development activities will specially benefit each assessed parcel by providing business support and innovation, and marketing efforts to enhance Downtown’s image as a unique arts and cultural destination. This generates customer traffic which directly relates to increases in commercial activity including residential serving businesses, filling of vacant storefronts and offices , and ultimately increased lease rates for retail and office space.
Management
The PBID requires a professional staff to properly manage programs, communicate with stakeholders, advocate with City departments, and provide leadership. Each parcel will specially benefit from the PBID executive staff that will ensure that the PBID activities are provided and deployed to assessed parcels and will provide leadership to represent the community with one clear voice.
Special Benefit Conclusion
Based on the distinct special benefits that each assessed parcel receives from the PBID -funded activities, all proposed activities and improvements are determined to provide special benefits directly to the parcels within the district. Each parcel’s assessment is proportionate to, and does not exceed, the reasonable cost of the special benefits conferred. Accordingly, each proposed PBID activity and improvement confers special benefits to the assessed parcels, and each parcel’s assessment bears a direct relationship to the proportional special benefits it receives.
7 “Accelerating economic growth and vitality through smarter public safety management” IBM Global Business Services Executive Report, September 2012, pg. 2
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 12 of 17
General Benefit Defined
As required by the State Constitution Article XIIID Section 4(a), the general benefits of an assessment district must be quantified and separated out so that the cost of the activities that are attributed to general benefit are deducted from the cost asses sed against each specially benefitted parcel. General benefits are benefits from the PBID activities and improvements that are not special in nature, are not particular and distinct and are not over and above the benefits that other parcels receive.
General Benefit Analysis
The PBID improvements and activities are designed to provide service only to those parcels that are within the district boundary. As discussed above, these activities are determined to provide special benefits only to the assessed parcels. If there is any general benefit to property located in the district or to the public at large, it is incidental to providing special benefits to the assessed parcels. However, it is conceivable that there may be some general benefit that is not quantifiable, and it is judicious to allocate a portion of the budget to acknowledge this.
For the purposes of the PBID, we assigned 2.0%, or $58,351 of the total budget to general benefit.
This portion of the budget will need to be funded from sources other than the special assessments.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 13 of 17
SECTION F: COST ESTIMATE
2027 Operating Budget
The PBID’s operating budget takes into consideration:
1. The improvements and activities needed to provide special benefits to each individual parcel within the PBID boundary (Section B),
2. The parcels that specially benefit from said improvements and activities (Section C), and
3. The costs associated with the special and general benefits conferred (Section E).
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL
BUDGET % of Budget
Clean, Safe and Beautiful $2,234,962 76.60%
Marketing and Activation $438,672 15.04%
Management and Contingency $243,903 8.36%
Total Expenditures $2,917,537 100.00%
REVENUES
PBID Assessments $2,668,086 91.45%
General Benefit $58,351 2.00%
Other Revenues (1) $191,100 6.55%
Total Revenues $2,917,537 100.00%
Budget Notations
The cost of providing programs and services may vary depending on the market cost for those programs and services. Expenditures may require adjustment up or down to continue the intended level of programs and services. The Board of Directors of the Owner’s Association shall have the right to reallocate up to 10% by line item of the budget allocation within the budgeted categories.
Any change will be approved by the Owners’ Association Board of Directors and submitted within its annual planning report, pursu ant to Section 36650 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The overall budget shall remain consistent with this Management District Plan. Each assessed parcel pays 100% of the special benefit received based on the level of benefit received.
Any annu al budget surplus, including those created through cost saving measures, labor vacancies, unexpected reductions in expenses caused by one -time events or unanticipated increases to income, will be rolled into the following year’s budget. The carryover funds will be applied to the same budget line-item as the line-item that was the source of the carryover funds.
The budget will be set accordingly, within the constraints of the Management District Plan, to adjust for surpluses that are carried forward to ensure that the District is spending these funds in a timely ma nner and is complying with applicable State laws and City policies. The estimated budget surplus amount will be included in the Annual Planning Report each year. District funds may be used for renewal. Funds from an expired District shall be rolled over into the new District if one is established or returned to the property owners if one is not established, in accordance with Streets and Highways Code section 36671.
Bond Issuance
The District will not issue bonds.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 14 of 17
SECTION G: APPORTIONMENT METHOD
Assessment Methodology
The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of an improvement or the cleaning and operation expenses of an improvement or the cost of the property service being provided. Due to the proportionate special benefits received by these individual parcels from the District services, these parcels will be assessed a rate which is proportionate to the amount of special benefits received.
As previously discussed above in Section D, the methodology for allocating the cost of the special benefits is allocated to Lot plus Building Lot Square Footage. The table below indicates the assessable footage for each respective of the benefit zone.
Benefit Zone
Assessable Units
Lot + Building SF
Premium Zone
Commercial 6,208,030
Residential 2,630,490
Tax Exempt & Government 3,600,390
Total Premium Zone 12,438,910
Standard Zone
Commercial 2,165,251
Residential 1,888,365
Tax Exempt & Government 1,840,319
Total Standard Zone 5,893,935
TOTAL: 18,332,845
Calculation of Assessments
Based on the assessment budget, benefit zone, land use type, and assessable benefit units, all of which are discussed above, the following table s illustrate the maximum first year annual assessment per assessable benefit unit. Note, assessment rates are rounded off to the fourth decimal place and a parcel’s assessment may vary slightly when calculated using the assessment rates below.
Benefit Zone Adjustments: The assessments are adjusted to reflect anticipated service frequencies within each of two benefit zones:
• The Premium Zone, which includes the core of the PBID, provides a higher frequency of environmental enhancements.
• The Standard Zone, which includes areas on the periphery to the north, west and south, including the South Shattuck sub-area, offers a lower frequency of environmental enhancements.
• Commercial properties in both service areas will equally benefit from marketing, activation and economic development enhancements.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 15 of 17
The resulting assessment calculation by service and benefit zone follows:
Assessment by Service
Per Sq.Ft. of
Lot + Building
Clean, Safe and Beautiful: Premium Zone $ 0.2463
Clean, Safe and Beautiful: Standard Zone $ 0.1232
Marketing and Activation (commercial only) $ 0.0778
Assessments rates by Benefit Zone and land use type will not exceed the following amounts during the first year of the renewed PBID:
Assessment Rates
Per Sq.Ft. of
Lot + Building
Premium – Commercial
Premium – Residential
Premium - Tax Exempt/Govt
Standard – Commercial
Standard – Residential
Standard - Tax Exempt/Govt
0.3241
0.2463
0.1848
0.2010
0.1232
0.0924
Public Property Assessments
There are publicly owned parcels in the PBID, all of which are identified as assessable and receive special benefit from the PBID services. All publicly owned parcels will pay their proportional share of costs based on the special benefits conferred to tho se individual parcels. Article XIIID of the California Constitution was added in November 1996 and provides for these assessments. It specifically states in Section 4(a) that “Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency…shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit.”
Budget Adjustment
Any annual budget surplus will be rolled into the following year’s District budget. The budget will be set accordingly, within the constraints of the Management District Plan to adjust for surpluses that are carried forward. Funds from an expired District shall be rolled over into the new District if one is established or returned to the property owners if one is not established, in accordance with the Streets and Highways Code section 36671.
The cost of providing improvements and activities may vary depending on the market cost for those improvements and activities. Expenditures may require adjustment up or down to continue the intended level of improvements and activities. The Owners’ Associa tion shall have the right to reallocate up to 15% between categories of the budget. Any change will be approved by the Owners’ Association Board of Directors and submitted to the City of Berkeley within its annual report, pursuant to Section 36650 of the C alifornia Streets and Highways Code. The overall budget shall remain consistent with this Management District Plan. Each assessed parcel pays 100% of the special benefit received based on the square footage of the parcel.
Downtown Berkeley PBID December 2025
Engineer’s Report Page 16 of 17
Future Development
As a result of continued development, the District may experience the addition or subtraction of assessable lot size for parcels included and assessed within the District boundaries. Changes in lot square footage or use of parcel will be reflected in the following fiscal year.
In future years of the PBID term, the assessments amount for the special benefits bestowed upon the included PBID parcels may change in accordance with the assessment methodology formula listed in the Management District Plan, provided the assessment rate does not change. If the assessment formula changes, then State Law Section 36636 shall be followed.
Assessment Appeal Procedure
Property owners may appeal assessments that they believe are inaccurate. Appeals must be in writing, stating the grounds for appeal and filed with the Owners Association prior to April 1 of each year. Appeals shall be limited to the current assessment year. Any appeal not filed by April 1 shall not be valid. In any case appeals will only be considered for the current year and will not be considered for prior years.
Attachment B
Downtown Berkeley
Business Improvement District
Baseline Services Agreement
with the City of Berkeley
2025
City Of Berkeley Baseline Services
in the Downtown Property-Based Business Improvement District Area
The Downtown Baseline Services listed below are provided by the City Manager’s Office, Department of Public Works, the Police Department, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, the Office of Economic Development, and the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. From time to time, the City may need to adjust the level of Downtown Baseline Services due to resource constraints and staffing availability. Also, funding for portions of these services comes through non-City grant sources and may be subject to budget pressures outside of City control.
Department of Public Works (PW)
PW provides the following services within the Downtown PBID boundaries:
Sidewalk Pressure Washing: Staff pressure washes five days per week within th
e following areas: University Avenue between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Oxford Street; Shattuck Avenue between University Avenue and Bancroft Way. (Pressure washing for health and safety concerns).
Street Mechanical Sweeping: Staff mechanically sweep five nights per week in the fo
llowing Downtown areas: University Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, Addison Street, Center Street, Allston Way, Oxford Street, Milvia Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way.
Public Trash Receptacle Maintenance: Public trash receptacles are emptied daily.
Repair of trash receptacles are scheduled as needed and generally within two weeks.
Street and Traffic Signal Maintenance: Street lights are re-lamped or replaced as needed and via regular preventative maintenance. Traffic signals undergo annual inspection and are repaired and maintained as needed. Reports of maintenance activities can be provided upon request.
Sidewalk Sweeping: Staff are assigned to sweep three (3) days per week between 7:30 AM and 11:00 AM on Shattuck Avenue between Hearst Avenue and Dwight Way; University Avenue between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Oxford Street and Allston Way between Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue; Center Street between Milvia Street and Center Street and Addison Street between Milvia Street and Shattuck Avenue.
Additional Sidewalk Sweeping or pressure washing: Staff are assigned to sweep or wash as scheduled as overtime funding becomes available for special events, holiday fairs and football games.
Public Graffiti Removal: Public areas are scheduled for weekly graffiti removal once per week performed by Public Works staff. Graffiti on public property service requests are
generally responded to within seven (7) working days. If PW staffing levels are unable to perform this work, PW will provide DBA with graffiti removal supplies at the City’s cost.
Curb Painting and Sign Maintenance: Maintenance of curb and street markings is scheduled for renewal every eighteen (18) months or as needed when markings are no longer legible: Public traffic, warning or informational signs are scheduled for repair or replacement as needed. Service calls of this nature are generally handled within two weeks.
Hand-sweeping (Downtown Streets Team): Sweeping services are scheduled Sunday through Saturday for 70hrs. Ongoing service is subject to funding availability for Downtown Streets Team.
Illegal Dumping and Unattended Property Removal: Illegal dumping within the public- right of way is handled in two basic ways either Public Works staff removes the dumping, or the responsible party is located, and the responsible party removes it. Public Works is generally able to remove illegally dumped items within three business days.
Parking Services: Parking garages and maintenance of metered areas (pay stations).
Storm System Maintenance: Semi-annual cleaning of storm systems in commercial areas.
Sewer Maintenance:
Sewer Maintenance 24-hour service.
Street Signage: As resources allow, replacement of street signage that is no longer legible or visible.
Protest or Demonstration Assistance:
At the request of BPD, PW staff assists with
traffic and pedestrian control for protest demonstrations and emergency board-ups.
Commercial Business Emergency Board-ups: PW staff will perform emergency board-ups during extreme weather or other emergencies adequate to ensure public safety. Otherwise, private property owners bear the responsibility to make vandalization repairs to secure against breaches. Request for this service from PW is directed at the request of BPD.
Berkeley Police Department
Community Services Bureau – Bicycle Officers and Area Coordinator The Community Services Bureau (CSB) of the Berkeley Police Department is composed of the Area Coordinators and the Bicycle Team. One Area Coordinator is assigned specifically to the Downtown area, serving as a liaison to both businesses as well as residents. This role focuses on identifying and addressing ongoing public safety concerns using a problem-oriented policing framework emphasizing collaborative, tailored interventions that serve the community and the individual.
The Bicycle Team currently includes one (1) sergeant and five (5) officers. Their primary
responsibility is to provide patrol coverage in the city's business districts and other areas identified as high-priority based on community concerns and department data. While their core focus remains in retail districts, this team also functions as the Department’s most flexible resource. As such, they are regularly tasked with supporting search warrant operations, assisting with community events, and filling unstaffed patrol beats. Like the Area Coordinator, the Bicycle Team applies a problem-solving approach to policing, prioritizing long-term, community-based solutions to locations that are part of the DBA.
Patrol Beat Coverage – Downtown Business District
The Department is committed to maintaining regular patrol coverage across all designated beats, including those in the Downtown Business District, which spans four patrol beats under the current configuration. This coverage ensures a consistent presence in the Downtown area, with four officers assigned during peak hours and two officers maintaining visibility during early morning hours. Staffing levels currently support the following schedule for DBA-related beats:
Monday – Thursday:
Two officers on duty from 1:30 AM to 11:00 AM
Four officers on duty from 11:00 AM to 1:30 AM the following morning
Friday – Sunday:
Two officers on duty from 1:00 AM to 12:30 PM
Four officers on duty from 12:30 PM to 1:00 AM the following morning
While the Department is committed to sustaining this level of service, actual deployment is dependent on staffing availability and cannot always be guaranteed
Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront
Within Downtown PBID boundaries the Parks Division maintains at least 860 trees, Civic Center Park, the Old City Hall landscape, and all the traffic medians , parking bay strips and other planters. Exceptions to this maintenance include bioswales ; planter areas adopted by DBA, property owners ; tree wells and designated areas for art installations.
They provide the following specific services:
Landscape Maintenance Gardener Unit: This unit performs routine and responsive maintenance activities including, but not limited to the following:
1. As needed graffiti abatement;
2. Mowing, edging, and trimming;
3. Weed abatement;
4. Removal of unattended property; and
5. Collection of litter and debris in Civic Center Park, Old City Hall Park, 2180 Curtilage and the medians and all associated maintenance.
Urban Forestry Unit: This unit plants new trees in empty tree wells and elsewhere in Downtown (resources permitting), removes dead and diseased trees, prunes trees and roots,
responds to emergency calls (e.g., fallen trees and branches), and provides other maintenance as needed.
Building and Facilities Maintenance Unit: This unit oversees the maintenance of site furnishings such as benches and the upkeep of hardscape surfaces within Civic Center Park and the Old City Hall Park grounds. Responsibilities also include irrigation system maintenance, graffiti removal, and the repair of damage resulting from vandalism within both park areas and the associated traffic medians.
Office of Economic Development
The Office of Economic Development (OED) provides a range of services to Downtown businesses, cultural institutions, property owners and potential investors. OED staff provide permit assistance, site location assistance, marketing assistance and access to economic data. OED staff also work closely with the Downtown Berkeley Association and provide staffing support for the Downtown PBID Owners' Association Board.
Department of Health Housing and Community Services
Mobile Crisis Team: Mobile Crisis Team provides Downtown and City-wide crisis intervention services to persons needing assistance with a mental health crisis and respond to other requests for crisis assistance. Mobile Crisis Team services are provided where people are located at the time they need services.
Homeless Outreach: Homeless Outreach services , provided by community agency partners with whom the Department contracts, are available to persons who are homeless and wanting assistance with securing community resources. These services are designed to assist people who are having difficulty using housing, financial, medical, and social services resources.
Housing and Homeless Services Programs: The City contracts with community agency partners to provide homeless people in Downtown with a range of services including showers, case management and access to emergency, transitional and permanent housing opportunities. (See below for additional City Homeless Outreach / Home Response Team resources.)
City Manager’s Office, Neighborhood Services Division
Homeless Outreach/Homeless Response Team: Homeless Outreach services are available to persons who are homeless and wanting assistance with securing community resources. These services are designed to assist people who are having difficulty using housing, financial, medical, and social services resources. The Homeless Response Team prioritizes health and safety issues and unavoidable operational impacts when triaging requests for outreach across the City.
Code Enforcement Unit: This unit enforces the Berkeley Municipal Code against a wide range of Municipal Code violations in the Downtown, and coordinates with other departments to enforce other code violations (Fire, Building, Zoning, etc.) as needed. The enforcement activities of this unit are typically complaint -driven.
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: DOWNTOWN BERKELEY ASSOCIATION TO IMPLEMENT THE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PROPERTY BASED
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA) has proven to be an effective partner implementing the Management District Plan for the Downtown Berkeley Property and Business Improvement District for the last fifteen years; and WHEREAS, the DBA is the private sector organization that is taking comprehensive action to improve the economic vitality of the Downtown, as reflected in the DBA’s efforts to re-establish and expand the Downtown Berkeley Property Based Business Improvement District; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing, after which it adopted Resolution establishing the Downtown Berkeley Property Based Business Improvement District starting July 1, 2026 and levying an annual assessment for fiscal year 2027; and
WHEREAS, the DPBID has been established for a term of ten years from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2037 and assures a future source of revenue for the service, provided assessees or Council do not take action to dis-establish the DPBID; and WHEREAS, the DPBID Management District Plan allows the Owners’ Association to approve assessment increases by up to 5% per year to cover inflation costs.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a ten-year sole-source contract and any amendments with the Downtown Berkeley Association in the amount anticipated to be $33,558,899 plus any currently available carry forward from prior years payments of Downtown Berkeley PBID funds, less $640,764.60 which will reimburse the City for funds it advanced DBA in FY26, to implement the adopted District Management Plan and Work Plan for the Downtown Business Improvement District for the term of the renewed Downtown PBID, inclusive of Fiscal Years (FY) 2027-2036 with a service period of January 1, 2027 through December 31, 2036. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments are to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley to authorize the City Manager the option to increase the contract amount if additional funds are received above the anticipated amount, with the understanding that any pass-through monies collected on behalf of the Downtown Berkeley Property Based Business Improvement District (DPBID) in Fund 786 above the existing anticipated amount are also to be paid to the DBA when received.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Re-Establishment of the Downtown Berkeley Property Based Business Improvement District
The Berkeley City Council will conduct a public hearing on May 19, 202 6 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street, on the establishment of the Downtown Berkeley Property Based Business Improvement District (DPBID or “the District”), and upon conclusion if no majority protest exists after tabulation of assessment ballots, adopt two Resolutions:
1. Re-establishing the Downtown Berkeley Property based Business Improvement District (DPBID) for the ten-year period beginning July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2036, with operations to occur over the ten-calendar year period beginning January 1, 2027 and ending December 31, 2036 and levying assessments on properties within the District for Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27).
2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a sole source contract and any amendments with the Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA) to pass-through all DPBID funds received to support Downtown revitalization and implement the DPBID Management District Plan for an anticipated amount of $33,558,899 for the ten-year period of January 1, 2027 to December 31, 2036 (FYs 27-36). If additional funds are received above the anticipated amount, those pass-through monies collected on behalf of the Downtown Berkeley Property Based Business Improvement District (DPBID) in Fund 786 above the anticipated amount are also to be paid to the DBA when received.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at as of May 7, 2026.
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas For further information, please contact Eleanor Hollander, Office of Economic Development, (510) 981-7536. Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other
contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at
981-6900 or [email protected] for further
information.
Posted: May 7, 2026
Notice is pursuant to section 36623 of the Act and section 53753 of the Government Code, which requires that the agency shall give notice by mail to the record owner of each identified parcel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 7, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager
Subject: Proposed FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget and Proposed Biennial Budget Public Hearing #1
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Proposed Fiscal Year 2027 and Fiscal Year 2028 Biennial Budget for review and consideration by the City Council, conduct Public Hearing No. 1 on the Proposed Budget, and final adoption for June 23, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Proposed Budget outlines planned citywide expenditures for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028, including General Fund expenditures. Fiscal impacts may change based on Council direction and will be finalized with budget adoption on June 23, 2026.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Proposed Biennial Budget includes the City’s proposed budget balancing plan, projected revenues, and proposed expenditures by funding source; proposed departmental expenditure plans; proposed staffing levels; updates on the City’s strategic plan priorities; and performance measures.
Following the presentation on the Proposed Budget, staff requests that the City Council conduct the first public hearing on the budget. Subsequently, the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and the City Council will continue deliberations on the Proposed Budget prior to final adoption on June 23, 2026.
The 5-Year CIP will go before the City Council on June 9, 2026.
The FY 2027–2028 Proposed Budget is a Strategic Plan Priority Project and supports the goal of maintaining an efficient and financially healthy City government.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Actions included in the budget will be developed and implemented in alignment with the City’s environmental sustainability goals and requirements.
FY 2027 & 2028 Proposed Budget and Proposed Budget Public Hearing #1 PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2026
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation presents the Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028 Proposed Biennial Budget to City Council and begins the first of several public hearings and discussions pertaining to the budget, leading to final adoption on June 23, 2026.
The sequence of meetings below provides for public input, Committee and Council direction, and refinement of the Proposed Budget prior to adoption. May 14, 2026 – Budget and Finance Policy Committee: Proposed Biennial Budget
May 19, 2026 – City Council: Public Hearing No. 1 on Proposed Biennial Budget May 28, 2026 - Budget and Finance Policy Committee: Proposed 5-Year CIP June 9, 2026 – City Council: Public Hearing No. 1 on Proposed 5-Year CIP June 16, 2026 – City Council: Potential Discussion on Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-Year CIP
June 23, 2026 – City Council: Public Hearing No. 2 and Adoption of Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-Year CIP
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions have been considered.
CONTACT PERSON
Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Attachments:
1: Public Hearing Notice
2: FY 2027 & FY 2028 Proposed Budget Balancing Plan (from 4/16/2026 Budget & Finance Policy Committee)
3. Summary of FY 2026 Position Reduction List
4. ODPA FY 2027 - 2028 Budget & Reduction Proposals 4.6.26
5. City Auditor FY 27 - 28 Budget Reductions 4.6.26
6. City Attorney Budget Presentation B&FPC 4.23.26
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
FY 2027 AND FY 2028 PROPOSED BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING #1
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
The City Manager’s Office is proposing a public hearing for the Fiscal Year 2027 and Fiscal Year 2028 Proposed Budget, which is being presented to the City Council.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of May 7, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for the public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.
For further information, please contact Maricar Dupaya at (510) 981-7000.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
Posted: May 7, 2026
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 7, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Office of the City Manager
Date: April 16, 2026
To: Budget & Finance Policy Committee
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager
Subject: FY 2027 & FY 2028 Proposed Budget Balancing Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Request that the Budget & Finance Policy Committee:
1. Receive, review, and discuss the City Manager’s proposed FY 2027 and FY 2028 Budget Balancing plan.
2. Provide recommendations on any adjustments to the proposed plan.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has faced a persistent General Fund structural deficit for many years.
The upcoming FY 2027–FY 2028 Biennial Budget continues this trend but with a critical shift.
Rather than relying on one-time fixes, the proposed Budget Balancing Plan recommends long‑term, structural adjustments to restore fiscal stability1.
The City’s financial outlook reflects the following:
Ongoing structural General Fund deficit
Ongoing programs supported by one-time funds
Historical and projected increases in personnel costs associated with pensions, health 1 As part of the FY 25 – FY 26 Adopted Biennial Budget (https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY- 2025-2026-Proposed-Biennial-Budget.pdf), the budget message indicated the need for structural reforms as part of the FY 27 – FY 29 Biennial Budget process (page 9): “Again, given the increase in expenditures, the General Fund is balanced through a combination of one-time solutions. These factors include (1) increase in assumed salary savings materializing from vacant positions; (2) not making any funding allocations to the workers compensation fund in either fiscal year; (3) due to the increase in pension costs, utilizing $3 million of funding from the City’s Section 115 Trust toward pension expenses in each fiscal year, thereby allowing more General Fund to be redirected toward other expenditures and (4) the use of approximately $2-3 million of fund balance (prior years’ savings) in FY25 and FY26 respectively. While these strategies lead to a balanced biennial budget, they are not sustainable and efforts to either increase revenues and/or decrease expenditures beyond the baseline budget will need to be undertaken as part of the FY26 Mid-Biennial Budget Update and as part of the budget development process for fiscal years 2027 and 2028.” Attachment #2
care, and labor agreements
Inflationary increases in contracts, utilities, and materials Increasing insurance costs
State and Federal imposed revenue limitations
Increased service demands and community expectations
Deficits in enterprise and special funds (e.g., Parking, Marina, Building Maintenance, Mental/Behavioral Health) and the Capital Improvement Fund Delayed facility maintenance and growing unfunded liabilities attributed to aging infrastructure
Economic uncertainties and other external factors
The City developed its General Fund (GF) baseline expenditure budget from December 2025–January 2026. This resulted in a projected $32.3 million deficit in FY 2027 and $33.2 million in FY 2028 (FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget Update 1.22.2026)2.
To address this gap, the City launched a citywide budget balancing exercise from January through March 2026. Departments and Charter Officers were asked to:
Identify 10% and 12.5% General Fund reductions;
Address deficits in other structurally imbalanced funds (if applicable); and Propose revenue ‑generating ideas.
On February 26, 2026, the Finance Department released updated General Fund revenue projections for FY 2026, as well as for FY 2027 and FY 2028 (FY 2026 Mid-Year General Fund Revenue Report)3. These updated revenues reduced the projected General Fund deficit to $27.1 million in FY 2027 and $24.9 million in FY 2028.
These departmental submissions, combined with citywide strategies, and updated revenue projections, form the basis of the proposed balancing plan and reflect the City’s commitment to:
Protecting essential and safety-net services
Advancing community wellbeing
Maintaining long term fiscal sustainability
Minimizing service disruptions and workforce impacts
Ensuring transparency and accountability
2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/Item 02 BFPC-FY2728 Budget Update_Final_01.22.26.pdf.
3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/Item 02 General Fund Revenue Update and Overview of Revenue Enhancements %28FY 2026 Mid-Year General Fund Revenue Report- Final%29.pdf.
CURRENT SITUATION
The City Manager, along with the Deputy City Manager, Budget Manager, Human Resources Director, Finance Director, and Department Directors, reviewed departmental proposals to develop the proposed Budget Balancing Plan (“Plan”) that is now before the Budget and Finance Policy Committee for discussion.
The proposed Plan reflects several key points:
Proposed reductions in staffing and non-personnel expenditures to address the structural deficit in the General Fund as well as other funds, including the Off-Street Parking Fund, Building Maintenance Fund, Building Purchases and Management Fund (1947 Center Street), Marina Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, IT Cost Allocation Plan Fund, and multiple funds supporting Mental Health and Behavioral Health Services.
Reallocating personnel and non-personnel expenditures (referred to as cost shifts throughout this report) to other funds that are not in fiscal distress and for which the shifted expenditures are appropriate.
General Fund support for the City’s legally obligated payments for debt service associated with the purchase of 1947 Center Street.
Reducing the Parking Meter Fund transfer to the General Fund to stabilize parking operations and ensure that the City can satisfy bond obligations.
Refining non ‑departmental budgets.
Strategically using one ‑time resources to smooth the deficit across the two fiscal years and support programs and services to be funded until the outcome of a proposed Sales and Use Tax measure for the November 2026 ballot is determined4.
4 On January 27, 2026, City Council approved a referral to the City Manager to include, as part of the upcoming community survey for the November 2026 election, a question assessing the perspectives of likely Berkeley voters on a potential increase to the City’s sales and use tax rate. This would result in a sales and use tax that is comparable to surrounding jurisdictions. On March 17, 2026, the results of the community survey were presented to the City Council (https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/2026-03- 17%20Special%20Item%2001%20Presentation%20and%20Discussion.pdf ) and the results of the survey indicated that there was majority support for a sales and use tax increase to address the City’s budget deficit.
As summarized in the Table below, after the adjustments outlined above, the General Fund deficit in FY 2027 is $29.3 million and $29.5 million in FY 2028.
City of Berkeley Annual General Fund Deficit
FY 2027 - FY 2028 Biennial Budget
FY 2027 FY 2028
General Fund Deficit 27,144,582 24,915,773
Add: 1947 Center Street Debt Service 1,630,454 1,623,581 Add: Parking Funds Stabilization 1,050,938 1,050,938 Total Deficit Before One Time Resources 29,825,974 27,590,292 Add: Adjustments to Non-Departmental 1,523,365 1,942,666 Less: One Time Resources for Deficit 2,100,000 0
Total Deficit After One Time Resources 29,249,339 29,532,958
These figures represent the gap in the General Fund that is being addressed by the proposed Budget Balancing Plan in advance of the FY 2027 – FY 2028 Biennial Budget Adoption.
It is important to note that the budget continues to evolve, and these amounts may shift as revenue projections, expenditures, and other assumptions are refined leading up to the adoption of the Biennial Budget. It is currently anticipated that the Biennial Budget will be adopted at a Special Meeting of the City Council on June 23, 2026.
Use of One-Time Resources – General Fund
To preserve essential services and avoid deeper cuts in FY 2027, the proposed Plan allocates $12.06 million in one‑time funds for one-time uses, including:
$4.18 million set aside in operating reserve, see pages 14 and 16 of the First Amendment to the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO#1) 5
$7.88 million from the Dissolution of Successor Agency County Transfer to the City.
5 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/2025-11-06 Item 02a First Amendment to the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance AAO%231 Presentation.pdf.
The Table below summarizes available one-time resources and outlines how they are deployed as part of the proposed Budget Balancing Plan.
City of Berkeley One Time Resources
General Fund
FY 2027 - FY 2028 Biennial Budget
Sources
Operating Reserve 4,177,541
Dissolution of Successor Agency County Transfer to City 7,877,572 Total 12,055,113
Uses
Proposed Sales and Use Tax 9,443,000
Address Difference in FY 2027 and FY 2028 Deficit 2,100,000 Carrying Costs Associated with Impacted Employees 500,000 Total 12,043,000
Remaining One Time Funds 12,113
This strategic use of onetime funds allows the City to avoid immediate service reductions in public safety and youth and adult services in anticipation of a 0.5% increase in the Sales & Use Tax being placed on the November 2026 ballot and manages the uneven deficit between FY 2027 and FY 2028.
The proposed Budget Balancing Plan presents two paths:
Scenario 1: Proposed Sales & Use Tax Measure Passes (November 2026)
Preserves positions and services in the Police, Fire, and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Departments to avoid the closure of a fire station, diminished capacity to respond to 9-1-1 calls for service and proactively address crime, and reductions in programs and services for youth and adults that will be supported by one‑time funds in FY 2027.
Provides ongoing revenue to stabilize the General Fund and support staffing and programs and services that are supported by one-time funds in FY 2027.
Allows the City to continue long ‑term structural reforms.
The Table below outlines the positions that are proposed to be allocated to the Sales and Use Tax measure. In total, there are 33 positions allocated to the Sales and Use Tax – nine (9) are in the Fire Department to prevent the closure of a Fire Station, 21 are in the Police Department to ensure that the Police Department can continue to effectively respond to 9-1-1 calls for service and address public safety, and three (3) are in the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Department to minimize the impacts to youth and adult services such as reductions in afterschool programs, camps, as well as pool and community center operating
hours.
General Fund Budget Reduction Plan: Positions Allocated to Proposed Sales and Use Tax FY 2027 - FY 2028 Biennial Budget
FY
2027
FY
2028
Fire Department
Firefighter 3 3
Fire Apparatus Operator 3 3
Fire Captain 3 3
Police Department
Police Officers 15 15
Dispatchers 6 6
Parks Recreation and Waterfront
Assistant Recreation Coordinators 2 2
Sports Official 1 1
Total 33 33
Of the total number of positions allocated to the proposed Sales and Use Tax, 18 are filled and 15 are vacant.
Scenario 2: Proposed Sales & Use Tax Measure Fails
The City would need to implement deeper cuts to balance the budget as all positions and services that are supported with one-time funds in FY 2027 would no longer have dedicated funding.
SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET BALANCING PLANS All departments submitted proposals identifying a mix of personnel savings and non- personnel reductions that are summarized below.
The FY 2027 and FY 2028 baseline expenditures are based on data as of January 15, 2026.
For FY 2027, the Tables below indicate that before allocations to the proposed Sales and Use Tax, the proposed Plan reduces General Fund expenditures by $29.3 million or 10.3% of Department and Charter Office expenditures. After the proposed Sales and Use Tax, in FY 2027, the proposed Plan reduces General Fund expenditures by approximately $19.8 million or 7.0% of Department and Charter Office expenditures.
FY 2027 General Fund Budget Balancing Plan by Department (Baseline vs. Proposed After Reductions)
Department
FY27
Baseline
Expenditures
$
Reduction
Before Sales
& Use Tax
FY27 Budget
After
Reduction
%
Reduction
Before
Sales &
Use Tax
Sales &
Use Tax
Allocation
$
Reduction
w/Sales &
Use Tax
%
Reduction
after Sales
& Use Tax
City Clerk 3,952,847 210,456 3,742,391 5.3% 0 210,456 5.3% CMO 18,713,660 2,489,487 16,224,173 13.3% 0 2,489,487 13.3% Finance 9,887,235 684,356 9,202,879 6.9% 0 684,356 6.9% Fire 55,650,689 6,653,092 48,997,597 12.0% 3,631,106 3,021,986 5.4% HHCS 37,548,665 3,561,672 33,986,993 9.5% 0 3,561,672 9.5% HR 5,212,918 625,774 4,587,144 12.0% 0 625,774 12.0% IT 1,150,454 185,391 965,062 16.1% 0 185,391 16.1% PRW 13,233,201 1,190,950 12,042,251 9.0% 466,004 724,946 5.5% Planning & Dev. 3,666,161 458,269 3,207,892 12.5% 0 458,269 12.5% Police 106,198,574 10,588,717 95,609,857 10.0% 5,345,885 5,242,832 4.9% Public Works 8,135,147 779,771 7,355,377 9.6% 0 779,771 9.6% IT Cost
Allocation 600,000 0 600,000
Total 263,349,551 28,027,935 235,321,616 10.6% 9,442,995 18,584,940 7.1%
FY 2027 General Fund Budget Balancing Plan by Charter Office (Baseline vs. Proposed After Reductions)
Charter Offices
FY27
Baseline
Expenditures
$ Reduction
Before Sales
& Use Tax
FY27 Budget
After
Reduction
%
Reduction
Before
Sales &
Use Tax
Sales &
Use & Tax
Allocation
$
Reduction
w/Sales &
Use Tax
%
Reduction
after Sales
& Use Tax
City Attorney 7,696,001 0 7,696,001 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
City Auditor 3,929,199 288,560 3,640,639 7.3% 0 288,560 7.3% ODPA 1,289,953 71,708 1,218,245 5.6% 0 71,708 5.6%
Mayor & Council
*
6,899,331 863,145 6,036,186 12.5% 0 863,145 12.5%
Total Charter 19,814,484 1,223,413 18,591,071 6.2% 0 1,223,413 6.2% *Mayor & Council baseline budget reflects funding for the Mayor’s Office and Districts 1-8 and excludes budgeted salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers.
FY 2027 Total General Fund Budget Balancing Plan (Baseline vs. Proposed After Reductions)
FY27
Baseline
Expenditures
$ Reduction
Before Sales
& Use Tax
FY27 Budget
After
Reduction
%
Reduction
Before
Sales &
Use Tax
Sales &
Use Tax
Allocation
$
Reduction
w/Sales &
Use Tax
%
Reduction
after Sales
& Use Tax
Total Citywide 283,164,035 29,251,348 253,912,687 10.3% 9,442,995 19,808,353 7.0%
For FY 2028, the Tables below indicate that before allocations to the proposed Sales and Use Tax, the proposed Plan reduces General Fund expenditures by $29.8 million or 10.3% of Department and Charter Office expenditures. After the proposed Sales and Use Tax, in FY 2028, the proposed Plan reduces General Fund expenditures by approximately $20.1 million or 7.0% of Department and Charter Office expenditures.
FY 2028 General Fund Budget Balancing Plan by Department (Baseline vs. Proposed After Reductions)
Department
FY28 Baseline
Expenditures
$ Reduction
Before Sales
& Use Tax
FY28 Budget
After
Reduction
%
Reduction
Before
Sales &
Use Tax
Sales &
Use Tax
Allocation
$
Reduction
w/Sales &
Use Tax
%
Reduction
after Sales
& Use Tax
City Clerk (1) 3,998,036 94,456 3,903,580 2.4% 0 94,456 2.4% CMO 19,041,413 2,432,623 16,608,790 12.8% 0 2,432,623 12.8% Finance 10,178,435 715,714 9,462,721 7.0% 0 715,714 7.0% Fire 57,206,818 6,800,791 50,406,027 11.9% 3,703,328 3,097,463 5.4% HHCS 38,021,381 3,455,468 34,565,913 9.1% 0 3,455,468 9.1% HR 5,387,455 622,032 4,765,423 11.5% 0 622,032 11.5% IT 1,150,454 185,391 965,062 16.1% 0 185,391 16.1% PRW 13,382,163 1,205,811 12,176,353 9.0% 477,313 728,498 5.4% Planning & Dev. 3,763,360 470,419 3,292,941 12.5% 0 470,419 12.5% Police 107,356,946 10,789,378 96,567,568 10.1% 5,453,304 5,336,074 5.0% Public Works 8,302,692 1,084,523 7,218,169 13.1% 0 1,084,523 13.1% IT Cost
Allocation Plan 600,000 0 600,000
Total 267,789,153 28,456,605 239,332,548 10.6% 9,633,945 18,822,661 7.0% (1) Excludes $1,071,990 one-time reduction due to allocation to election, which does not occur in FY 2028. These resources will be deployed to address increases in insurance costs that exceed the City’s initial projections.
FY 2028 General Fund Budget Balancing Plan By Charter Office (Baseline vs.
Proposed After Reductions)
Charter
Offices
FY28
Baseline
Expenditures
$ Reduction
Before Sales
Tax
FY28 Budget
After
Reduction
%
Reduction
Before
Sales &
Use Tax
Sales &
Use Tax
Allocation
$
Reduction
w/Sales &
Use Tax
%
Reduction
after Sales
& Use Tax
City Attorney 7,828,432 0 7,828,432 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
City Auditor 4,061,371 367,458 3,693,914 9.0% 0 367,458 9.0% ODPA 1,339,846 71,708 1,268,138 5.4% 0 71,708 5.4%
Mayor &
Council*
7,014,592 877,248 6,136,365 12.5% 0 877,248 12.5%
Total Charter 20,244,241 1,316,414 18,927,827 6.5% 0 1,316,414 6.5% *Mayor & Council baseline budget reflects funding for the Mayor’s Office and Districts 1-8 and excludes budgeted salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers.
FY 2028 Total General Fund Budget Balancing Plan (Baseline vs. Proposed After Reductions)
FY28
Baseline
Expenditures
$ Reduction
Before Sales
& Use Tax
FY28 Budget
After
Reduction
%
Reduction
Before
Sales &
Use Tax
Sales &
Use Tax
Allocation
$
Reduction
w/Sales &
Use Tax
%
Reduction
after Sales
& Use Tax
Total Citywide 288,033,394 29,773,019 258,260,375 10.3% 9,633,945 20,139,074 7.0%
This section summarized each department’s General Fund reductions and their impact on the baseline and the projected deficit, expressed in both dollars and percentages. Collectively, these reductions close the projected General Fund deficit in FY 2027 and FY 2028.
Citywide Fiscal Pressures Beyond the General Fund
As the City’s primary and most discretionary fund, the General Fund was the main focus of the citywide budget balancing exercise. However, it is not the only fund experiencing fiscal pressures. Several non-General Fund sources, such as enterprise, special revenue, internal service, and capital funds, are also facing deficits. Departments responsible for these funds conducted parallel budget balancing analysis and developed reduction plans.
These broader pressures underscore the importance of managing the City’s finances strategically and holistically across all funds. The Budget Balancing Plan presented to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee, and subsequently to the City Council, provides a comprehensive strategy to address these broader fiscal challenges. Detailed balancing strategies for these non-General Fund sources are provided in the Department-by- Department Overview Section below.
Position Summary Before and After Reductions (All Funds - By Department) 6
The Table below shows the citywide, all‑funds baseline position count for FY 2027–28, excluding the 45 positions left vacant and unfunded in the FY 2026 Mid‑Biennial Budget. It reflects the proposed reduction of 138 FTE and the one‑time FY 2027 resources used to retain 33 public safety and recreation positions. Without the Sales and Use Tax, the reduction from FY27 baseline is 8.85 percent; with the tax, 6.73 percent. Including the 45 positions removed in FY 2026 Adopted FTE (1,608.99), the cumulative reduction is 11.40 percent with the tax and about 9.3 percent without it.
6 This analysis of staffing impacts is as of April 6, 2026. The actual number of filled and vacant positions that will be impacted by the proposed Budget Balancing Plan will vary over time due to several factors including, but not limited to retirements, promotions, and separations. The actual number of filled positions impacted will be determined when the Biennial Budget is adopted, which is anticipated to occur at a Special Meeting of the City Council on June 23, 2026.
Department
FY 2027–28
Baseline FTE (1)
Proposed FTE
Reductions
Proposed FTE
Allocation to
Sales & Use Tax
Revised FTE
Reduction After
Sales & Use Tax
Proposed
Position FTE
Allocation
After Sales &
Use Tax
City Clerk 9 0 0 0 9
City Manager’s Office 53 9 0 9 44
Finance 52 4 0 4 48
Fire 206 14 9 5 201
HHCS 240.75 45 0 45 195.75
HR 26 2 0 2 24
IT 49 4 0 4 45
PRW 116 6 3 3 113
Planning & Dev. 104.04 0 0 0 104.04
Police 290 39 21 18 272
Public Works 352 15 0 15 337
City Attorney 19 0 0 0 19
City Auditor 15.75 0 0 0 15.75
ODPA 4 0 0 0 4
Mayor & Council 23 0 0 0 23
Total (2) 1,559.54 138 33 105 1,454.54
(1) Excludes 45 vacant positions that were not funded as part of the adopted FY 25-26 Mid-Biennial Budget (General Fund = 44.4 FTE and Other Funds = 0.6 FTE)
(2) Excludes Library’s FTE = 131.05 and Rent Board’s FTE = 29.0 for total FTE Baseline of 1,719.59.
Below is a simplified Table showing the status of positions—Vacant or Filled—derived from the more detailed department‑level position counts above.
Status
FY 2027–28
Baseline FTE (1)
Proposed
Reductions
Proposed
Allocation to
Sales & Use Tax
Revised
Reduction After
Sales &Use Tax
Proposed
Position
Allocation
After Sales &
Use Tax
Vacant 211.69 100 15 85 126.69
Filled (2) 1,347.85 38 18 20 1,327.85
Total (3) 1,559.54 138 33 105 1,454.54
(1) Excludes 45 vacant positions that were not funded as part of the adopted FY26 Mid-Biennial Budget. (2) As of April 6, 2026.
(3) Excludes Library’s FTE = 131.05 and Rent Board’s FTE = 29.0 for total FTE Baseline of 1,719.59.
Addressing the cumulative FTE reductions
In the FY 2026 Mid‑Biennial Budget Update, the General Fund faced a structural deficit of approximately $29 million. The budget was balanced through one‑time measures and increased General Fund revenues. As part of this strategy, 45 vacant FTE positions were held unfunded and are now being eliminated in this Biennial Budget to capture ongoing savings and support long‑term fiscal stability.
The FY 2027-FY 2028 balancing plan includes the cumulative reduction in force (RIF):
45 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) that were not funded in the FY 2026 Mid-Biennial Budget Update are eliminated as part of the proposed Budget Balancing Plan.
138.0 FTE reductions proposed in FY 2027 & FY 2028 without proposed Sales & Use Tax. Of the 138.0 FTE, 38 are filled positions and 100 are vacant positions7.
Cumulative reduction: 183 FTE reduction in force (45 + 138) without proposed Sales & Use Tax. Of the 183 FTE, 38 are filled positions and 145 are vacant positions.
105.0 FTE reductions proposed in FY 2027 & FY 2028 with proposed Sales & Use Tax. Of the 105.0 FTE, 20 are filled positions and 85 are vacant positions.
Cumulative reduction: 150 FTE reduction in force (45 + 105.0) with proposed Sales & Use Tax. Of the 150 FTE, 20 are filled positions and 130 are vacant positions.
The Tables below demonstrate the cumulative impact of the RIF (FY 2026 and FY 2027 and FY 2028).
FY 26 Adopted
FTE*
FY 26
Reduction in
Force (RIF)**
FY 27 Baseline
FTE***
FY 27 Proposed
FTE Reduction
FY 27 Total FTE
(net of Proposed
Reduction)
1,608.99 45.00 1,559.54 138.00 1,421.54
FY 26 Adopted
FTE *
FY 26
Reduction in
Force (RIF) **
FY27 Proposed
FTE Reduction
Total Cumulative
Reduction in Force
Total Cumulative
Percent
Reduction in
FTE
1,608.99 45.00 138.00 183.00 11.37%
FY 26 Adopted
FTE *
FY 26
Reduction in
Force (RIF) **
FY27 Proposed
FTE Reduction
(Allocation Sales
& Use Tax)
Total Cumulative
Reduction in
Force (w/Sales &
Use Tax)
Total Cumulative
Percent
Reduction in
FTE
1,608.99 45.00 105.00 150.00 9.32%
* FY 26 Adopted Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) count includes RIF – positions that were authorized but not budgeted in FY
26. ** RIF – 44.4 General Fund positions; equivalent to 45 FTE count – All Funds *** Baseline as of 01/15/2026; excludes RIF (45 FTE) and includes department adjustments (4.45 net FTE, removed temporary positions and expired project-based positions, reclassifications, relocation, new Measure FF positions, etc.)
7 As of April 6, 2026. The number of filled positions by the time the Biennial Budget is adopted, which is currently anticipated to occur at a Special Meeting of the City Council on June 23, 2026.
DEPARTMENT-BY-DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW OF BUDGET BALANCING PLANS Departments submitted budget-balancing proposals to the City Manager based on initial
10.0% and 12.5% General Fund reduction targets. After accounting for updated revenue projections from the Finance Department and a detailed review of departmental submissions, a refined budget balancing plan was developed that reflects revised revenues, departmental needs, organizational priorities, and community impacts. The Plan does not recommend across-the-board equal reductions. Rather, the proposed Plan reflects a strategic approach that reflects City needs considering severe resource constraints.
Department proposals from HHCS, IT, Public Works, and PRW also include reductions in applicable special funds. The following sections summarize each department’s proposed reductions.
City Clerk
The City Clerk Department has maintained a staffing level of 10.0 FTE since FY 2019. For the FY 2026 Mid‑Biennial Budget Update, the department’s vacant Office Specialist III position was removed from the budget, reducing total staffing to 9.0 FTE.
Since 2016, several major responsibilities have been added to the department without corresponding staffing increases:
Independent Redistricting Commission
Public Financing for Candidates
Lobbyist Registration
City Council Policy Committees
Hybrid Commission Meetings
SB 827 Financial Training Administration
Given these expanded mandates and the department’s lean staffing structure, no additional position reductions are recommended.
FTE Changes – All Funds
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 9 9 0
Budget Changes – GF
Category
FY27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 2,210,450 2,210,450 0
Personnel – OT & Hourly 2,064 0 -2,064
Non-Personnel 1,740,333 1,531,941 -208,392
Category
FY28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 2,255,639 2,255,639 0
Personnel – OT & Hourly 2,064 0 -2,064
Non-Personnel 1,740,333 575,951 -1,164,382
Impacts
Besides the reduction in the City’s Clerk’s overtime budget, all the reductions come from the non-personnel budget. Reductions include a delay in the software version update for OnBase (the City Council report management system) in FY 2027, reducing captioning costs, and use of public, educational, and governmental access channels Funds to pay 75% of Boardroom rental costs. These adjustments preserve core departmental operations while minimizing service impacts.
City Manager’s Office
The City Manager’s Office budget is primarily personnel‑driven. Because four vacant positions were removed during the FY 2026 Mid‑Biennial Budget Update, meeting the new reduction target required eliminating not only vacant positions but additional filled positions.
These decisions were extremely difficult, as each role contributes to the Office’s mission and to citywide operations. When combined with the positions that were not funded as part of the FY 26 Mid-Biennial Budget, the Plan results in an approximate 23% reduction in staffing in the City Manager’s Office when compared to FY 2025.
Approximately $102,000 in savings comes from shifting costs from the General Fund to other funding sources such as Public Art. The remaining reductions result from eliminating both filled and vacant positions. A smaller amount comes from reduction in non-personnel expenditures.
FTE Changes – All Funds
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 53 44 -9
Budget Changes - GF
Category
FY27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 12,211,200 9,960,887 -2,250,313
Personnel – OT & Hourly 74,577 0 0
Non-Personnel 6,427,883 6,188,709 -239,174
Category FY28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 12,538,953 10,345,504 -2,193,449
Personnel – OT & Hourly 74,577 0 0
Non-Personnel 6,427,883 6,188,709 -239,174
Impacts
Reduce one Community Development Project Coordinator – Office of Economic Development (filled)
Reduces technical assistance provided to small businesses and management of the City’s revolving loan fund.
Limits capacity to support and provide assistance to three commissions (Elmwood BID, Solano BID, Loan Administration Board) and participate in the Telegraph BID board and executive committee. Staff will assess capacity and may recommend reducing meeting frequency for these commissions to manage workload and priorities.
Reduce one Office Specialist III – Office of Economic Development and Civic Arts (filled)
Reduces capacity to process invoices, execute contracts, support events, and manage communications.
Increases workload for remaining administrative staff in the City Manager’s Office.
Reduce two Communications Specialists (both filled)
The result of these reductions is that the Communications Division will only have one staff member assigned to citywide communications and to interact with the media. The reduction in staffing will weaken crisis and emergency communications and diminish media relations, and departmental communications support. Elimination of the Communications Specialist funded by Measure FF (fire) will enable the Fire Department to allocate staffing expenditures to this special tax.
Departments will need to dedicate more staff to communications, especially emergency communications; response times and quality will decline.
Reduce one Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer (vacant) When combined with the Administrative Assistant position that was not funded as part of
the FY 26 Mid Biennial Budget, this reduction eliminates the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion and shifts priority DEI projects to an Assistant to the City Manager, including the Peace & Justice Commission support and citywide DEI education efforts.
Much, if not all, of the community focused engagement envisioned for this role will not occur.
Reduce one Economic Development Project Coordinator- Civic Arts (vacant) Reduces core operational capacity for the Civic Arts Program.
Responsibilities are shifted to an Assistant to the City Manager to advance Civic Arts initiatives along with grant funded, and public facing arts programming.
Risks delays in project delivery, contract administration, commission support, and compliance.
Reduce one Program Manager II – Special Projects (filled) Reduces capacity to support Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) module implementation, user acceptance testing, and staff training.
Eliminates an internal resource for troubleshooting ERP issues.
Training responsibilities shift to Human Resources; ERP implementation leadership remains with the Assistant to the City Manager, requiring departments to operate with greater independence.
Reduce one Social Services Specialist (vacant)
Limits ability to expand homeless outreach efforts; without additional shelter capacity, reductions will have minimal impact on reducing street homelessness.
Reduce one Office Specialist II (vacant)
No coordinated support to Civic Center 5th floor appointments and scheduling.
Significant Non-Personnel Reductions
$40,000 – Eliminate Downtown Business Association Outreach Worker contract.
$64,000 – Eliminate Spay and Neuter Your Pets contracts.
$82,497 – Reduce General Fund support for Civic Arts grants by 10% to align with proposed organization and department budget reductions.
$17,000 – Reduce economic development marketing budget by 10% to align with proposed organization and department budget reductions.
Reallocating a portion of the salary of an Assistant to the City Manager to the Public Art Fund to reflect oversight of this work resulting from the Budget Balancing Plan elimination of the Economic Development Project Coordnator – Civic Arts and allocates a portion of a Civic Arts Coordinator position that was fully funded by the General Fund to the Public Art Fund to address the backlog of public arts projects.
Allocating a portion of an Assistant to the City Manager to long-term grants that the position is managing.
Finance
The Finance Department has operated for years with only the minimum staffing necessary to perform its core functions: (a) processing the City’s cash receipts; (b) billing and collecting tax and fee revenues; (c) procurement of the goods and services for critical City operations; (d) ensuring key controls to protect City assets; and (e) ensuring proper accounting and financial reporting for City management, bond investors, and required statutory and regulatory oversight.
In response to the City’s fiscal challenges, the department has identified General Fund reductions that eliminate four positions. While necessary for budget balancing, these reductions will limit the Finance Department’s operational capacity, slow financial system modernization, reduce revenue‑generating capacity, and reduce the department’s ability to support Citywide services.
FTE Changes – All Funds
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 52 48 -4
Budget Changes - GF
Category
FY27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 8,453,929 7,865,911 -588,018
Personnel – OT & Hourly 28,440 28,440 0
Non-Personnel 1,404,866 1,308,528 -96,338
Category
FY28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 8,745,129 8,125,753 -619,376
Personnel – OT & Hourly 28,440 28,440 0
Non-Personnel 1,404,866 1,308,528 -96,338
Impacts
Reduce one Senior Systems Analyst (vacant)
Eliminating this position reduces the Finance Department’s capacity to manage financial system upgrades and coordinate implementation tasks. The vacancy has already slowed progress on major projects, including replacement of the City’s legacy financial system (FUND$), new tax and billing systems, and expanded online payment options. Without this role, system modernization efforts will be delayed, and reliance on IT, whose staff lack specialized financial operations expertise, will increase.
Reduce one Associate Management Analyst (vacant)
This is the department’s only analyst position not restricted to Property Tax functions. Losing this position will reduce the department’s ability to conduct internal analysis, monitor receivables, and produce detailed revenue reporting. Divisional managers will absorb analytical duties, limiting their capacity to oversee daily operations. The loss of this position also removes a key backup for the Revenue Collection Manager, reducing service levels for staff and the public.
Reduce two Revenue Development Specialists (vacant)
Removing these two positions will reduce business tax auditing and collections capacity.
Fewer audits will result in lower recovery of unreported or underreported taxes, and more receivables will age beyond statutory collection periods. This will impact the department’s ability to generate additional revenue for both the General Fund and the Zero Waste Fund.
Significant Non-Personnel Reductions
25% reduction in training expenses. The department should be able to still maintain necessary training given the availability of online opportunities.
Fire Department
Over the past three decades, three parcel tax measures have been adopted that enabled the department to shift substantial fire costs off the General Fund while expanding services.
Further, historical reductions consistently targeted non-operation functions, resulting in a department that is operationally efficient but administratively thin. As a result, there are minimal resources allocated to discretionary items and nearly all remaining General Fund expenditures are personnel-driven and operations-critical that are assigned to essential public safety functions. While the department’s budget balancing plan maximized cost shifting from the General Fund to other funds (such as Measure GG, Measure FF, UC Settlement), eliminating positions, reducing non-personnel expenditures, and the closing of a fire station impact preparedness, prevention, and response reliability.
FTE Changes – All Funds
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Proposed
FTE w/Sales
& Use Tax
Change FTE
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Sworn 139 127 -12 136 -3
Non-Sworn 67 65 -2 65 -2
Total Staffing 206 192 -14 201 -5
Budget Changes – GF
Category
FY 27 Baseline
Budget
FY 27 Proposed
Budget Change
Proposed
Budget
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Change
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Personnel 43,371,853 41,231,433 -2,140,420 41,231,433 -2,140,420 Personnel – OT & Hourly 3,789,869 3,289,869 -500,000 3,289,869 -500,000 Non-Personnel 8,488,967 8,107,401 -381,566 8,107,401 -381,566 Fire Station Closure (1) -3,631,106 -3,631,106
Total 55,650,689 48,497,597 -6,653092 52,628,703 -3,021,986 .
Category
FY 28
Baseline
Budget
FY 28 Proposed
Budget Change
Proposed
Budget
w/Sales & Use
Tax
Change
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Personnel 44,927,982 42,721,660 -2,206,322 42,721,660 -2,206,322 Personnel – OT & Hourly 3,789,869 3,280,294 -509,575 3,280,294 -509,575 Non-Personnel 8,488,967 8,107,401 -381,566 8,107,401 -381,566 Fire Station Closure (3) -3,703,328 -3,703,328
Total 57,206,818 50,406,027 -6,800,791 54,109,355 -3,907,463 (1) Fire Station Closure amount of $3,631,106 consists of both personnel (9.0 FTE) and non-personnel expenditures. It is a package reduction proposal, meaning if accepted, the whole amount will be reduced. If not accepted, the whole amount will stay in the budget.
Impacts
Reduce One Associate Management Analyst (filled)
This eliminates the department’s only staff dedicated to grants and will significantly restrict capacity to apply for, monitor, and manage grants. Reassignment of grant and performance reporting to Administrative and Fiscal Services staff—who already manage Fire and Police budgets and coordinate the City’s most complex payrolls—will reduce grant management effectiveness.
Reduce One Temporary Program Manager II (filled)
Eliminating this temporary position that was funded through FY 28 will discontinue the City’s Street Trauma Prevention program. The Fire Department loses its only dedicated staff for this work, including management of six internships and coordination with Public Works, Transportation, and community partners. Most program functions will cease, with limited reassignment possible.
Reduce One Fire Marshal FTE (vacant)
Consolidating the Wildland Urban Interface and Fire Prevention divisions will shift management from a Fire Marshal to an Assistant Fire Chief, reducing specialized fire prevention and investigation expertise. This change is expected to increase errors and omissions, slow design review and inspection responsiveness, reduce capacity for special event support, and hamper progress on the EMBER Initiative. The department will reprioritize work, leverage technology, and provide additional training; however,
specialized capacity will be diminished.
Reduce One Fire Inspector FTE (vacant)
Loss of a Fire Prevention Inspector will reduce capacity for annual life-safety inspections of hazardous facilities citywide, delay construction inspections, and increase complaints from developers and contractors. Responsiveness to special events will also be compromised.
Reduce One Fire Captain FTE (filled)
Eliminating this position weakens oversight of narcotics compliance, critical equipment and supply management, documentation integrity, and infection control in the emergency medical services program. Redistribution of duties to existing staff will reduce oversight frequency and increase risk.
Eliminate Disaster Preparedness Programs
Elimination of OES training contract, shelter supply replacement, internships, and conference budget will leave staff without external resources for curriculum development, shelter supply maintenance, student internships, or conference participation.
Eliminate Five Part-Time CERT Instructor FTEs (Hourly Staff) The CERT program will be reduced or eliminated, and plans for community CPR and fire extinguisher training will cease. Remaining staff may absorb some program elements, but most CERT offerings are expected to end.
Eliminate HHCS Funding for FTEs and Non-Personnel Expenses (Measure GG) Savings would initially occur in HHCS, with funds redirected to Fire minimum staffing overtime, lowering General Fund overtime costs. Reductions would directly impact HHCS and the impacts are discussed later in this report.
Cost-Shift Two Firefighter FTEs from the General Fund to UC Settlement Fund Reducing nonessential components of the Employee Health & Wellness Program will free UC Funds to cover two firefighters. Educational wellness elements (sleep, nutrition, heart- rate variability) will be cut, potentially affecting employee behavior and future workers’ compensation trends.
Cost Shift General Fund Contracts to UC Settlement Fund Reduced scope of work for one vendor that provides health and wellness education for fire employees.
Close Fire Station 4; eliminate 3 Firefighter (filled), 3 Apparatus Operator (filled), and 3 Fire Captain II (filled) FTEs
Over the past three years (2022-2025), the Fire Department, on average, has responded to 17,426 calls for service. Closing Station 4 will significantly degrade response times and first-alarm effectiveness in its service area and adjacent districts. Engine 4 responded to 28 fires, 966 emergency medical incidents (including 17 cardiac arrests), and numerous other emergencies in 2025. Response time standards were not consistently met; closure
of Fire Station 4 will force responses from more distant stations, further degrading performance. Delayed emergency response increases risk of fatality and property loss for fires and medical incidents and elevates firefighter risk. Redistribution of calls will increase workload and fatigue at remaining stations, reduce training time, and heighten burnout.
Reliance on mutual aid will rise but is unsustainable and delayed multi-unit responses will become more common. These impacts are high-risk, daily, and cannot be fully mitigated.
The City Manager recommends utilizing one-time funds, as outlined at the beginning of this report, during Fiscal Year 2027. This approach is intended to delay the closure of a fire station until after the results of the Sales and Use Tax measure, which will be decided in November 2026, are known.
This is the planned contingency based on the Sales and Use Tax Measure. Should voters approve the Sales and Use Tax measure, the resulting revenue is proposed to be allocated to maintain operations at the fire station. Conversely, if the measure does not pass, the proposed station closure will be reconsidered for Fiscal Year 2028. At present, this matter is considered critical, with the potential for significant impact across the entire City.
Health, Housing & Community Services (HHCS)
Faced with significant fiscal headwinds in both the General Fund and multiple special funds that support mental health and behavioral health services, HHCS engaged in a rigorous, principle-driven process to identify approximately $3.5 million in annual General Fund adjustments and a variety of other actions to correct special fund deficits. Due to the severity of the structural deficit, the recommendations are deep. While efforts were made to reduce the impact, the recommendations from HHCS are painful and impactful.
FTE Changes (All Funds)
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 240.75 195.75 -45
Budget Changes (GF)
Category
FY27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 15,253,347 13,852,557 -1,400,790
Personnel – OT & Hourly 711,777 691,042 -20,735
Non-Personnel 21,583,541 19,443,394 -2,140,147
Category
FY28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 15,726,063 14,360,254 -1,365,809
Personnel – OT & Hourly 711,776.63 691,042 -20,735
Non-Personnel 21,583,541 19,514,617 -2,068,924
Impacts – General Fund
A. Aging Services Division
A one-time shift to Fund 111 in the amount of $96,304 is implemented to reduce General Fund expenditures.
B. Environmental Health Division
Eliminates one vacant Office Specialist II position. Intake workload will be absorbed through database modernization.
Berkeley’s Vector Control Program will be transferred to Alameda County, and the City will no longer provide this service. This change is anticipated to improve service quality and end ongoing General Fund subsidies in the amount of approximately $362,170 annually, for this work. As a result, two Vector Control positions will be eliminated (one filled and one vacant).
C. Mental Health Division
Mobile Crisis Team:
o Eliminates 2.6 filled FTE, representing the last General Fund–funded mental health crisis response positions.
o The City will no longer provide crisis response services and will rely on Alameda County, which is a County responsibility. However, the County’s ability to provide this service over the long-term remains uncertain due to budget challenges and policy shifts.
o Responsibility for wellness checks and psychiatric emergencies will shift solely to the Berkeley Police Department.
D. Public Health Division
Heart to Heart: The Heart-to-Heart program (1.0 FTE filled, 1.0 FTE vacant) is proposed to be eliminated to support a sustainable fiscal model. Blood pressure screenings and health education are offered by federally qualified health centers and primary care providers, enabling integrated clinical care.
Targeted Case Management: Eliminates one vacant Public Health Nurse position. An existing Social Services Specialist staff will absorb responsibilities.
Women Infants and Children (WIC) Program: Shifts 0.40 FTE from the General Fund to the WIC grant, enabling salary support without reducing service levels.
E. Housing and Community Services Division
Vacant positions were held and eliminated, including one Program Manager II and several special-funded positions impacted by increased personnel costs. Although
service delivery is expected to continue, remaining staff will have higher workloads and reduced responsiveness in programs such as Shelter Plus Care and Labor Standards.
Outreach and education capacity will also decline.
Community Agencies: Where feasible, to preserve various community programs (i.e., BOSS Step-Up on University and a portion of funding for the STAIR Center) that serve our most vulnerable, funding was shifted to Measure U1 and other special funds / revenue sources. Notwithstanding, reductions are proposed for the following:
o Berkeley Winter Shelter: Recommended for elimination due to the lack of a feasible location. This would reduce shelter capacity only during the winter months by twenty-five beds, mainly affecting highly vulnerable unsheltered individuals, often seniors. This program has been operated by Dorothy Day House, who also operates the City’s Inclement Weather Shelter program during the winter months, which is not impacted by the Budget Balancing Plan. Savings generated are $358,750.
o STAIR Center: A 23% reduction in operating funding is proposed for this program serving people experiencing homelessness. The program is located on Second Street in West Berkely. The proposed funding reduction aligns with the 25% reduction in bed capacity due to the shift to non-congregate sheltering and ADA improvements which both required more space. Also, the City is the sole funder for this program, even though participants enter through the Coordinated Entry System due to federal funding requirements. Staff recommend that BACS, who manage this program, diversify funding sources. Savings generated are $400,554. o Rising Sun. This program provides construction apprenticeship readiness to approximately six (6) residents. The current contract expires June 30, 2026, and funding was allocated outside of the Community Agency grant process. Savings of $50,000 are estimated by not extending the existing contract. o Supply Bank. This program provides school supplies and dental kits to approximately 1,300 Berkeley students. The current contract expires June 30, 2026, and funding was allocated outside of the Community Agency grant process.
Savings of $35,000 are estimated by not extending the existing contract.
Impacts - Special Funds
In addition to the General Fund impacts outlined above, HHCS needs to implement additional reduction measures to address the loss of grant funding, the transition to the Behavioral Health Services Act (Proposition 1), and the loss of Medicaid revenue.
1. Aging Services – Information & Assistance (I&A)
Earlier this year, the Alameda County Area Agency on Aging notified the City of a cut to the Information & Assistance (I&A) program funding, effective July 1, 2026, totaling $156,803.
This program is funded through the federal Older Americans Act funds that pass through to the Alameda County Area Agency on Aging (AAA). Berkeley has been a recipient of these funds for well over two decades and they have been deployed to social services to the older adult community. Funding allocated to a vacant position in Fund 320 will be deployed to maintain these vital services.
2. California Strengthening Public Health Initiative (CASPHI) The Public Health Division received notice of an impending cut to this program’s funding, effective February 11, 2026. While the announcement came out in January 2026, this cut has been the subject of a federal lawsuit and temporary restraining order. While the funding remains in limbo, the Department understands that funding will likely be cut. This program was designed to strengthen the public health workforce using data-driven planning, cross- sector partnerships, and an explicit commitment to health equity. Funding has expanded the Department’s capacity to address disparities by supporting the creation of the Senior Health Management Analyst position, which has been essential for workforce development, data metric development, mentorship, and advancing the department’s Equity Plan. Losing this funding and having to eliminate this program would jeopardize workforce expansion efforts and delay key deliverables, including the launch of a public-facing, equity-focused data dashboard aligned with the 2025 Community Health Improvement Plan. The estimated financial impact of this reduction is estimated at $650,928 total ($130,186 annually). Staff are actively developing a comprehensive plan to mitigate the effect of this reduction.
3. CalFresh Healthy Living (CFHL)
Earlier this year, the Department was notified of a cut to the CalFresh Healthy Living (CFHL) program funding, $162,390 annually effective May 1, 2026. The Public Health Division administers a portion of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known in California as CFHL. These resources are deployed to provide nutrition education and obesity prevention activities and interventions for low-income Californians. The focus of the project is to upstream public health approaches and individual and organizational health promotion to help the CFHL target audience establish healthy eating habits, a physically active lifestyle, and for primary prevention of disease. The specific target audience are SNAP participants and other low-income individuals who qualify for SNAP (CalFresh Food) benefits or other means-tested Federal assistance programs.
The program's core activities in Berkeley include direct education for children aged 0-5, aiming to increase healthy food and water consumption, boost physical activity, and reduce screen time, with an annual reach of approximately 650 children. Concurrently, direct adult education targets teachers, staff, and parents (ages 18-59), reaching around 300 individuals annually. The program also conducts monthly healthy food demonstrations for older adults (59+), typically reaching 320 individuals annually, and provides indirect education through healthy cooking resources at community events. The Department has identified alternative one-time funding to continue the program through the effective date of May 1, 2026.
However, all CFHL services will be discontinued after May 1, 2026, and staffing will be redirected to other program areas with alternative available funding.
4. Services to Enhance Early Development (SEED)
In February, the Department received information of an impending cut to SEED program funding of $224,393, effective July 1, 2026. This is a revenue-generating contract with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) of the Alameda County Social Services Agency to support a 0.8 FTE Public Health Nurse and 0.10 FTE Supervising Public Health Nurse. Staff provide services to children and their caregiver(s) throughout the county including Berkeley. They also coordinate and provide information to their counterparts (Child Welfare Workers, mental health clinicians, and parent advocates) in the SEED team regarding the ongoing medical needs of a child participant. The program's core activities in Berkeley include entering and reviewing information such as birth records, medical/dental records, immunization records, laboratory, and radiological reports in the Child Welfare System (CWS)/Case Management (CMS) and Health and Education Passport (HEP). The target population is Alameda County juvenile court-dependent children between the ages of zero to three years and 11 months. HHCS is currently working to shift employees allocated to this program to other vacant grant-funded activities. The program currently only provides services to one child in Berkeley and will have minimal impact on services.
5. Measure GG Revenue Transfer
As indicated in the Fire Department section above, Measure GG resources allocated to Public Health Emergency Preparedness are being reallocated to support Fire Department operations. As a result, HHCS’s emergency preparedness capacity will be significantly diminished. The Department will not have the capacity to coordinate comprehensive city-wide emergency readiness and response initiatives. The loss of this funding results in the elimination of two (2) existing positions (1 filled and 1 vacant) assigned to this work.
6. Mental Health Division
In addition to the reductions described above in the Mental Health Division, the Division proposes eliminating 32 positions (27 vacant and 5 filled), primarily long-vacant positions created during a previous expansion that was later undermined by changes in state funding.
This is a "right-sizing" of the division following an ambitious expansion period.
Approximately four years ago, the Mental Health Division scaled up staffing in anticipation of CalAIM’s promise of expanded Medi-Cal populations and increased service needs. However, mid-expansion, several vital changes occurred to state funding. The State shifted Medi-Cal to a fee-for-service model and implemented Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) / Proposition 1 changes. Berkeley, like County health jurisdictions, lost significant revenue for mental health services based on this fundamental Prop 1 system restructuring that mandates new spending requirements that prioritize housing and substance use disorders over general community programs. Additionally, as a small jurisdiction acting as a contractor to Alameda County for Medi-Cal, Berkeley was disproportionately penalized by these rate cuts effectively reducing the City’s Medi-Cal revenue by 50%. Recognizing these fiscal shifts early on, the Division held many positions vacant.
With these changes, while the Mental Health Division will continue to provide specific intensive services, it will transition away from direct service delivery for non-contractual programs (i.e., Mobile Crisis Team discussed above) and focus on navigating residents toward county-level alternatives. This ensures that Berkeley remains a vital link in the behavioral health chain, utilizing limited resources to maintain intensive care where possible while ensuring residents have a clear pathway to all other mandated psychiatric and emergency services.
Human Resources
The proposal prioritizes maintaining core HR services within budget constraints, mainly through structural changes and contract eliminations. Two vacant positions will be cut. HR focus will shift from proactive and strategic efforts to a compliance-driven, baseline model.
FTE Changes (All Funds)
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 26 24 -2
Budget Changes (GF)
Category
FY 27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 3,995,636 3,685,961 -309,675
Personnel – OT & Hourly 60,983 49,769 -11,214
Non-Personnel 1,156,299 851,414 -304,885
Category
FY 28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 4,170,173 3,838,760 -331,413
Personnel – OT & Hourly 60,983 49,769 -11,214
Non-Personnel 1,156,299 876,894 -279,405
Impacts
Several positions funded by General Fund will be cost shifted to the Workers' Compensation (WC) Fund as a result of the elimination of the WC funded HR Analyst position being eliminated. This includes the following:
Assistant Management Analyst - supports WC in weekly check registrars and processing of the Advanced Disability Payment process.
Employee Relations Manager – increasing WC fund allocation by 10%
Director of Human Resources – 20% increased oversight of Workers Compensation division by HR Director
HR Technician – this technician was already partially assigned to WC; however greater support will be required for WC as the WC Analyst is proposed to be eliminated justifying the shift of this Technician to support WC.
Associate Human Resources Analyst - allocating 50% of this position for analyst level WC support.
Personnel Reductions
Two vacant positions are proposed to be eliminated:
One HR Associate Analyst (WC) (vacant)
Occupational Health & Safety Specialist (vacant)
Workers’ Compensation and occupational health and safety functions will be absorbed by existing HR staff as discussed above, reducing capacity for work beyond baseline compliance. Proactive safety work will be limited, including slower response times for ergonomic assessments and site visits.
For workers’ compensation and leave administration, HR will monitor case timelines and claim progression to avoid increased costs from processing delays. If performance indicators show rising exposure or fiscal impact, HR will adjust workload distribution to ensure the cost shift continues to produce net savings.
Significant Non-Personnel Reductions
Employer of Choice Consulting – $96,742. Eliminates external consulting for employer branding, workforce strategy, and retention. Strategic employer branding and recruitment marketing will continue in‑house with reduced capacity.
HR Accuity Software Cancellation – $46,494. Discontinues a case‑tracking software tool originally purchased for Employee and Labor Relations. The system was not fully adopted
by HR, and existing software such as SharePoint and Power BI provide similar utility that is currently being used.
GovInvest Contract Elimination - $45,000. Discontinues contract for advanced financial modeling tools supporting personnel cost forecasting, retirement liabilities, and labor negotiation scenarios. Modeling will shift to HR staff and Budget staff collaboration using internal tools and spreadsheets, increasing manual workload and turnaround times for projections, especially during bargaining cycles.
Commercial Driver’s Program Recordkeeping Contract – $50,000. Reduces contract services for document storage and license tracking. Work will be absorbed internally with no operational impact. Planned software implementation will not proceed; responsibilities remain with HR and Public Works staff (Safety Officer classification).
Information Technology
The Department of Information Technology (IT) provides the core digital infrastructure that supports Citywide operations, including financial systems, permitting, communications, cybersecurity, data management, and network services.
To support the City’s broader fiscal balancing strategy, IT identified expenditure reductions for FY 2027 and FY 2028. Due to the essential and fixed nature of many technology costs, such as software licensing, cybersecurity protections, and system maintenance, opportunities for reductions are limited. Any decrease in funding may affect system reliability, security, and the City’s ability to maintain uninterrupted digital services.
FTE Changes (All Funds)
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 49 45 -4
Budget Changes (GF)
Category
FY27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 0 0 0
Personnel – OT & Hourly 0 0 0
Non-Personnel 1,150,454 965,062 -185,391
Category
FY28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 0 0 0
Personnel – OT & Hourly 0 0 0
Non-Personnel 1,150,454 965,062 -185,391
Impacts
Information Technology has no General Fund personnel budget; all GF reductions occur within the non‑personnel category. However, IT is proposing to reduce four (4) vacant positions funded by the IT Cost Allocation Fund (see IT Cost Allocation Plan section).
Non-Personnel Reductions (GF)
$57,705 Alcor-ServiceNow Support - ServiceNow platform is the City’s primary engine for citywide trouble ticketing, IT service delivery, and specialized City Clerk workflows. This contract ensures immediate access to certified developers for troubleshooting, patch management, and workflow optimization. Without Alcor’s support, resolution times for system failures would increase, potentially leading to prolonged downtime for vital functions.
$59,000 Everbridge, Accela -– Cost shift from GF to IT Cost Allocation Plan Fund as funding this project ensures that the initial investment is preserved and that the City maintains its employee safety posture with a reliable, automated safety infrastructure that protects our employees. The BeWARNED system is the City’s primary employee "All- Warning" insurance policy; without this funding, the core Everbridge service will cease, leaving the City without a centralized mechanism for immediate emergency notifications.
$68,686 Carahsoft-Zoom – Maintaining two full enterprise video platforms is fiscally inefficient. By standardizing on Microsoft Teams, which is already in our unified G3 licensing, the City can save money and streamline administrative overhead. This move reduces "digital friction" by ensuring staff use a single, secure ecosystem for daily collaboration and internal meetings. IT acknowledges that Zoom is currently the primary vehicle for City Council meetings. IT is assessing (in collaboration with the City Clerk’s office) whether Teams’ webinar capabilities can provide the same level of public access and moderation. The goal is to remove Zoom as the general "teleconference" tool while "right-sizing" any remaining footprint only for essential public-facing functions.
IT Cost Allocation Plan (Fund 680)
Most IT services are funded through the Internal Service Fund, Fund 680, (IT Cost Allocation) rather than the General Fund. However, the General Fund provides significant resources to the IT Cost Allocation Plan. As part of the proposed General Fund balancing plan, the General Fund contribution to Fund 680 is reduced by $600,000. Additionally, Fund 680 absorbed a $6.46 million transfer out to the General Fund in FY 26 to support the Citywide balancing effort as part of the FY 26 Mid Biennial Budget.
IT is also experiencing deficits in two funds that continue to incur significant costs despite no longer receiving revenue:
Fund 502 – Telephony (VOIP). Funding ended in FY 2024, but the fund remains responsible for the annual Avaya contract (~$460,000). With a projected FY 2026 balance of $393,000, the fund is expected to reach a negative balance of approximately $551,000 shortly thereafter.
Fund 503 – FUND$ Replacement. This fund is projected to reach a negative balance of $1.8M by FY 2028. To ensure accurate accounting and maintain operational continuity, the remaining liabilities of Funds 502 and 503 are proposed to be cost shifted to the IT Cost Allocation Plan. This adjustment will increase the IT Cost Allocation Fund’s structural deficit and will require reassessment of long‑term funding needs over time.
To address the reduction in resources allocated to the IT Cost Allocation Plan and the deficits in Fund 502 and Fund 503, leading to a cost shift of the expenses from those funds to Fund 680, the following outlines proposed reductions in personnel and non-personnel expenditures.
Personnel Reductions
Application Programmer Analyst II (vacant). This position supports several business systems used by City departments, including systems supporting Police and Fire operations. Eliminating this position will reduce the department’s ability to respond quickly to system issues and enhancements affecting these critical systems.
Customer Service III (311 / Service Desk) (vacant). This role supports the City’s 311 customer service operations. Removing this position will reduce call-handling capacity and may result in longer response times for community members and City staff requesting assistance.
Program Manager II (vacant). This position provides coordination and oversight for City technology projects. Eliminating this position will slow project implementation and reduce oversight of technology initiatives requested by City departments.
Senior Information Systems Specialist (vacant). This position supports critical infrastructure systems including servers, network systems, and core technology platforms.
Eliminating this position reduces IT’s technical capacity to maintain and implement infrastructure and security improvements.
Non-Personnel Reductions
Avaya Replacement – This project transitions the City’s voice communications from the existing Avaya VoIP system to a unified Microsoft Teams telephony model. This integration replaces the current dependence on physical, standalone VoIP desk phones with "softphones," allowing staff to manage City calls directly through the Teams app on their computers or mobile devices. Deferring this modernization means the City will remain on a legacy Avaya VoIP infrastructure and continue to rely on physical desk phones, unable to leverage the mobile and collaborative benefits of the Microsoft ecosystem.
CompuCom Staff Augmentation. Reduces Service Desk capacity, resulting in slower response times and lower service levels.
Integration Platform. Delays development of a centralized Accounts Receivable/General
Billing portal and other Integration improvements, affecting staff efficiency and customer service.
Artificial Intelligence Tools. Eliminates planned investments in AI solutions that could streamline City processes and improve service delivery.
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront
The Parks, Recreation & Waterfront (PRW) Department manages and maintains the City’s parks, playgrounds, pools, camps, community centers, and waterfront facilities; delivers recreation programs and special events for youth, families, and seniors; operates the largest public marina on the Bay; and plans, designs, and constructs capital improvements across Berkeley’s parks, recreation, and waterfront system. As one of the City’s most visible and community‑serving departments, PRW provides important services that support public health, youth development, equity, and quality of life.
To align with the City’s fiscal balancing strategy, PRW identified expenditure reductions for FY 2027 and FY 2028. Because PRW’s programs and facilities directly serve high ‑need populations, including low‑income residents and youth, opportunities for reductions are difficult. Any decrease in funding reduces the City’s ability to meet strong community demand and maintain equitable access to recreation and waterfront services.
FTE Changes – All Funds
Category
Baseline
FTE
Proposed
FTE Change
Proposed
FTE w/Sales
& Use Tax
Change FTE
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Total Staffing 116 110 -6 113 -3
Budget Changes – GF
Category
FY27
Baseline
Budget
FY 27
Proposed
Budget Change
Proposed
Budget
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Change
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Personnel 5,160,028 4,269,535 -890,493 4,735,539 -424,489 Personnel – OT &
Hourly 3,757,812 3,764,484 +6,672 3,764,484 +6,672
Non-Personnel 4,315,361 4,008,232 -307,129 4,008,232 -307,129 .
Category
FY28
Baseline
Budget
FY 28 Proposed
Budget Change
Proposed
Budget
w/Sales &
Use Tax
Change w/
Sales & Use
Tax
Personnel 5,308,991 4,403,637 -905,354 4,880,850 -428,041 Personnel (OT/Hourly) 3,757,812 3,764,484 +6,672 3,764,484 +6,672 Non-Personnel 4,315,361 4,008,232 -307,129 4,008,232 -307,129
Impacts
Personnel Reductions – General Fund
2.46 FTE cost shifts from the General Fund to the Camps Fund and Parks Tax Fund, increasing the strain on the operating balance for each fund.
Elimination of 3.0 vacant FTE in the Recreation Division (2 Assistant Recreation Coordinators and 1 Sports Official). Less career staff to schedule, program, and supervise part-time staff, resulting in:
Partial pool closures - Pools may be closed on weekends, or one weekend day, at one or both pools. Alternatively, one pool could be closed during the winter season.
Elimination of the Therapeutic Recreation program that supports up to 21 youth with special needs to participate in summer camp and afterschool programs.
Reduced teen trips and special events.
Reduced family oriented and DEI focused events.
Fewer programs for young children (Tots and Pre-Kindergartners) – less program offerings for the estimated 150 participants per week that attend drop-in programs; and the 168 participants that attend pre-k camp programs throughout the year.
Reduced summer camp enrollment by 36 slots and afterschool program enrollment by 36 slots to ensure appropriate child supervision. The afterschool reduction would represent 12 slots at each site: Francis Albrier, Live Oak, and James Kenney.
Reduced Community Center hours – centers will be closed on some evenings and weekends.
Increased need for scholarships to maintain access for low-income families.
As an example, closure of the City’s Playground Program, which is fully subsidized by the General Fund, would displace 72 participants each week during the summer. The Playground Program is the City’s low-cost summer camp option where participants pay $10/week to attend. Those 72 families would still need to find care for their children and would likely need scholarships to participate in higher-cost City programs. This cycle of subsidized program closures increasing demand for scholarships for other programs will likely lead to pressures to increase the budget for scholarships and reduce eligibility thresholds.
To avoid immediate service reductions, the proposed Budget Balancing Plan recommends using onetime funds in FY 2027 to maintain the two (2) Assistant Recreation Coordinators and one (1) Sports Official until the outcome of the November 2026 Sales and Use Tax measure is known. This will obviate the need for reductions in after-school programs, camps, community center and pool operating hours, and other programs serving youth, outlined above. If the measure passes, new revenue will be proposed to sustain the positions and prevent impacts on programs and services for
youth and adults. If the measure does not pass, the position eliminations will be reconsidered for FY 2028.
Non-Personnel Reductions – General Fund
PRW currently receives $450,000 annually to remove hazardous trees and vegetation.
Reducing the fire fuel budget by $243,000 is proposed to address the General Fund deficit. In the last fiscal year, PRW removed an estimated 210 tons in fire fuel debris from the Berkeley hills. As resources allow, Measure FF may be a potential funding source to maintain funding for this program.
General Fund resources are currently used to advertise PRW programs and events, produce ribbon cuttings, groundbreakings, and department-wide training. The department proposes reducing resources allocated to these activities by $63,837 that will result in lower-quality public engagement and reduction in department training.
Personnel and Non-Personnel Reductions – Other Funds
Additional workforce, cost shifts and non-personnel reductions are needed to align staffing with available resources, given the sunset of the Measure T1 bond program, revenue shortfalls in the Marina Fund, and lack of capacity in other funds.
Elimination of two Assistant Civil Engineers (one filled and one vacant) due to expiring Measure T1 funding, and lack of other capital funding sources. PRW hired two (2) engineers to support the Measure T1 bond program in 2017. With projects now complete or fully allocated, T1 staffing funds are fully expended, and PRW’s other funding sources (Parks Tax Fund and Marina Fund) do not have capacity to absorb these positions.
Losing these positions reduces the department’s ability to deliver current capital projects and achieve future grant obligations.
Elimination of the Waterfront Manager position (filled) in the Marina Fund, reducing capacity to apply for and implement grants, managing PRW leases, and supporting waterfront operations.
Cost shift of 0.15 FTE from the Marina Fund to the Parks Tax Fund.
Reduction of $181,000 in waterfront maintenance and operations limits the department’s ability to maintain waterfront infrastructure
These reductions are necessary to offset the existing structural deficit and anticipated additional loss of revenue from the Doubletree Hotel in FY27-28. The Marina Fund has been operating at a loss since the start of COVID and has needed a variety of General Fund infusions to stay in the black and now must manage its revenue and expenses such that the Fund remains positive. The Doubletree Hotel, which makes up 20% of waterfront revenue, has sustained many years of losses stemming from the region’s weak recovery in the tourism sector; and is now unable to meet their rent obligations. While needed, these reductions will reduce PRW capacity to develop new waterfront community programs, help manage leases, address one-time needs, and support waterfront-wide operations.
Moving forward, it will be critical to preserve the Marina Fund’s boating revenue, which makes up approximately 2/3 of total revenue. To this end, PRW, as part of the Biennial budget process, will propose adding a Senior Marina Assistant to increase staffing and support for the Marina’s 1,000 slips and amenities. The City currently has 2 Marina Assistants (1 per every 500 berthers) and given the importance of this revenue, it is vital that the City provides a higher level of customer service. In the past, the City had anywhere from 3 to 4 Marina Assistants and given the level of complaints that are received, adding the Senior Marina Assistant will enable the City to address berther concerns including weekend availability, provide additional security, and other ancillary services that support berthers and boaters.
Planning and Development
The Planning and Development Department achieved the required 12.5% General Fund reduction primarily by reallocating eligible costs to enterprise funds. Beginning in FY 2027, $89,268 in personnel costs will be shifted to Fund 621 (PSC) and $60,720 to Fund 622 (CUPA), generating total General Fund savings of $149,998 in FY 2027 and $154,618 in FY 2028.
In addition, the Department identified that the General Fund share of Internal Service Fund charges was disproportionately high. Correcting this allocation results in General Fund savings of $308,271 in both FY 2027 and FY 2028.
Combined, these adjustments produce $458,269 in General Fund savings in FY 2027 and $470,419 in FY 2028, meeting the 12.5% target in both years. These cost shifts do not create immediate service or community impacts; however, the Department will need to evaluate future fee adjustments to ensure enterprise funds can sustainably absorb the reallocated costs.
FTE Changes (All Funds)
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 104.04 104.04 0
Budget Changes (GF)
Category
FY27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 3,004,877 2,854,879 -149,998
Personnel – OT & Hourly 5,496 5,496 0
Non-Personnel 655,788 347,517 -308,271
Category
FY28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 3,102,076 2,947,458 -154,618
Personnel – OT & Hourly 5,496 5,496 0
Non-Personnel 655,788 339,987 -315,801
Impacts
Personnel Reductions
The Department does not propose eliminating any positions. Personnel savings are achieved by shifting existing staff costs from the General Fund to special funds, specifically the PSC Fund and CUPA Fund.
Non-Personnel Reductions
The Department reviewed the General Fund allocations for Internal Service Fund charges and adjusted the cost distribution to reflect a more accurate ratio. This included shifting a portion of costs to the appropriate enterprise funds. These corrections generate General Fund savings.
Police Department
The Police Department is a personnel‑driven organization that not only works proactively to address public safety but responds to calls for service – over the past five years (2021-2025), on average, the department has responded to 61,907 calls for service. With approximately 93% of its General Fund budget dedicated to staffing, meaningful reductions cannot be achieved through non‑personnel savings; the proposed non‑personnel cost shifts and overtime adjustments are insufficient to meet the reduction targets.
The Department is currently operating at minimum staffing levels and sustained the loss of seven (7) sworn personnel and six (6) non-sworn (5 dispatchers and 1 office specialist) vacant positions as part of the FY 25-26 Mid Biennial Budget. Retirements and ongoing separations make it increasingly difficult to sustain specialized units, and any additional reductions in sworn or dispatcher positions must be weighed against the City’s capacity to deliver essential public safety services. Maintaining vacant positions for ongoing hiring is critical; without them, the City risks replicating the post‑COVID staffing crisis, where depleted staffing led to slower response times, reduced service capacity, and prolonged recovery.
Within this context, the proposed 10% reduction in the Police Department requires significant personnel reductions that materially reduces public safety service levels and compromises the department’s specialized units to respond effectively to community needs. For the Communications Center (9-1-1 Dispatch), the proposed budget reductions will threaten the department’s ability to answer 9‑1‑1 calls and reliably dispatch police and fire resources.
Patrol is the Department’s core function and must be preserved to maintain basic emergency response. The proposed reductions of 25 sworn personnel before the proposal to restore positions through the Sales and Use Tax would require consolidation or elimination of specialty units, including Traffic/Motors Division, the Community Services Bureau, the Bicycle Team, and significant portions of the Detective Bureau—in order to backfill the Patrol Division. These reductions would diminish proactive policing, reduce visibility in high ‑priority areas, and limit the Department’s ability to address complex community issues.
The Police Department budget balancing proposal may change depending on the outcome of the City Council Special meeting on the Police Department’s technology initiatives.
FTE Changes – All Funds
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Proposed FTE
w/
Sales & Use
Tax
Change FTE
w/
Sales & Use
Tax
Sworn 174 149 -25 164 -10
Public Safety Dispatcher 36 23 -13 29 -7
Non-Sworn 80 79 -1 79 -1
Total Staffing 290 251 -39 272 -18
Budget Changes – GF
Category
FY27
Baseline
Budget
FY 27
Proposed
Budget Change
Proposed
Budget
w/Sales & Use
Tax
Change w/
Sales & Use
Tax
Personnel 88,710,290 78,831,573 -9,878,717 84,177,458 -4,532,832 Personnel – OT & Hourly 9,951,528 9,801,528 -150,000 9,801,528 -150,000 Non-Personnel 7,536,756 6,976,756 -560,000 6,976,756 -560,000 .
Category
FY28
Baseline
Budget
FY 28
Proposed
Budget Change
Proposed
Budget
w/Sales & Use
Tax
Change w/
Sales & Use
Tax
Personnel 89,868,662 79,789,284 -10,079,378 85,242,588 -4,626,074 Personnel – OT & Hourly 9,951,528 9,801,528 -150,000 9,801,528 -150,000 Non-Personnel 7,536,756 6,976,756 -560,000 6,976,756 -560,000
Personnel Reductions
Elimination of one (1) vacant Office Specialist II
Elimination of twenty-three (23) Police Officer positions o Vacant = 14.0 FTE
o Filled = 9.0 FTE
Elimination of two (2) vacant Police Sergeant positions
Elimination of thirteen (13) Public Safety Dispatchers o Vacant = 13.0 FTE
Total Police Department reduction in force is thirty-nine (39) positions. Elimination of these 39 positions will have negative impact on the following service areas:
Communications Center (9-1-1 Dispatch)
The Communications Center is staffed at 20 of 32 authorized positions and relies heavily on mandatory overtime to maintain minimum coverage due to a limited number of fully trained Public Safety Dispatcher II personnel. The Department must be able to continue to hire.
Attrition among new hires has averaged 67% over the past four years, with most separations occurring during training. Training capacity cannot be expanded because of limited trainer availability. If all the department’s vacant dispatchers are eliminated as part of the Department’s 10% budget reduction plan, hiring will largely cease and increased workload and overtime will result in fatigue and burnout. Proposed staffing reductions will compromise the City’s ability to answer 9‑1‑1 calls and reliably dispatch police and fire resources.
As mentioned above, the Department’s 10% budget balancing plan will also require consolidation or elimination of various specialty units. The following provides an overview of the work of these units and community impacts.
Community Services Bureau
The Community Services Bureau leads community engagement, problem‑solving, special event coordination, and cross‑departmental work on quality‑of‑life issues, including homelessness. Reductions would significantly curtail outreach and coordinated response efforts, shifting long‑term, complex community concerns back to patrol units already operating with limited capacity. This would reduce the City’s ability to sustain relationship‑based policing and collaborative problem‑solving.
Bicycle Team
The Bicycle Team provides focused patrol in business districts and other high ‑activity areas while serving as one of the Department’s most flexible deployment resources. The team supports warrant operations, special events, and patrol backfill, and maintains a visible presence in Downtown and South Campus. Further reductions would weaken crime‑prevention efforts, reduce community engagement, and eliminate a critical resource that stabilizes operations during staffing shortages.
Traffic Bureau
The Traffic Bureau conducts serious and fatal collision investigations, traffic enforcement, and traffic safety grant management, and supports Vision Zero initiatives and multi‑department operations. These functions require specialized training not available in patrol. Reductions would shift complex collision investigations and traffic safety responsibilities to patrol, significantly limiting proactive traffic enforcement and reducing overall response capacity.
Detective Bureau
The Detective Bureau handles follow‑up investigations for serious and complex crimes, manages digital evidence and forensic analysis, and prepares cases for prosecution. Staffing reductions have already forced prioritization among critical cases and limited proactive investigative work, including cold case review and regional task force participation. Additional staffing reductions would increase case backlogs, reduce investigative follow‑up and victim support, and impair the Department’s ability to resolve crimes and maintain effective investigative operations.
Not being able to staff these specialty units will impact hiring efforts, as well. The Police Department will not be able to compete with other agencies that provide growth opportunities for their officers. As a result, it will be challenging for the Department to address vacancies that arise through attrition.
The City Manager recommends utilizing one-time funds, as outlined at the beginning of this report, during Fiscal Year 2027. This approach is intended to delay the elimination of 21 positions, as outlined below, until the outcome of the November 2026 Sales and Use Tax measure is known.
Police Department Positions Allocated to the Sales and Use Tax
Vacant Police Officers 6
Filled Police Officers 9
Vacant Dispatchers 6
Total 21
Preserving these positions ensures that the Police Department maintains minimum staffing levels, can staff specialty units, and can continue hiring efforts.
Should voters approve the Sales and Use Tax measure, the resulting revenue is proposed to be allocated to maintain the identified 21 sworn and non-sworn positions.
If the measure does not pass, the position eliminations will be reconsidered for FY 28
Other Reductions
Reduction in Overtime $150,000
While the Department currently anticipates that it can reduce overtime costs, they can be further reduced through targeted technology investments. Communications Center Technology investments improve training success rates and reduce the volume of calls requiring dispatcher intervention, directly lowering dispatcher overtime and stabilizing staffing.
The Public Safety Technology Package would reduce sworn patrol and investigative overtime by enabling a safer, lower minimum‑staffing floor and shortening the time detectives spend on tasks that technology can complete more efficiently. Together, these initiatives would result in higher overtime cost reductions. Depending on the outcome of June 2, 2026, the City Manager may amend some of the Police Department budget balancing proposals.
Other Non-Personnel Items $560,000
Non-personnel expenditures identified for reduction are a combination of contractual expenses, training/travel, software subscriptions, uniform/gear, and other purchases that are proposed to be cost shifted to the following special funds: Citizen Option Fund (Fund 159), State Asset Forfeiture (Fund 106), and Prop 172 (fund 126).
Public Works
To address not only the General Fund deficit, but deficits across several other funds, Public Works has developed a budget balancing plan that generates an estimated $6.6 million (FY 2027) and $6.9 million (FY 2028) in savings from personnel expenditure reductions, cost shifting, and non-personnel reduction across five operational divisions. With personnel costs representing approximately 68 percent of the Department’s budget, these reductions require the elimination of fifteen (15) full‑time positions. Of the 15 positions, two (2) are filled and 13
are vacant. This plan also includes cost shifting 51 positions from distressed funds to healthier funds that still align with the work the positions are doing.
The proposed budget balancing plan for Public Works includes General Fund reduction of $780,000 in FY 2027 and $1.1 million in FY 2028 and reduction of personnel budget in the Capital Improvement Fund of $2.2 million in FY 2027 and FY 2028. In FY 2027, an additional $3.5 million and in FY 2028, $3.6 million in personnel savings will come from Public Works’ Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds, most notably the Parking Meter Fund, Off ‑Street Parking Fund,1947 Center Street, and Building Maintenance Fund. These funds require budget balancing strategies as all are experiencing structural deficits.
Additional balancing measures include eliminating temporary staffing, reducing security contract services, and deferring capital outlay for meter replacements. Collectively, these actions will reduce service capacity and accelerate long‑term infrastructure deterioration.
FTE Changes (All Funds)
Category Baseline FTE Proposed FTE Change
Total Staffing 352 337 -15
Budget Changes (GF)
Category
FY27
Baseline Budget
FY 27
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 5,165,452 4,385,681 -779,771
Personnel – OT & Hourly 22,517 22,517 0
Non-Personnel 2,947,178 2,947,178 0
Category
FY28
Baseline Budget
FY 28
Proposed Budget Change
Personnel 5,332,997 4,248,474 -1,084,523
Personnel – OT & Hourly 22,517 22,517 0
Non-Personnel 2,947,178 2,947,178 0
Impacts
Personnel Reductions
Mainly cost-shifting various positions resulted in $779,771 (FY 2027) and $1,084,523(FY 2028) of General Fund savings.
The majority of PW’s budget comes from enterprise funds and other special funds. The reductions from those funds and programs are listed below:
Eliminate one (1) Assistant PW Engineer (vacant)
Eliminate one (1) Chief of Party (vacant)
Eliminate one (1) Building Maintenance Mechanic Trainee (vacant) Eliminate one (1) Environmental Compliance Specialist (filled)
Eliminate four (4) Laborer positions (vacant)
Eliminate one (1) Office Specialist II (vacant)
Eliminate one (1) Occupational Health Safety Officer (vacant) Eliminate two (2) Public Works Supervisor positions (vacant) Eliminate one (1) Sewer Maintenance Assistant Supervisor (vacant) Eliminate two (2) Skilled Laborers positions (one filled and one vacant)
In addition to the reductions outlined above, Public Works proposes shifting the costs of 51 additional positions to other eligible funds, totaling $4.2 million in FY 2027 and $4.6 million in FY 2028. This level of cost shifting is necessary due to ongoing structural deficits in several funds, including the CIP, Off‑Street Parking, Building Purchase and Management (1947 Center Street), and Building Maintenance funds, as well as required General Fund reductions. However, shifting personnel costs to healthier funds places additional pressure on their operating budgets and fund balances. This may result in delays or reductions in services, capital projects, maintenance activities, or staffing levels.
Non-Personnel Reductions
Reduce security services at the Corporation Yard netting the Building Maintenance Fund savings of $250,000.
Deferral of parking meter upgrades – while not a reduction, a deferral does produce savings in FY 2027 and FY 2028 for the City’s two parking funds that combined are experiencing structural deficit. However, the longer the City defers capital replacement of parking meters, the more these meters will become obsolete or non-which negatively impacts revenue generation,
Lack of CIP Fund availability beyond the annual baseline results in deferrals or eliminations of projects, especially in the Facilities capital program, which carries compounding impacts over time. Samples of impacted projects are:
o Animal Shelter HVAC – designed deferred until FY29-30 o Corporation Yard Fences and Vehicular Gates - construction deferred until FY29-31 o Fire Department Warehouse - construction (interior improvements, ADA upgrades, and fuel storage) deferred indefinitely
While the Department is committed to fiscal responsibility, the proposed reductions will fundamentally alter the service levels community members expect. The elimination of 15 full‑time positions represents a 5 percent reduction in the Department’s workforce. More specifically, the proposed personnel reductions impact positions that are associated with Street Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance, and CIP Engineering, which will diminish maintenance crew sizes and technical engineering project management resources that support large capital improvement projects.
To mitigate impacts of the proposed workforce reduction, Public Works will prioritize services based on a Risk-Based Prioritization Framework. This framework prioritizes services that are essential for public life-safety systems, legal compliance, and preventing catastrophic infrastructure failure such as:
Emergency Response to respond to storms, downed trees in the right-of-way, and immediate hazard mitigation (e.g., sinkholes or structural collapses).
Regulatory & Environmental Compliance: Mandated inspections for San Francisco Bay water quality (trash capture) and ADA-mandated curb ramp installations attached to active paving projects.
Critical Life-Safety Infrastructure: Maintenance of traffic signals at high-volume intersections and structural integrity of public buildings with high occupancy (e.g., City Hall, Public Safety Building).
Essential Sanitation: Core trash collection and basic maintenance of public health facilities to prevent and address disease vectors.
Certain services that will be maintained but experience extended response times or reduced frequency include the following:
Proactive Facility Maintenance: The Department will prioritize HVAC and electrical systems over aesthetic upgrades like painting or floor refinishing.
Response times for non-emergency community concerns received through 311 (e.g., standard pothole repair, graffiti abatement, litter and illegal dumping) will be extended from 72 hours to 10-14 business days.
Services that may be suspended or experience delays, or reductions in the level of service include items such as:
Elective Facility Improvements such as office reconfigurations, non-essential lighting upgrades, and furniture replacements.
Special Event Support such that there will be a reduction in department labor provided for non-city-sponsored community events or parades.
Clean City work will transition from proactive "scouting" to a strictly reactive, report-based collection model.
NEXT STEPS
April 16 and April 23, 2026: Budget and Finance Policy Committee meetings when staff presents the Proposed Budget Balancing Plan and Committee provides recommendations on any adjustments.
May 14, 2026: Budget and Finance Policy Committee meeting presentation and discussion of the City Manager’s Proposed FY 2027 & FY 2028 Biennial Budget.
May 19, 2026: City Council meeting
o Presentation and discussion of the City Manager’s Proposed FY 2027 & FY 2028 Biennial Budget – Public Hearing #1
o FY 2027 Fee Increases – Public Hearing #1
o Second Amendment to the Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO#2)
May 28, 2026: Budget and Finance Policy Committee meeting presentation and discussion of the City Manager’s Proposed Five-Year CIP.
June 9, 2026: City Council meeting presentation and discussion of the 5-Year CIP – Public Hearing #1.
June 16, 2026: City Council meeting discussion on potential revisions to Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-Year CIP.
June 23, 2026: City Council Special meeting – Adoption of the FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP.
June 24, 2026 – June 30, 2026: Capture and incorporate any last-minute changes from Proposed Budget to Adopted Budget.
July 1, 2026: FY 2027 begins, and the adopted budget balancing measures take effect.
July 2, 2026: Employees impacted by Adopted Biennial Budget and associated budget reduction plan to the adopted budget receives final layoff notices.
Staff will continue to work on developing and refining the biennial budget, conferring over impacts with the City’s labor groups up to the June Council meeting adoption date, incorporating Council direction into the Proposed Budget and preparing the necessary adjustments for adoption in June 2026.
CONCLUSION
Balancing the FY 2027 and FY 2028 budget requires difficult choices, and the City approaches them with full awareness of their impact on staff, elected officials, community members, and the programs people rely on. While one‑time sources will continue to be used strategically for true one‑time needs, they can no longer serve as an ongoing balancing tool.
By addressing the City’s structural deficit, the City can avoid repeating large‑scale budget reduction exercises in the future.
This proposed Budget Balancing Plan reflects both the fiscal discipline required at this moment and the City’s commitment to protecting essential services and the people who depend on them.
CONTACT PERSON
Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 David White, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000
Attachment:
1. Summary Position Reduction List
2. Vacancies 2026.04.03
Summary of Position Reduction List for FY 2027 FY 2028 Biennial Budget Attachment 1
Department Original Proposed Reduction (Classification) Filled/Vacant Proposed Allocation to Sales & Use Tax Revised Reduction After Sales & Use Tax Application CMO CMDEV PRJ CD Filled CMDEV PRJ CD
CMO COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST Filled COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST CMO COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST Filled COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST CMO DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER Vac ant DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER CMO ECODEV PRJ CD Vacant ECODEV PRJ CD
CMO OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST II
CMO OFFICE SPECIALIST III Filled OFFICE SPECIALIST III
CMO PROGRAM MANAGER II U Filled PROGRAM MANAGER II U
CMO SOCIAL SERVICES SPECIALIST Vacant SOCIAL SERVICES SPECIALIST CMO Count 9 0 9
Finance ASSOC. MANAGEMENT ANALYST Vacant ASSOC. MANAGEMENT ANALYST Finance REVENUE DEV. SPECIALIST I Vacant REVENUE DEV. SPECIALIST I Finance REVENUE DEV. SPECIALIST I Vacant REVENUE DEV. SPECIALIST I Finance SENIOR SYSTEMS ANALYST Vacant SENIOR SYSTEMS ANALYST Finance Count 4 0 4
Fire APPARATUS OPERATOR Filled APPARATUS OPERATOR
Fire APPARATUS OPERATOR Filled APPARATUS OPERATOR
Fire APPARATUS OPERATOR Filled APPARATUS OPERATOR
Fire ASSC MGT ANLY Filled ASSC MGT ANLY
Fire FIRE CAPTII 40 Filled FIRE CAPTII 40
Fire FIRE CAPTII 40 Filled FIRE CAPTII 40
Fire FIRE CAPTII 40 Filled FIRE CAPTII 40
Fire FIRE CAPTII 40 Filled FIRE CAPTII 40
Fire FIRE INSPECTOR Vacant FIRE INSPECTOR
Fire FIRE MARSHAL Vacant FIRE MARSHAL
Fire FIREFIGHTER Filled FIREFIGHTER
Fire FIREFIGHTER Filled FIREFIGHTER
Fire FIREFIGHTER Filled FIREFIGHTER
Fire PROGRAM MANAGER II Filled PROGRAM MANAGER II
Fire Count 14 9 5
HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Filled BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Filled BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS COM HEALTH WORKER SPEC Filled COM HEALTH WORKER SPEC HHCS COM SERVICE SPEC II Filled COM SERVICE SPEC II
HHCS COM SERVICE SPEC III Filled COM SERVICE SPEC III
HHCS MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM SUPV Filled MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM SUPV HHCS SR COMMNTY HEALTH SPECIALIST Filled SR COMMNTY HEALTH SPECIALIST HHCS VECTOR CONTROL TECHNICIAN Filled VECTOR CONTROL TECHNICIAN HHCS ASST MGMT ANALYST Vacant ASST MGMT ANALYST
HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN I Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN I HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN I Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN I
Summary of Position Reduction List for FY 2027 FY 2028 Biennial Budget Attachment 1 Department Original Proposed Reduction (Classification) Filled/Vacant Proposed Allocation to Sales & Use Tax Revised Reduction After Sales & Use Tax Application HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN I Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN I HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II HHCS COM HEALTH WORKER SPEC Vacant COM HEALTH WORKER SPEC HHCS COM SERVICE SPEC II Vacant COM SERVICE SPEC II
HHCS COM SERVICE SPEC II Vacant COM SERVICE SPEC II
HHCS EPIDEMIOLOGIST Vacant EPIDEMIOLOGIST
HHCS HEALTH EDUCATOR Vacant HEALTH EDUCATOR
HHCS HEALTH SVCS PROGRAM SPCLST Vacant HEALTH SVCS PROGRAM SPCLST HHCS MENTAL HEALTH CLINICAL SUPV Vacant MENTAL HEALTH CLINICAL SUPV HHCS MENTAL HEALTH NURSE Vacant MENTAL HEALTH NURSE
HHCS MENTAL HEALTH NURSE Vacant MENTAL HEALTH NURSE
HHCS MENTAL HEALTH NURSE Vacant MENTAL HEALTH NURSE
HHCS MENTAL HEALTH NURSE Vacant MENTAL HEALTH NURSE
HHCS MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM SUPV Vacant MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM SUPV HHCS OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST II
HHCS OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST II
HHCS OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST II
HHCS OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST II
HHCS OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST II
HHCS OFFICE SPECIALIST III Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST III HHCS PROGRAM MANAGER II Vacant PROGRAM MANAGER II
HHCS PSYCHIATRIST Vacant PSYCHIATRIST
HHCS PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE Vacant PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE
HHCS SENIOR BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLINC Vacant SENIOR BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLINC HHCS SOCIAL SERVICES SPECIALIST Vacant SOCIAL SERVICES SPECIALIST HHCS SR. COMMNTY DEV. PROJ COORDINATOR Vacant SR. COMMNTY DEV. PROJ COORDINATOR HHCS VECTOR CONTROL TECHNICIAN Vacant VECTOR CONTROL TECHNICIAN HHCS Count 45 0 45
HR ASSOCIATE HR ANALYST Vacant ASSOCIATE HR ANALYST
HR OCCUPATIONAL HLTH/SAFTY SPEC Vacant OCCUPATIONAL HLTH/SAFTY SPEC HR Count 2 0 2
IT APP. PROGRAM ANALYST II Vacant APP. PROGRAM ANALYST II IT CUST. SVCS. SPECIALIST III Vacant CUST. SVCS. SPECIALIST III IT PROGRAM MANAGER II Vacant PROGRAM MANAGER II
IT SR. INFO. SYSTEMS SPECIALIST Vacant SR. INFO. SYSTEMS SPECIALIST IT Count 4 0 4
Summary of Position Reduction List for FY 2027 FY 2028 Biennial Budget Attachment 1 Department Original Proposed Reduction (Classification) Filled/Vacant Proposed Allocation to Sales & Use Tax Revised Reduction After Sales & Use Tax Application POLICE OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant OFFICE SPECIALIST II POLICE POLICE OFC Filled POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Filled POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Filled POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Filled POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC Vacant POLICE OFC
POLICE POLICE OFC 12.5 Filled POLICE OFC 12.5
POLICE POLICE OFC 12.5 Filled POLICE OFC 12.5
POLICE POLICE OFC 12.5 Filled POLICE OFC 12.5
POLICE POLICE OFC 12.5 Filled POLICE OFC 12.5
POLICE POLICE OFC 12.5 Vacant POLICE OFC 12.5
POLICE POLICE OFC 12.5 Vacant POLICE OFC 12.5
POLICE POLICE OFC 12.5 Filled POLICE OFC 12.5
POLICE POLICE SERGEANT Vacant POLICE SERGEANT
POLICE POLICE SERGEANT Vacant POLICE SERGEANT
POLICE PS DISPATC I Vacant PS DISPATC I
POLICE PS DISPATC I Vacant PS DISPATC I
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE PS DISPATCII Vacant PS DISPATCII
POLICE Count 39 21 18
PRW ASST. CIVIL ENG Vacant ASST. CIVIL ENG
PRW ASST. CIVIL ENG Filled ASST. CIVIL ENG
PRW ASST. RECREATION COORDINATOR Vacant ASST. RECREATION COORDINATOR
Summary of Position Reduction List for FY 2027 FY 2028 Biennial Budget Attachment 1 Department Original Proposed Reduction (Classification) Filled/Vacant Proposed Allocation to Sales & Use Tax Revised Reduction After Sales & Use Tax Application PRW ASST. RECREATION COORDINATOR Vacant ASST. RECREATION COORDINATOR PRW SPORTS OFFICIAL Vacant SPORTS OFFICIAL
PRW WATERFRONT MANAGER Filled WATERFRONT MANAGER
PRW Count 6 3 3
PW AST PW ENG Vacant AST PW ENG
PW CHF OF PARTY Vacant CHF OF PARTY
PW BLD MNT MEC TR Vacant BLD MNT MEC TR
PW ENV COMPLNCE SP Filled ENV COMPLNCE SP
PW LABORER Vacant LABORER
PW LABORER Vacant LABORER
PW LABORER Vacant LABORER
PW LABORER Vacant LABORER
PW OFF SPII Vacant OFF SPII
PW OHS OFC Vacant OHS OFC
PW PW SUP Vacant PW SUP
PW PW SUP Vacant PW SUP
PW SE MNT AST SUP Vacant SE MNT AST SUP
PW SKILLED LABORER Filled SKILLED LABORER
PW SKILLED LABORER Vacant SKILLED LABORER
PW Count 15 0 15
Grand Count 138 33 105
List of Vacant Positions as of 04/03/2026 Attachment 2
Department Position Description Status
City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Vacant
City Attorney Deputy City Attorney IV Vacant
City Attorney Legal Office Supervisor Vacant
City Attorney Risk Manager Vacant
City Attorney Count 4
City Clerk Assistant City Clerk Vacant
City Clerk Count 1
CMO Animal Control Officer Vacant
CMO Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer Vacant
CMO Economic Development Project Coordinator Vacant
CMO Office Specialist II Vacant
CMO Senior Management Analyst Vacant
CMO Social Services Specialist Vacant
CMO Count 6
Finance Accounting Manager Vacant
Finance Administrative Secretary Vacant
Finance Associate Management Analyst Vacant
Finance Deputy Director of Finance Vacant
Finance General Services Manager Vacant
Finance Revenue Development Specialist I Vacant
Finance Revenue Development Specialist I Vacant
Finance Senior Systems Analyst Vacant
Finance Treasury Manager Vacant
Finance Count 9
Fire Administrative Assistant Vacant
Fire Fire Captain II Vacant
Fire Fire Marshal Vacant
Fire Fire Prevention Inspector (Sworn) Vacant
Fire Firefighter Vacant
Fire Firefighter Vacant
Fire Firefighter Vacant
Fire Office Specialist II Vacant
Fire Paramedic (R) Vacant
Fire Paramedic (R) Vacant
Fire Paramedic (R) Vacant
Fire Paramedic (R) Vacant
Fire Paramedic Supervisor I Vacant
Fire Paramedic Supervisor I Vacant
Fire Paramedic Supervisor I Vacant
Fire Count 15
HHCS Assistant Management Analyst Vacant
HHCS Assistant Management Analyst Vacant
List of Vacant Positions as of 04/03/2026 Attachment 2
Department Position Description Status
HHCS Associate Management Analyst Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician I Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician I Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician I Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Behavioral Health Clinician II Vacant
HHCS Community Health Worker Specialist Vacant
HHCS Community Services Specialist II Vacant
HHCS Community Services Specialist II Vacant
HHCS Epidemiologist Vacant
HHCS Health Educator Vacant
HHCS Health Services Program Specialist Vacant
HHCS Mealsite Coordinator Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Clinical Supervisor Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Program Supervisor Vacant
HHCS Mental Health Program Supervisor Vacant
HHCS Office Specialist II Vacant
HHCS Office Specialist II Vacant
HHCS Office Specialist II Vacant
HHCS Office Specialist II Vacant
HHCS Office Specialist II Vacant
HHCS Office Specialist III Vacant
HHCS Program Manager II Vacant
HHCS Program Manager II Vacant
HHCS Psychiatrist Vacant
HHCS Psychiatrist Vacant
HHCS Public Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Public Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Public Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Senior Behavioral Health Clinician Vacant
HHCS Senior Community Development Project Coordinator Vacant
List of Vacant Positions as of 04/03/2026 Attachment 2
Department Position Description Status
HHCS Senior Environmental Health Specialist Vacant
HHCS Senior Management Analyst Vacant
HHCS Senior Management Analyst Vacant
HHCS Senior Service Assistant Vacant
HHCS Social Services Specialist Vacant
HHCS Social Services Specialist Vacant
HHCS Supervising Public Health Nurse Vacant
HHCS Vector Control Technician Vacant
HHCS Count 52
HR Associate Human Resources Analyst Vacant
HR Employee Relations Manager Vacant
HR Occupational Health and Safety Specialist Vacant
HR Senior Human Resources Analyst Vacant
HR Count 4
IT Applications Programmer Analyst I Vacant
IT Applications Programmer Analyst II Vacant
IT Applications Programmer Analyst II Vacant
IT Customer Services Specialist III Vacant
IT Information Security Manager Vacant
IT Program Manager II Vacant
IT Senior Information Systems Specialist Vacant
IT Senior Information Systems Specialist Vacant
IT Senior Information Systems Specialist Vacant
IT Count 9
Library Director of Library Services Vacant
Library Librarian II Vacant
Library Library Aide Vacant
Library Library Assistant Vacant
Library Library Assistant Vacant
Library Mail and Materials Services Aide Vacant
Library Senior Human Resources Analyst Vacant
Library Supervising Librarian Vacant
Library Supervising Librarian Vacant
Library Supervising Librarian Vacant
Library Tool Lending Specialist Vacant
Library Count 11
Mayor & Council Legislative Aide Vacant
Mayor & Council Legislative Aide Vacant
Mayor & Council Legislative Aide Vacant
Mayor & Council Legislative Aide Vacant
Mayor & Council Legislative Aide Vacant
Mayor & Council Count 5
List of Vacant Positions as of 04/03/2026 Attachment 2
Department Position Description Status
ODPA Director of Police Accountability Vacant
ODPA Police Accountability Investigator Vacant
ODPA Count 2
Planning Assistant Inspector Vacant
Planning Associate Management Analyst Vacant
Planning Associate Planner Vacant
Planning Associate Planner Vacant
Planning Building Plans Examiner Vacant
Planning Building Plans Examiner Vacant
Planning Hazardous Materials Specialist II Vacant
Planning Housing Inspector II (Certified) Vacant
Planning Office Specialist II Vacant
Planning Office Specialist III Vacant
Planning Permit Specialist Vacant
Planning Planning Technician Vacant
Planning Principal Planner Vacant
Planning Senior Planner Vacant
Planning Count 14
Police Community Service Officer Vacant
Police Community Service Officer Vacant
Police Community Service Officer Vacant
Police Community Service Officer Supervisor Vacant
Police Office Specialist II Vacant
Police Parking Enforcement Officer Vacant
Police Parking Enforcement Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant
Police Police Officer Vacant (temp)
Police Police Officer Vacant (temp)
Police Police Sergeant Vacant
List of Vacant Positions as of 04/03/2026 Attachment 2
Department Position Description Status
Police Police Sergeant Vacant
Police Police Sergeant Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher I Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Public Safety Dispatcher II Vacant
Police Count 39
PRW Assistant Civil Engineer Vacant
PRW Assistant Management Analyst Vacant
PRW Assistant Recreation Coordinator Vacant
PRW Assistant Recreation Coordinator Vacant
PRW Forestry Climber Vacant
PRW Landscape Gardener Supervisor Vacant
PRW Recreation Program Supervisor Vacant
PRW Sports Official Vacant
PRW Count 8
Public Works Accounting Office Specialist III Vacant
Public Works Assistant Public Works Engineer Vacant
Public Works Associate Civil Engineer Vacant
Public Works Associate Civil Engineer Vacant
Public Works Associate Civil Engineer Vacant
Public Works Associate Transportation Engineer Vacant
Public Works Building Maintenance Mechanic Vacant
Public Works Building Maintenance Mechanic Vacant
Public Works Building Maintenance Mechanic Trainee Vacant Public Works Chief of Party Vacant
Public Works Construction Equipment Operator Vacant
Public Works Deputy Director of Public Works Vacant
Public Works Director of Public Works Vacant
Public Works Electrician Vacant
Public Works Electrician Vacant
Public Works Equipment Superintendent Vacant
Public Works Laborer Vacant
List of Vacant Positions as of 04/03/2026 Attachment 2
Department Position Description Status
Public Works Laborer Vacant
Public Works Laborer Vacant
Public Works Laborer Vacant
Public Works Laborer Vacant
Public Works Lead Communications Technician Vacant
Public Works Lead Electrician Vacant
Public Works Lead Electrician Vacant
Public Works Manager of Engineering Vacant
Public Works Mechanic Vacant
Public Works Mechanic Vacant
Public Works Mechanic Vacant
Public Works Occupational Health and Safety Officer Vacant Public Works Office Specialist II Vacant
Public Works Parking Meter Maintenance Worker Vacant
Public Works Parking Meter Mechanic Vacant
Public Works Principal Program Manager Vacant
Public Works Program Manager I Vacant
Public Works Public Works Supervisor Vacant
Public Works Public Works Supervisor Vacant
Public Works Public Works Supervisor Vacant
Public Works Service Technician Vacant
Public Works Sewer Maintenance Assistant Supervisor Vacant Public Works Skilled Laborer Vacant
Public Works Solid Waste Truck Driver Vacant
Public Works Solid Waste Worker Vacant
Public Works Solid Waste Worker Vacant
Public Works Solid Waste Worker Vacant
Public Works Solid Waste Worker Vacant
Public Works Solid Waste Worker Vacant
Public Works Supervising Civil Engineer Vacant
Public Works Weighmaster Vacant
Public Works Count 48
Rent Board Accounting Office Specialist II Vacant
Rent Board Count 1
Grand Count 228
SUMMARY OF FY 2026 POSITION REDUCTION LIST Attachment 3 Department Classification FY 26 Status
City Attorney SENIOR LEGAL SECRETARY Vacant
City Attorney Count 1
City Clerk OFFICE SPECIALIST III Vacant
City Clerk Count 1
CMO ADMIN ASSISTANT UNREP Vacant
CMO DEPUTY CITY MANAGER Vacant
CMO DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR Vacant
CMO PROGRAM MANAGER I Vacant
CMO Count 4
Finance ACCOUNTING OFF SPECIALIST II Vacant
Finance ACCOUNTING OFF SPECIALIST II Vacant
Finance CUSTOMER SVC SPECIALIST II Vacant
Finance CUSTOMER SVC SPECIALIST II Vacant
Finance Count 4
Fire FIREFIGHTER 56 Vacant
Fire FIREFIGHTER 56 Vacant
Fire FIREFIGHTER 56 Vacant
Fire FIREFIGHTER 56 Vacant
Fire FIREFIGHTER 56 Vacant
Fire PARAMEDIC (R) Vacant
Fire PARAMEDIC (R) Vacant
Fire PARAMEDIC (R) Vacant
Fire Count 8
HHCS BEHAVIORAL HLTH CLIN II Vacant
HHCS COM DEVELOPMENT PROJ COORDINATOR Vacant
HHCS HEALTH SERVICES PROGRAM SPEC Vacant
HHCS MENTAL HEALTH CLINICAL SUPV Vacant
HHCS OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant
HHCS SENIOR HEALTH SERV PROG SPEC Vacant
HHCS Count 6
HR OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant
HR Count 1
ODPA ASS0CIATE MANAGEMENT ANALYST Vacant
ODPA POLICE ACC INVESTIGATOR Vacant
ODPA Count 2
PLANNING COMMUNITY SERVICE SPEC I Vacant
PLANNING OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant
PLANNING Count 2
POLICE OFFICE SPECIALIST II Vacant
POLICE POLICE OFFICER Vacant
POLICE POLICE OFFICER Vacant
POLICE POLICE OFFICER Vacant
POLICE POLICE OFFICER Vacant
POLICE POLICE OFFICER Vacant
SUMMARY OF FY 2026 POSITION REDUCTION LIST Attachment 3 Department Classification FY 26 Status
POLICE POLICE OFFICER Vacant
POLICE POLICE OFFICER Vacant
POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER I/II Vacant
POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER I/II Vacant
POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER I/II Vacant
POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER I/II Vacant
POLICE SUPERVISING PUBLIC SFTY DISP Vacant
POLICE Count 13
PRW AQUATICS FACILITIES SUP Vacant
PRW Count 1
PW ASSOC PLANNER Vacant
PW PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR Vacant
PW Count 2
Grand Count 45
1
02a
MEMORANDUM
Date: Ap ril 6, 2026
To: Honorable Me
mbers of the Budget and Finance Committee
From: Katherine Lee, Interim Director of Police Accountability Jose Murillo, Policy Analyst
Subject: FY 2027–2028 Baseline Budget and Reduction Proposals for the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA)
The purpose of thi
s memorandum is to summarize the ODPA’s current staffing structure, outline the baseline budget for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028, and provide an overview of the proposed budget reductions under consideration.
I. Current Staffing and Office Structure
The ODPA was funded for six full -time equivalent (FTE) positions in Fiscal Years 2025 and 2026. The current hiring freeze has affected two of these positions, both of which are integral to the office’s operations. At present, the ODPA is staffed by four FTEs: the Director of Police Accountability, two Associate Management Analysts (serving as Policy Analyst and Data Analyst), and one Investigator. The frozen positions include a second Investigator and a third Associate Management Analyst, the latter intended to support the office’s administrative functions and previously classified as an Office Specialist III.
Attachment #4
2
58 53
44 43
36 35
16 24
17 19
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
ODPA
BPD
In response to these staffing constraints, administrative responsibilities have been reassigned to the Policy Analyst, with support from the Data Analyst. This approach has allowed the office to maintain core operations; however, it has reduced available staff capacity for policy development and research functions in support of the Police Accountability Board (PAB), as staff time is partially redirected to administrative tasks.
With respect to investigations, the sole Investigator is responsible for managing all complaints filed with the ODPA. Between 2021 and 2025, the ODPA investigated an average of approximately 30 complaints annually. Over the same period, the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) Internal Affairs unit investigated an average of approximately 39 complaints annually, with two investigators and dedicated administrative support. The 2024 Citygate report, Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department , recommended the addition of one clerical support position to assist the two sergeants assigned to Internal Affairs investigations to maintain a manageable workload.
In 2023, the ODPA requested and received approval for a second Investigator to address comparable workload demands and support operational sustainability. In addition to investigative responsibilities, the position was intended to assist the Policy Analyst with legal research and writing during periods of lower caseload. This position remained filled through April 2025. Since that time, the ODPA has operated with a single Investigator managing complaint intake and investigations, without dedicated clerical support, during a period in which workload has increased over the past five years.
The ODPA’s current workload has been sustained across functions through the coordination and prior experience of existing staff; however, this approach may not be sustainable under continued resource constraints. Given the office’s staffing level and the concentration of responsibilities within individual roles, changes in staffing may require a temporary reduction or reprioritization of services. The departure of a team member would likely necessitate a transition period before a replacement is able to fully assume
3
assigned responsibilities, which may affect the office’s short-term capacity to support the PAB. As a result, continuity of operations is closely tied to individual staff roles.
Routine staff absences, such as vacation or illness, can have a measurable impact on operations due to limited capacity to redistribute workload. During these periods, staff may need to prioritize time-sensitive functions, which can result in delays in other areas and affect overall service timelines. In response, the ODPA has explored technological solutions, including case management systems, to streamline operations and better utilize existing resources.
II. Baseline Budget for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028
The table below presents the Office of the Director of Police Accountability’s (ODPA) baseline budget allocation by major expenditure category for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028, prior to any proposed reductions.
Category FY 2027 Budget FY 2027 (%) FY 2028 Budget FY 2028 (%) Personnel $940,290.00 72.89% $975,596.00 73.37%
Lease $170,386.32 13.21% $173,794.08 13.07%
Non-Personnel $179,276.35 13.90% $180,255.31 13.56%
Total $1,289,952.67 100.00% $1,329,645.39 100.00%
In FY 2027, personnel costs account for 72.89% of the $1,289,952.67 total budget, followed by non-personnel expenditures at 13.90% and lease costs at 13.21%. In FY 2028, personnel costs represent 73.37% of the total budget, with non-personnel expenditures at 13.56% and lease costs at 13.07%.
Non-personnel expenditures are primarily comprised of the ODPA’s Internal Services Technology Allocation Fund ($43,402.04), PAB member stipends ($30,000), miscellaneous professional services ($30,000), and annual conference expenditures ($26,444.40).
III. Overview of Proposed Budget Reductions and Associated Impacts This section provides an overview of the proposed budget reductions under consideration and outlines the potential operational impacts associated with those changes. The information below is intended to describe how those adjustments may affect current functions, service levels, and workload distribution.
a. Summary of Proposed Reductions
The ODPA reviewed its budget to identify areas not essential to the office’s core duties that could be reduced to achieve cost savings while maintaining overall operations.
Through this process, the ODPA identified a maximum reduction of 5.6% ($71,708) to its budget without compromising the funding of services that support core functions or requiring staff layoffs. Given the office’s current staffing level and existing workload distribution, further reductions would require the elimination or reduction of staff positions.
4
As outlined earlier in this memorandum, reductions to staffing levels would affect the office’s ability to carry out its core, charter -mandated functions and are therefore not feasible within the current operational structure.
The proposed reductions are organized into four categories, as outlined below, with a corresponding summary of associated operational impacts.
Reductions in Overtime Expenditures – ($10,200)
The ODPA is budgeted for $10,200 in overtime expenditures in both FY 2027 and FY 2028. The proposed reduction would eliminate this allocation and instead utilize compensatory time off in instances where overtime is necessary. As a cost -saving measure, the ODPA has already implemented a practice for non-exempt staff to request compensatory time off in lieu of paid overtime when such work cannot be avoided.
Staff support for PAB meetings is a primary cause of overtime needs; however, staff currently adjust their schedules, where feasible, to minimize overtime. Moving forward, the ODPA will also explore the use of Voluntary Time Off, when operationally feasible, as an additional measure to manage costs throughout the fiscal year.
Reduction to Conference and Travel Expenditures – ($26,444) The ODPA and PAB members participate annually in the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference. The conference provides access to forums, workshops, and training sessions for oversight practitioners, including community board members, policy analysts, and investigators, with a focus on best practices in civilian oversight and public safety. NACOLE serves as a primary convening in this field and as a key training and professional development opportunity for both staff and Board members.
A reduction of $26,444 would eliminate funding for conference attendance in FY 2027 and FY 2028. As a result, staff and PAB members would not participate in NACOLE during these fiscal years, and access to related training and professional development opportunities typically supported through this allocation would be reduced. This may limit opportunities to incorporate emerging practices and comparative insights into the ODPA’s work in Berkeley, which could affect the office’s ability to support continuous improvement in oversight processes and inform the PAB’s policy and oversight functions.
Reduction to Technology Cost Allocation Fund – ($23,402) The ODPA’s technology cost allocation fund increased due to one-time expenditures related to the transition into its office at 1900 Addison Street, including network infrastructure reconfiguration. The proposed reduction realigns the fund with its pre- transition median level.
Reduction to Office Supply, Postage Expenditures, and Other Miscellaneous Services – ($9,411)
This $9,411 reduction supports the ODPA’s ongoing transition toward a paperless environment, where feasible, and increased reliance on existing City resources in lieu of
5
additional expenditures. The change is intended to optimize current resources and is anticipated to have minimal impact on operations, requiring only minor workflow adjustments.
The proposed reduction includes $3,000 from the Miscellaneous Professional Services account, which is typically reserved to address fluctuations in anticipated service costs (e.g., increases in subscription fees or meeting frequency) or in instances where alternative arrangements may be available. For example, staff may substitute security monitors when appropriate or utilize meeting spaces that do not require such additional services.
Elimination of Parking Allocation – ($3,000)
The ODPA office at 1900 Addison Street includes three on-site parking spaces under the terms of the lease. Use of these spaces provides an alternative to this expense. b. Lease-Related Constraints on Further Budget Reductions A key constraint in identifying additional budget reductions needed to meet the 10% and
12.5% targets is the office’s current lease obligation for the premises at 1900 Addison Street.1 The lease represents a significant fixed cost that cannot be reduced or restructured without triggering contractual implications. As a result, it materially limits the office’s ability to achieve further cost savings beyond those already identified, leaving an estimated remaining gap of approximately $57,000 to $95,000, depending on the fiscal year and reduction scenario, to meet the 10% to 12.5% targets.
The space was originally acquired with the operational expectation of supporting a fully staffed office of approximately six to seven full -time employees, along with cohorts of interns throughout the year,
2 as well as accommodating regular, in-person meetings of the Police Accountability Board and other commission or community events. Under the current staffing model and operational structure, however, the office is functioning with fewer personnel, and the PAB meetings are the only commission meetings consistently held in this space. As such, the current utilization of the premises does not fully align with the scale of the leased footprint or the associated cost detailed below.
Lease Costs
• FY 2027 Lease Cost: $170,386.32
• FY 2028 Lease Cost: $173,794.08
These costs represent fixed contractual obligations and account for a significant portion of the ODPA’s non-personnel budget. Given the structure of the lease, these expenditures are not subject to reduction without renegotiation or termination of the agreement.
1 Contract 32500083 – Date Executed August 23, 2024 – The Shamszad Family Trust – 1900 Addison Street, 3rd Fl 2 Since occupying the 1900 Addison Street Office, the ODPA has hosted two interns from UC Berkeley’s Public Service Center and four YouthWorks interns.
6
Janitorial Services
• Annual Cost: $16,307.28/Year
The office incurs ongoing janitorial service costs from Pride Industries3 to maintain the full leased space, regardless of actual utilization levels. While most adjustments to service frequency may be explored, most of these costs are tied to the size of the premises and are not easily reduced without affecting basic facility maintenance standards.
Security System and Dedicated Network (Wi-Fi)
• Private Wi-Fi/Network Cost: $3,240/Year
• Security System Costs: $3,270/Year
The lease required the installation and maintenance of a dedicated security system. Due to cybersecurity considerations, this system was not integrated into the City’s network infrastructure, necessitating a separate private wireless network. This has resulted in additional ongoing service costs that would not otherwise be incurred if integrated into existing City systems.
Operational Implications
Taken together, the lease, associated facility costs, and required infrastructure constitute a substantial fixed cost of approximately $209,510 in FY 2027 and $212,918 in FY 2028, which does not scale with current staffing levels or operational needs. While the space was originally intended to support a larger team and host PAB activities, current usage does not justify the full extent of these expenditures.
Absent structural changes, such as lease renegotiation, subleasing (if permitted), or relocation to a smaller space, these costs will continue to constrain the office’s ability to achieve deeper budget reductions. Conversely, depending on the actions taken and their outcomes, adjustments to these lease-related costs could generate sufficient savings to both meet the 10% to 12.5% reduction target and potentially restore funding to other areas that have been reduced. The ODPA will follow Council’s direction regarding the desired course of action and defer to the City’s Public Works Department, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, for guidance on appropriate next steps.
End of Memorandum.
3 Contract 32600004 – Date Executed: 7/24/2025 – Pride Industries, Inc – Citywide Custodial Services
FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget &
Reduction Proposals
Office of the Director of Police Accountability
Presented before the Budget & Finance Committee on April 9, 2026
Presentation Roadmap
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P2age 16
Current Staffing and Office
Structure
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P3age 17
Current Staffing and Structure
• Six (6) FTE positions authorized; four
(4) currently funded due to hiring freeze
• Vacant positions include a second
investigator and administrative staff
• Administrative responsibilities
reassigned to the Policy Analyst, with
support from the Data Analyst
• Reallocation of duties has reduced the
capacity to support PAB’s policy work
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P4age 18 Director
Data & Policy
Limited role
redundancy
constrains workload
distribution
A single investigator
is responsible for all
complaint intake and
investigations
Staff absences can
affect service
timelines and
responsiveness
Current operational
model presents long-
term sustainability
concerns
Operational Constraints
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P5age 19
ODPA Baseline Budget Overview
FY 2027 - 2028
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P6age 20
ODPA Baseline Budget Overview
ODPA Budget by Category (FY 2027–2028, $ in Thousands)
FY 27 Budget ($ in Thousands)
FY 28 Budget ($ in Thousands)
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 Personnel Lease Non-Personnel
Budget Category
FY 27 Budget
FY 27 (%)
FY 28 Budget
FY 28 (%)
Personnel $940,290.00 72.89% $975,596.00 73.37%
Lease $170,386.32 13.21% $173,794.08 13.07%
Non-Personnel $179,276.35 13.90% $180,255.31 13.56%
Total $ 1,289,952.67 100.00% $1,329,645.39 100.00%
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P7age 21
Proposed Reductions and
Impacts
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P8age 22
Where Reductions Occur Operational Impact
• Overtime - $10.2k
• Conference/Travel - $26.4k
• Tech Services - $23.4k
• Supplies & Misc. - $9.4k
• Parking Pass - $3k
• Core services and current staffing
maintained
• Reduced staffing flexibility
• Limited training and professional
development opportunities
To achieve the 10% to 12.5% reduction targets, the ODPA would need to identify an additional $57,000 to $95,000 in reductions, depending on the scenario.
Proposed Budget Reductions (5.6% | ~71.7k)
Maintains Core Operations; No Staffing Reductions
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals P9age 23
Constraints on Further Budget
Reductions
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals 1P0age 24
Constraints on Further Budget Reductions
• Fixed lease obligations limit the
ability to achieve further budget
reductions.
• Facility-related costs are high and
do not scale with operations,
totaling approximately $209k
(FY27) and $231k (FY28).
• The leased space was designed
for 6–7 FTEs plus interns; current
staffing and operational use are
below that level.
Image: PAB Meeting Space, 3rd Floor, 1900 Addison Street
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals 1P1age 25
ODPA Office Floor Plan at 1900 Addison Street
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals 1P2age 26
Feasibility asse ssment
Framework
Next Steps
April 9, 2026 FY 2027 – 2028 ODPA Budget & Reduction Proposals 1P3age 27
Katherine Lee
Interim Director of Police Accountability
Jose Murillo
Policy Analyst
Office of the Director of Police Accountability
Tel: (510) 981-4950
Email: [email protected]
Interna
02b
City Auditor Fiscal
Year 27-28 Budget
Reductions
Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
April 9th, 2026
Attachment #5
Interna
City A
uditor
FY 27-28
Budget
Reductions
Overview
•Overview of the Auditor’s Budget
•The Value of the Auditor’s Office
•Summary of Reductions
•Reductions: Non-Personnel
•Reductions: Personnel
•Salary Savings
Interna
Overview of the Auditor’s Budget
The Auditor’s Office makes up a small percentage of the City’s budget.
Total Expenditures in Millions,
Fiscal Year 2026
General Fund Expenditures in
Millions, Fiscal Year 2026
Other
departments
$779.2
Auditor
$3.8, or 0.4%
Other
departments
$292.3
Auditor
$3.7, or 1.3%
Source: Berkeley FY 25-26 Adopted Budget
Interna
Overview of the Auditor’s
Budget: City Charter
The duties of the Auditor are mandated
by the Berkeley City Charter.
Three divisions fulfill these Charter-
mandated duties:
• Performance Audit
• Whistleblower Program
• Payroll Audit
Interna
Overview of the Auditor’s Budget
City Auditor Budget in
Millions, FY 26
Other
Salaries and
Benefits
The Auditor’s Office maintains
15.75 FTEs among three divisions
Source: Berkeley FY 25-26 Adopted Budget
$3.5
$0.4
Interna
The Value of the Auditor’s Office
Performance Audit Division
Performance audits can lead to:
New revenue
Cost recovery
Increased efficiency and effectiveness
As a result of audit work, management implemented 36 audit recommendations in the past two years.
Interna
The Value of the Auditor’s Office
Whistleblower Program Division
Investigates allegations of fraud, waste and abuse of city resources.
Issues public reports for substantiated findings or issues that warrant transparency and broader awareness.
Strengthens internal controls and promotes accountable use of public funds.
Interna
The Value of the Auditor’s Office
Payroll Audit Division
Helps the City ensure payroll compliance and avoids the risk of financial errors and legal exposure.
High-performing as validated by external auditors.
Prevents costly errors, penalties and litigation.
Interna
Summary of Reductions
Auditor Baseline Budget, FY 2027
Personnel
89.5%
Non-
Personnel
Internal
Service,
6.6%
Non-
Personnel
Other,
3.9%
FY 2027: 7.3% reduction
FY 2028: 9% reduction
Source: ERMA
Interna
Reductions: Non-Personnel
Non-Personnel (Other) budget reduced by 38% in fiscal year 2027 and 32% in fiscal year 2028.
Impacts:
• Reduced training budget
• Reduced expenditures from Employee Access project
Interna
Reductions: Personnel
Personnel budget reduced by 7% in fiscal year 2027 and 9% in fiscal year 2028.
Strategies:
• Shifting fund sources for personnel
• Accounting for underfilled positions and staff members on leave The Auditor’s Office has no current vacancies.
Interna
Salary Savings
The Auditor’s Office has salary savings from prior years.
Additional one-time allocations will achieve a 10% overall budget reduction for fiscal years 2027 and 2028.
Interna
Questions?
BUDGET
CITY ATTORNEY
FISCAL YEARS 2027 and 2028
FARIMAH FAIZ BROWN – CITY ATTORNEY
KATRINA EILAND – INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
SARA STEPHENS – DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY IV
NATHAN DAHL – ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY
DARYNA LOCH – ASSISTANT MANAGEMENT ANALYST
APRIL 23, 2026
Attachment #6
A small town with a big voice
needs great lawyers.
The CAO mission is to provide the City with the highest caliber legal services and advice, and to protect and defend the interests of this dynamic City by all legal and ethical means.
When legal resources are stretched too thin,oversight weakens, and preventable problems can turn into expensive ones.
ATTORNEYS PARALEGAL &
SUPPORT TEAM
LAURA IRIS MATTES
ASHLEY CARTER
LAUREN PACKARD
SAMUEL HARVEY
STEPHEN HYLAS
FARIMAH FAIZ BROWN KATRINA EILAND
RUBI QUIHUIS
DARYNA LOCH
SARA STEPHENS
CITY ATTORNEY
NATHAN DAHL
.
CELESTINE SEALS HERSCHEL WINHELD
HALEY DEGENOVA
NUBYAAN SCOTT
KASSANDRA PEREZ
LEGISLATION
LITIGATION & CLAIMS
ADVICE AND REVIEW
§
I
CITY ATTORNEY
SUPPORTING
BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
INFORMATION AND
OPEN GOVERNMENT
RISK MANAGEMENT
The City Attorney's Office provides legal advice and support to all City Departments, the City Council, the City Manager, and City boards and ommissions, as well as the Library.
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Major Achievements
Surveillance Technology
Transportation and Micromobility
Use of Artificial Intelligence
EMBER Ordinance and Fire Code Amendments
CITY ATTORNEY
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CAO Drafting, Legal Review, and Advising on Noteworthy
Policies and Matters
Pier Ferry and development
in the Waterfront
Gilman Gateway Project
CEQA Work on Major Projects
People’s Park Including
Amicus Brief to the California
Supreme Court
CITY ATTORNEY
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Middle Housing zoning
amendments
ADU Legislation
Densit
y Bonus Legislation
Ashby Bart Station Project
Sanctuary City Ordinance
Advice on updates to the
Sanctuary Contracting
Ordinance
CITY ATTORNEY
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Responding to Shifts in Federal Policy
Drafting Resolution Limiting
Use of City Property
National Guard / Immigration
Enf
orcement Deployment
Advice
CITY ATTORNEY
Proactively Challenging Trump
Administration Attacks
Proactively challenged threats
to withhold federal funding,
successfully safeguarding
millions for supportive
housing, emergency
response, and transportation
improvements.
Monitored and advised on
nu
merous federal grant
questions and key federal
policy changes that impact
the City’s federally funded
programs.
All Federal Funding: SF v. Trump
Protects the City's approximately $60 million in current federal funds from revocation based on the City's sanctuary policies.
Health, Housing, and Transportation Funding: King County v. Turner Protects $14 million in HUD, HHS, and DOT funds from revocation based on, e.g., the City's DEI and gender identity-related policies.
Emergency/Hazard Mitigation Funding: Santa Clara v. Noem Protects $12.5 million in current City funds for fire and seismic safety and $27 million more in solicited funds.
PROTECTING FEDERAL FUNDING
CITY ATTORNEY
Monsanto Litigation and Settlement
CAO secured $2.1 million for the City
$400,000 allocated to the Public Liability Fund
$1.7
million allocated to other General Fund priorities
Opioid-Related Settlements
CAO has secured $1.56 million to date, which goes to fund pr
ograms and services through HHCS
GENERATING REVENUE FOR THE CITY
CITY ATTORNEY
Homeless Encampment-
Related Lawsuits (7)
RealPage First
Amendment Lawsuit (1)
Police & Tort Litigation (52)
CITY ATTORNEY
Employment Litigation (7)
Labor Arbitrations
and Charges (6)
Other Lawsuits (14)
Active Defensive Litigation
Past Year
Increasing Number
of Complex Litigation Matters
• An evolving legal landscape, new federal priorities, and the need to support City Council and staff initiatives has resulted in increasingly complex litigation matters handled by CAO. • Whe
n the City Council enacts groundbreaking legislation and advances other policies, the City Attorney’s Officehelps craft and defend those policies against legal challenge.
• Complex and novel litigation requires the City Attorney’s Office to expend significantly more resources.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ATTORNEY
FY26 Spending on Outside Counsel
for Non-Public Liability Matters
Encampment Cases
• Berkeley Homeless Union $111,037
• Prado $118,528
• F
uchs $ 26,132
• Dennison $ 28,212
TOTAL TO DATE: $283,909
Employment Litigation
• Public Works (1) $ 83,447
• Police Dispatch (6) $ 313,680
TOTAL TO DATE: $397,127
RealPage
TOTAL: $405,435
Labor Arbitrations
TOTAL TO DATE: $16,433
PAB Negotiations
TOTAL TO DATE: $298,798
Employment Investigations
• IT (1) $ 69,923
• P
lanning (1) $ 52,014
TOTAL TO DATE: $114,937
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FY 2025 & FY 2026 Budget
BUDGET BY EXPENDITURE TYPE
FY 25 Original Appropriation
CITY ATTORNEY
FY 25 Revised Budget
.
4.689
0.435
4.135
1.4 In Millions
Personnel -
Salary and
Benefits
Non-Personnel
Public Liability
(Includes Claims
and Judgments)
Outside Legal
Services
(Carryover)
5.176
0.435
3.678
In Millions
Personnel -
Salary and
Benefits
Non-Personnel
Public Liability
(Includes Claims
and Judgments)
BUDGET BY EXPENDITURE TYPE
FY 26 Original Appropriation
CITY ATTORNEY
FY 26 Revised Budget
.
5.627
0.435
4.893
2.069
In Millions
Personnel -
Salary and
Benefits
Non-Personnel
Public Liability
(Includes Claims
and Judgments)
Outside Legal
Services
(Carryover)
5.627
0.435
3.76 In Millions
Personnel -
Salary and
Benefits
Non-Personnel
Public Liability
(Includes Claims
and Judgments)
Reductions in Non- Personnel Budget
FY 26 Non-Personnel Budget
(Not Including Outside Counsel)
CITY ATTORNEY
.
65 48.2
82.7 168.7
21.5 9.8
10.4 5.8
7.3 In Thousands
In Thousands
FY 27 Non-Personnel Budget
(Not Including Outside Counsel)
180
0 82.7
168.7
19 8.5
2.3 0
0 In Thousands
In Thousands
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FY 2027 & FY 2028 Proposed Budget
FY27 and FY28 Biennial Budget
FY 27 Appropriation
CITY ATTORNEY
.
6.01 1.82
3.76 In Millions
Personnel - Salary
and Benefits
Non-Personnel
(Includes Funding
for Outside Legal
Services)
Public Liability
(Includes Claims
and Judgments)
5.87 1.82
3.76 In Millions
Personnel - Salary
and Benefits
Non-Personnel
(Includes Funding
for Outside Legal
Services)
Public Liability
(Includes Claims
and Judgments)
FY 28 Appropriation
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Changes, Challenges & Opportunities
LOOKING AHEAD:
CHANGES, CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Support for New Policy Initiatives
• The City Attorney staffs all City Council policy committee meetings and provides legal advice throughout the legislative process.
• The number and complexity of new, often groundbreaking ordinances and policies requires significant attorney time. • CAO conducts legal research, analyzes alternatives and the most defensible path forward, assists with drafting legislation, and defends the legislation against any legal challenges.
CITY ATTORNEY
LOOKING AHEAD:
CHANGES, CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
CITY ATTORNEY
Support for New Affirmative Litigation and
Generating Revenue for the City
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR SUPPORT
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/
PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services Subject: Animal Care Services Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution modifying the Animal Care Services fee schedule by changing existing fees and adopting new fees, and rescinding Resolution No. 66,174-N.S.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
In Fiscal Year 2026, the Animal Shelter received $33,103.38 (as of April 13) from the issuance of dog licenses and other shelter fees. If adopted, modifications to existing fees in the proposed fee schedule are estimated to result in a minimum marginal revenue increase of $30,502. This amount represents a conservative estimate, as quantifying the expected effects of certain fee changes (for example, increases to the fees associated with vicious or dangerous dogs) on behavioral outcomes among pet owners in Berkeley is extremely difficult. Although it is difficult to calculate the total revenue increase for all proposed fees due to fluctuating animal intakes, if these fees had been in effect for the 2025 calendar year, the shelter would have seen an additional $27,331 from adoption, owner-surrender, return-to-owner, and licensing fees alone.
Beginning in FY27, all revenues associated with the Animal Shelter will be deposited into the Animal Shelter Fund (Fund 115).
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Berkeley Animal Care Services (BACS) is currently responsible for the care of animals coming into its custody at the Dona Spring Animal Shelter for the Cities of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, and Piedmont, and provides animal control and field services for the Cities of Berkeley, Emeryville, and Albany as well BACS is an open-door facility which experiences a constant influx of animals that need to receive affordable veterinary care, treatment, and spay/neuter services. The BACS shelter is open to the public seven days a week to receive stray, surrendered and confiscated animals. Additionally, field services are provided seven days week, during which Animal Control Officers impound stray, surrendered and confiscated animals. Many animals arrive at the shelter sick or injured and in need of immediate veterinary care. On-site veterinary services include but
Animal Care Services Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
are not limited to: examining and diagnosing shelter animals, treating sick or injured animals, performing spay/neuter surgeries, and performing other routine surgeries.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, BACS, along with many other municipal shelters nationwide, has seen an increase in animals coming through its doors, as economic constraints associated with rising costs of living due to inflation and skyrocketing veterinary expenses have forced many current and would-be pet owners to make difficult decisions. BACS’ total intake in 2025 was 2,013 animals, with an annual budget of $2,467,728.83. This results in an average cost of $1,225.90 per animal. These costs represent unavoidable, fixed expenses associated with that animal’s basic care, including food, spay/neuter expenses, and other basic veterinary care. Like many divisions in the City, however, the BACS non-personnel budget allocation has not kept pace with the rising cost of doing business. For example, the cost of veterinary care has increased by roughly 40% since 2020, representing an unavoidable and growing burden to the BACS operational budget. Inflation has put similar upward pressure on utility costs and other amenities at the shelter, which has strained BACS’ budget in significant ways.
Meanwhile, the BACS fee schedule has not been increased since 2013, when Council adopted Resolution No. 66,174-N.S., warranting the modification of existing fees to better align with current market rates with neighboring jurisdictions. Moreover, BACS currently does not charge fees to recover some of the costs associated with basic community services, such as the requested disposal of deceased animals from community members and partner organizations or the administration of basic vaccine schedules for animals at the shelter.
For these reasons, BACS recommends Council rescind the fee schedule from 2013 (Resolution No. 66,174-N.S.) and adopt a resolution to replace it with a modified and modernized fee schedule that better aligns with BACS’ current practices and competitive market pricing. Adopting a modern animal services fee schedule is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide an efficient and financially- health City government.
BACKGROUND
In 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 66,174-N.S. which established a fee schedule for Berkeley Animal Care Services. Those fees have not been modified since that time, nor does it authorize fees that recover the costs associated with a variety of other services performed by BACS and which are authorized by the California Food and Agricultural Code and the California Health and Safety Code, including the administration of fancier’s permits, dead animal disposals, and vaccine-related expenses.
BACS’ total intake in 2025 -- the last full year for which data are available -- was 2,013 animals, with an annual budget of $2,467,728,83. This results in an average cost of
Animal Care Services Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
$1,225.90 per animal. In FY2025, BACS generated $305,995 in revenues (or $152 per animal), far short of the costs to provide services to those animals.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The modification of the BACS fee schedule is not anticipated to have any effects on the City’s environmental or climate sustainability goals and priorities.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Current fees are not reflective of the expenses associated with the provision of services to the animals in the care of BACS or in the broader community. Moreover, the BACS fee schedule has not been updated since 2013 and is no longer competitive with market pricing or the fees charged for similar services in neighboring jurisdictions.
Staff recommend not only updating the fees, but also establishing new fees that recover costs associated with a variety of services currently provided at no expense to the community, including the safe disposal of deceased animals, the administration of a variety of vaccines and other medications, and staff time associated with a variety of field services including deceased animal pickups and inspection of properties for the release of animals deemed dangerous or vicious.
BACS performed an analysis of the fees collected for similar services in neighboring jurisdictions. The results of those analyses supports the proposed fee schedule modifications and is provided below:
Animal Care Services Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
Current
BACS OAS SFACC Contra
Costa
Alameda
City Antioch Solano
County
Sonoma
County
Comp
Shelters
Shelter
Average
Adoption
Dog $125.00 $165.00 $180.00 $135.00 $122.00 $125.00 $155.00 $159.00 7 $148.71 Dog 6yrs+ $125.00 $165.00 $180.00 $85.00 $122.00 $125.00 $77.50 $117.00 7 $124.50 Cat $100.00 $75.00 $127.00 $100.00 $98.00 $90.00 $125.00 $101.00 7 $102.29 Cat 6yrs+ $100.00 $75.00 $127.00 $55.00 $98.00 $90.00 $62.50 $69.00 7 $82.36 Puppy $125.00 $165.00 $403.00 $155.00 $153.00 $125.00 $155.00 $212.00 7 $195.43 Kitten $100.00 $75.00 $200.00 $120.00 $122.00 $90.00 $125.00 $138.00 7 $124.29 Rabbit $25.00 $40.00 $35.50 $25.00 $61.00 $16.00 $25.00 $53.00 7 $36.50 Guinea Pig/Hamster/etc $10.00 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00 $12.00 $7.00 $25.00 $16.00 7 $14.29 Bird $25.00 $10.00 $20.00 - $12.00 - $25.00 - 4 $16.75
Licenses
Altered 1yr $15.00 $20.00 $32.00 $25.00 $12.00 $25.00 $20.00 $17.00 7 $21.57 Altered 2yr $28.00 $35.00 $47.00 $60.00 $18.00 $40.00 $36.00 - 6 $39.33 Altered 3yr $40.00 $50.00 $63.00 $60.00 $24.00 $55.00 $53.00 - 6 $50.83 Unalt 1yr $75.00 $113.56 $79.00 $65.00 $61.00 $50.00 $40.00 $20.00 7 $61.22 Unalt 2yr - $198.73 $150.00 $180.00 $73.00 $80.00 $76.00 - 6 $126.29 Unalt 3yr - $255.50 $221.00 $180.00 $86.00 $110.00 $113.00 - 6 $160.92 Sr-own Alt 1 yr $0.00 $15.00 $16.00 - $6.00 $12.50 $10.00 $15.00 6 $12.42 Sr-own Alt 2 yr $0.00 $28.00 $23.00 - $12.00 $20.00 $16.00 - 5 $19.80 Sr-own Alt 3 yr $0.00 $40.00 $31.50 - $18.00 $27.50 $23.00 - 5 $28.00 Sr-own Unalt 1 yr $75.00 $85.17 $39.50 - $6.00 $25.00 $40.00 $20.00 6 $35.95 Sr-own Unalt 2 yr - $149.04 $75.00 - $12.00 $40.00 $76.00 - 5 $70.41 Sr-own Unalt 3 yr - $191.63 $110.50 - $18.00 $55.00 $113.00 - 5 $97.63 Cat License $75.00 - $19.00 - - - - $12.00 2 $15.50
Duplicate $10.00 $9.00 $9.00 $7.00 $6.00 $7.00 $21.00 $12.00 7 $10.14 Expired/Late fee $20.00 $20.00 $39.00 $54.00 $24.00 $40.00 $25.00 $9.00 7 $30.14 Transfer fee - $28.39 - $20.00 - $7.00 $23.00 $12.00 5 $18.08 RTO/Impound/Surrender/Daily
Altered Cat RTO - - $47.00 - $31.00 - $50.00 - 3 $42.67 Altered Dog RTO - - $47.00 - - - $50.00 - 2 $48.50
Unaltered RTO - - $82.00 - - - $50.00 - 2 $66.00
Non Cat/Dog RTO - - $47.00 - $49.00 - $50.00 - 3 $48.67 1st Impound (12 mos) $50.00 $58.00 $47.00 $65.00 $55.00 $30.00 $35.00 - 6 $48.33 2nd Impound $50.00 $100.00 $95.00 $100.00 $116.00 $75.00 $50.00 - 6 $89.33 3rd Impound $50.00 $200.00 $142.00 $150.00 $214.00 $120.00 $100.00 - 6 $154.33 Unalt/Unlic 1st Impound $75.00 $58.00 $82.00 $ 35.00 $110.00 $85.00 $35.00 - 6 $67.50 Unalt/Unlic 2nd Im
pound $75.00 $100.00 $141.00 $50.00 $153.00 $138.00 $50.00 - 6 $105.33 Unalt/Unlic 3rd Impound $75.00 $200.00 $242.00 $100.00 $244.00 $281.00 $100.00 - 6 $194.50 Surrender Fee (OTC) $25.00 $68.25 - $45.00 - $80.00 $134.00 - 4 $81.81 Surrender Fee (field) $25.00 $68.25 $63.00 $235.00 - $80.00 $134.00 - 5 $116.05 Daily Boarding/Care $20.00 $27.04 $39.00 $25.00 $24.00 $20.00 $20.00 - 6 $25.84 Deceased
Disposal $26.25 $32.00 $30.00 - $30.00 $29.00 - 5 $29.45 Euthanasia Request - $38.00 - - $45.00 $134.00 - 3 $72.33 P/U- 1 officer (<10lbs) $71.00 - - - - $209.00 - 2 $140.00 P/U- 1 officer (>10lbs) $97.25 - - - - $209.00 - 2 $153.13 P/U- 2 officers (60+lbs) $168.25 - - - - - - 1 $168.25
Dangerous
Potentially Dangerous - $177.00 $250.00 $500.00 - $570.00 $90.00 - 5 $317.40 Vicious or Dangerous $50.00 $284.00 $250.00 $900.00 - $870.00 $90.00 - 5 $478.80 Inspection/Home Q $75.00 $71.00 - $100.00 $100.00 $110.00 $118.00 - 5 $99.80 Labor Fee (hourly) - $71.00 - $46.00 - - - 2 $58.50
10 Day Quarantine $200.00 $270.40 $390.00 $350.00 - $390.00 $370.00 - 5 $354.08 Medical
Microchip $15.00 $10.00 $11.00 $18.00 $24.00 $25.00 $30.00 $34.00 7 $21.71 Vaccines (rabies) - - $15.00 $20.00 - $25.00 $28.00 - 4 $22.00 Spay/Neuter - $150.00 - $125.00 - $120.00 $160.00 - 4 $138.75 Fanciers Permit
1st Application - - - - - - $181.00 - 1 $181.00
2nd Application - - - - - - - - - -
3rd Application - - - - - - - - - -
Subsequent Application - - - - - - - - - -
Animal Care Services Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Mike St. Pierre, Animal Care Services Manager, (510) 981-6603.
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Fee Schedule
2: Proposed Fee Schedule showing changes from 2013
3: Public Hearing Notice
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
UPDATING THE BERKELEY ANIMAL CARE SERVCICES FEE SCHEDULE, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 66,174-N.S.
WHEREAS, Berkeley Animal Care Services is the municipal animal shelter of last resort for the Cities of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, and Piedmont, and provides animal control and field services for the Cities of Berkeley, Albany, and Emeryville; and WHEREAS, in 2025, Animal Care Services took in 2013 animals, with an average cost of $1,225.90 per animal served; and
WHEREAS, these costs represent unavoidable, fixed expenses associated with that animal’s basic care, including food, spay/neuter and other basic veterinary care; and WHEREAS, the costs of providing these services has risen over the past several years, placing growing constraints on the Animal Care Services budget; and WHEREAS, to recover costs associated with the provision of these services, the City Council of the City of Berkeley adopted Resolution No. 66,174-N.S. in 2013, establishing a schedule of animal care and animal shelter fees and charges; and WHEREAS, this Animal Care Services fee schedule has not been modified since 2013 and is no longer reflective of the costs of such goods and services, nor competitive with fees from neighboring jurisdictions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the rates and charges, including fee modifications and the establishment of new fees, as set forth in Exhibit A are hereby fixed and established for Berkeley Animal Care Services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (1) the fees set forth in Exhibit A shall become effective on July 1, 2026, and (2) Resolution No. 66,174-N.S., is hereby rescinded as of that date.
Exhibits
A: Fee Schedule
May 19, 2026
EXHIBIT A
ANIMAL CARE SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE
Adoption Fees
Dog $150
Dog 6yrs+ $150
Cat $100
Cat 6yrs+ $100
Puppy $175
Kitten $150
Rabbit $25
Guinea Pig/Hamster/etc $15
Bird $25
Senior (65+) Cat/Kitten $75
Senior (65+) Dog/Puppy $75
Licenses
Altered 1yr $20
Altered 2yr $30
Altered 3yr $45
Unaltered 1yr $150
Sr-own Alt 1 yr $10
Sr-own Alt 2 yr $15
Sr-own Alt 3 yr $20
Sr-own Unaltered 1 yr $50
Cat License Alt (life) $50
Cat License Unaltered (life) $100
Duplicate $10
Expired/Late fee $25
Transfer fee $15
Return to Owner (RTO)/Impound/Surrender/Daily
Altered Cat RTO $25
Altered Dog RTO $25
Unaltered RTO $250
May 19, 2026
Non Cat/Dog RTO $10
1st Impound $0
2nd Impound $75
3rd Impound $100
Unaltered/Unlicensed $100
Surrender Fee (OTC) $50
Surrender Fee (field) $150
Daily Boarding/Care $25(dog) $20(cat)
Deceased Animals
Disposal (individual) $0
Disposal (group/rescue) $25
Pickup - 1 officer (<10lbs) $125
Pickup - 1 officer (>10lbs) $150
Pickup - 2 officers (60+lbs) $175
Dangerous/Misc
Potentially Dangerous $200
Vicious or Dangerous $400
Inspection/Home Q $100
Labor Fee (hourly) $55
10 Day Quarantine (dog) $250
10 Day Quarantine (cat) $200
Medical
Microchip $10
Spay/Neuter Dog or Cat $125
Fanciers Permit
Per Litter Permit $500
Vaccine and Medical
Rabies $15
Advantage II Dog (dose) $15
Advantage Multi Cat (dose) $20
Drontal Plus <25lbs (dose) $10
May 19, 2026
Drontal Plus >25lbs $15
1-DAPPv (per dose) $15
Intra-Trac3 (Bord) (per dose) $15
HCP (FVRCP) (per dose) $15
May 19, 2026
Proposed Fee Schedule showing changes from 2013
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Change
Adoption
Dog $125 $150 $25
Dog 6yrs+ $125 $150 $25
Cat $100 $100 $0
Cat 6yrs+ $100 $100 $0
Puppy $125 $175 $50
Kitten $100 $150 $50
Rabbit $25 $25 $0
Guinea Pig/Hamster/etc $10 $15 $5
Bird $25 $25 $0
Senior (65+) Cat/Kitten - $75 $50
Senior (65+) Dog/Puppy - $75 $50
Licenses
Altered 1yr $15 $20 $5
Altered 2yr $28 $30 $2
Altered 3yr $40 $45 $5
Unaltered 1yr $75 $150 $75
Sr-own Altered 1 yr - $10 $10
Sr-own Altered 2 yr - $15 $15
Sr-own Altered 3 yr - $20 $20
Sr-own Unaltered 1 yr - $50 $50
Cat License Altered (life) $75 $50 -$25
Cat License Unaltered (life) - $100 $100
Duplicate $10 $10 $0
Expired/Late fee $20 $25 $5
Transfer fee - $15 $15
Return to Owner
(RTO)/Impound/Surrender/Daily
Altered Cat RTO - $25 $25
May 19, 2026
Altered Dog RTO - $25 $25
Unaltered RTO - $250 $250
Non Cat/Dog RTO - $10 $10
1st Impound $50 $0 -$50
2nd Impound $50 $75 $25
3rd Impound $50 $100 $50
Unaltered/Unlicensed $75 $100 $25
Unaltered/Unlicensed 2nd Impound $75 - -$75
Unaltered/Unlicensed 3rd Impound $75 - -$75
Surrender Fee (OTC) $25 $50 $25
Surrender Fee (field) $25 $150 $125
Daily Boarding/Care $20 $25(dog)
$20(cat) $5
Deceased Animals
Disposal (individual) - $0 $0
Disposal (group/rescue) - $25 $25
Euthanasia Request - Donation
Pickup - 1 officer (<10lbs) - $125 $125
Pickup - 1 officer (>10lbs) - $150 $150
Pickup - 2 officers (60+lbs) - $175 $175
Dangerous/Misc
Potentially Dangerous - $200 $200
Vicious or Dangerous $50 $400 $350
Inspection/Home Q $75 $100 $25
Labor Fee (hourly) - $55 $55
10 Day Quarantine (dog) $200 $250 $50
10 Day Quarantine (cat) - $200 $200
Medical
Microchip $15 $10 -$5
Spay/Neuter Dog or Cat - $125 $125
Fanciers Permit
Per Litter Permit - $500 $500
May 19, 2026
Vaccine and Medical
Rabies - $15 $15
Advantage II Dog (dose) - $15 $15
Advantage Multi Cat (dose) - $20 $20
Drontal Plus <25lbs (dose) - $10 $10
Drontal Plus >25lbs - $15 $15
1-DAPPv (per dose) - $15 $15
Intra-Trac3 (Bord) (per dose) - $15 $15
HCP (FVRCP) (per dose) - $15 $15
May 19, 2026
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
REVISIONS TO BERKELEY ANIMAL CARE SERVICES FEE
SCHEDULE
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a public hearing will be conducted by said city council of the City of Berkeley at which time and place all persons may attend and be heard upon the following:
Berkeley Animal Care Services is proposing to modify the existing schedule of fees collected for animal adoptions, intakes, licenses, return to owner (RTO)/impound/surrender/daily, deceased animals, dangerous animals, fanciers permit medical procedures, and other services provided by Animal Care Services.
The hearing will be held on May 19 at 6:00 PM in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.
For further information, please contact Mike St. Pierre, Animal Care Services Manager, at (510) 981-6603.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of May 7, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 12 days prior to the public hearing.
May 19, 2026
Published: May 1 and May 8, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice
Published pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 7, 2026.
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
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/
PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services Subject: Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution adopting the proposed Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement fee schedule.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
If adopted, the proposed Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Fee Schedule would implement fees for re-inspections of properties after administrative citations; off- hour inspections; and certain administrative cost recovery fees. The anticipated fiscal impacts of each are as follows:
In Fiscal Year 2025, the last full year for which data are available, Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement issued 5 citations. Each citation typically results in 1 re-inspection to evaluate compliance and typically requires 1.5 hours (estimated time-can vary depending on each case) of staff time per each re-inspection.
Assuming FY2025 trends continue, this would result in anticipated revenues of roughly $1,950 annually.
Neighborhood Services rarely conducts weekend or evening inspections but could recover the costs associated with doing so for emergency situations posing health or safety implications for the property owner or public moving forward. As these instances remain very rare, revenues brought in are difficult to quantify but would be marginal (no more than several hundred to a few thousand dollars annually).
The administrative components associated with certain code enforcement actions, such as the staff time associated with pursuing administrative warrants or preparing for hearings, are significant and also subject to cost recovery fees.
In FY 2025, Neighborhood Services attended 2 hearings, each requiring an estimated 2 hours of staff time, thus bringing in $520 in revenues if present trends continued. Abatement and inspection warrants are rare (Neighborhood Services has not pursued one in several years) so anticipated revenues from
Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2026
these fees is marginal; however, they are important to adopt, since when they are needed, they incur significant burdens on staff.
Overall, these fees would result in an anticipated $2,470 in revenues annually, which will be deposited as general revenues into the General Fund (Fund 011).
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement is charged with enforcing general provisions of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), and with coordinating the City’s code enforcement strategies and response in complex cases where violations span the enforcement authority of multiple divisions and departments. Over the course of the 2025 Calendar Year, the NS Code Enforcement Unit, which consists of one Code Enforcement Supervisor and two Code Enforcement Officers, created nearly 400 new cases based on complaints received and closed over 400 cases that year as well.
Because the City’s preference is to avoid citation and instead work with property owners to achieve voluntary compliance with the code, the number of cases that proceed to the issuance of an administrative citation is a relatively smaller proportion of the total cases over the course of any given year (1.25% in FY2025). However, when a case does proceed to the point of citation, it creates significant administrative demands in the form of multiple re-inspections as well as the potential for hearings and, in extreme cases, the pursuit of court warrants for City-initiated remediation. However, NS Code Enforcement currently recovers none of the costs associated with post-citation administrative efforts. Additionally, in the relatively rare event that a certain case poses potential or active health/safety implications for the property owner or surrounding community, having the flexibility to charge premium rates for inspections after business hours (nights/weekends) allows NS Code Enforcement to more flexibly accommodate a property owner’s schedule in performing an expedited inspection (absent a court warrant, all inspections that require entrance onto a property require the consent of the property owner).
If after prolonged attempts to achieve compliance, a property owner still fails to do so, staff believe that it is reasonable that the City recover the costs associated with the significant administrative demands placed on staff for post-citation administrative work.
Therefore, staff recommend Council adopt a fee schedule for Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement. Adopting the proposed code enforcement fee schedule is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to provide an efficient and financially- health City government.
BACKGROUND
Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement is responsible for enforcing general provisions of the BMC, and working with/coordinating the efforts of multiple city departments in complex cases with violations that span many provisions of the BMC.
Currently, NS Code Enforcement does not recover any of the costs associated with
Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2026
general code enforcement, despite this cost-recovery authority across the multiple departments it coordinates and actively partners with.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The creation of a new Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement fee schedule is not anticipated to have any effects on the City’s environmental or climate sustainability goals and priorities.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Because the City’s default orientation is code compliance rather than code enforcement, Neighborhood Services works flexibly with property owners to modify timelines and account for extenuating circumstances (e.g., pre-planned vacations during a code enforcement compliance timeline). This flexible, customer service-oriented approach is reflected in both the relatively small percentage of cases that actually proceed to citation (1.25% in 2025) and the relatively long average time to case completion (as of March, 2026, an average of 90 days for active cases). If after prolonged attempts to achieve compliance, a property owner still fails to do so, staff believe that it is reasonable that the City recover the costs associated with the significant administrative demands placed on staff for post-citation re-inspections, hearing preparations, and (in extreme and rare cases) the pursuit of administrative warrants for mandatory inspections and abatements.
Fee amounts were calculated by determining the average hourly expense per FTE in the Code Enforcement unit, accounting both for personnel expenses (wages and benefits) and the unit’s share of the Neighborhood Services’ non-personnel budget (due to anticipated changes to the Neighborhood Services baseline budget as part of the City’s budget balancing strategy, anticipated FY27 appropriations were used for both calculations). Calculated hourly rates were $175. The final fee schedule was derived by multiplying by the average hourly time to completion per inspection for fixed fees and charging an hourly rate of $175 for normal business hours or $260 (1.5x the hourly rate) for weekend or non-business hours. These resultant fees are broadly consistent with those currently charged by the Planning and Development Department for similar inspection and administrative activity.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Jeff Conner, Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement Supervisor, (510) 981-2492.
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Fee Schedule
2: Public Hearing Notice
Internal
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
UPDATING THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CODE ENFORCEMENT FEE
SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement is charged with enforcing general provisions of the Berkeley Municipal Code and coordinating the code enforcement efforts across multiple city departments in complex code enforcement cases; and WHEREAS, because the City’s default orientation is code compliance rather than code enforcement, Neighborhood Services works flexibly with property owners to modify timelines and account for extenuating circumstances; and WHEREAS, despite these efforts to achieve voluntary code compliance, some code enforcement cases do proceed to citation; and
WHEREAS, after the issuance of a citation, city staff can incur significant costs for post- citation re-inspections, hearing preparations, and (in extreme and rare cases) the pursuit of administrative warrants for mandatory inspections and abatements; and WHEREAS, the City currently does not have a fee schedule to recover these costs; and WHEREAS, broad authority to recover post-citation code enforcement costs is authorized by California Government Code Section 54988 and Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter
1.24. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the rates and charges set forth in Exhibit A are hereby fixed and established for Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the fees set forth in Exhibit A shall become effective on July 1, 2026.
Exhibits
A: Fee Schedule
May 19, 2026
EXHIBIT A
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CODE
ENFORCEMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Code Compliance Inspections (Post Issuance
of Administrative citation)
First Re-inspection of Violations $260
Second Re-inspection of Violations $390
Third Re-inspection of Violations $525
Additional Re-inspections $650
Other inspections
Weekend Inspection** $260
Non Standard City Business Hours Inspection
(occurring after 4 p.m. to 8 a.m.)*** $260
Administrative Service Fees*
Abatement/Inspection warrant $175
Hearings $175
* per hour of staff time, with minimum of one hour
** per hour, with a minimum of 4 hours
*** per hour, with a minimum of 2 hours
May 19, 2026
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CODE ENFORCEMENT FEE SCHEDULE
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a public hearing will be conducted by said city council of the City of Berkeley at which time and place all persons may attend and be heard upon the following:
Neighborhood Services is proposing to create a new schedule to recover administrative costs associated with code compliance inspections, hearing preparations, and abatement/inspection warrant preparations.
The hearing will be held on May 19 at 6:00 PM in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.
For further information, please contact Jeff Conner, Neighborhood Services Code Enforcement, at (510) 981-2492.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of May 7, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 12 days prior to the public hearing.
Published: May 1 and May 8, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice
May 19, 2026
Published pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 7, 2026.
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
PUBLIC HEARING
May 19, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Department
Subject: Changes to the Environmental Health Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution:
1. Approving revisions to the fee schedule for the Environmental Health Division (EHD) effective July 1, 2026, and,
2. Rescinding Resolution No. 71,354-N.S. effective July 1, 2026.
SUMMARY
The fees currently charged by the EHD have remained largely unchanged since 2011 while inflation has increased approximately 40%.
While additional facility categories and fees were added to the EHD fee schedule in 2016, 2021, and 2024 to reflect newly created categories of food facilities as defined in the California Retail Food Code (CRFC), existing fees were not updated or increased at those times. Medical marijuana dispensaries were added in 2016, microenterprise home kitchen operations were added in 2021, and compact mobile food operations were added in 2024. There have been no increases to any of these new fees.
The Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS) Department is proposing a new comprehensive fee structure (attached) needed to sustain EHD operations. The proposed fee structure and recommendations are based on a cost-of-service study, facilitated by third-party consultant, Wohlford Consulting.
The goals of this study included:
Updating the current EHD fee structure to reflect actual work effort, complexity and cost of service; and
Aligning the City’s current permit and hourly fees with surrounding Bay Area Environmental Health jurisdictions; and
Changes to the Environmental Health Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2026
Assessing fees based on the different levels of “risk” to the public associated with different facility risk profiles and establishing fees accordingly.
There are 139 proposed fees included in this recommendation. Below are examples and a comparison of other Bay Area jurisdictions for some of the most common fees.
The table shows current and proposed fees for the City. Alameda County has not updated their fees since 2021.
Table 1
Fee Comparison (Annual rates) Between City of Berkeley & Bay Area Counties Facility
Type
Berkeley
Current
Berkeley
Proposed
Alameda
Effective
7/1/21
San
Francisco
Effective
7/1/25-
6/30/26
Contra
Costa
Effective
6/24/25
Santa Clara
Effective
1/15/2026
San Mateo
Effective
1/1/25
Full-Service
Restaurant $704 $1,004 $998 $1,103 $2,132 $2,281 $2,460 Retail Grocery
Store
(15,000 sq ft)
$1,409 $1,780 $589 $1,358 $2,249 $1,001 $1,524
Fast-Food
Franchise
(standardized
practices)
$1,171 $1,325 $1,194 $1,664 $1,823 $1,549 $1,938
High-Risk
Pool/Spa $704 $1,155 $891 $842 $1,581 $1,292 $1,244
Body Art
Facility $366 $810 $435 $1,773 $871 $845 $778
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed fee structure is designed to move the EHD toward a sustainable cost- recovery model. Currently, the City subsidizes EHD’s operating budget by approximately $980,000 in General Fund resources annually.
As summarized in Table 2 below, adopting the new fee structure will:
Generate Revenue: Increase annual EHD revenue by approximately $666,663 in FY 27 (with an annual consumer price index adjustment). Expand Capacity: Provide the resources to hire two (2) additional inspectors (increasing staff from 4 FTE to 6 FTE) to be able to perform required inspections in a timely manner.
Modernize Operations: Increased staffing will also support a public-facing placard program and the transition to the Accela Civic Platform.
Changes to the Environmental Health Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2026
Fiscal Relief: Reduce the General Fund subsidy by approximately $229,960 annually once the placard program is fully implemented.
Table 2
New Fee Structure
5-year projection: FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031
Revenue increase $666,663 $686,663 $707,263 $728,481 $750,335 Ongoing Exp Increase 2 FTE $436,703 $447,621 $458,811 $470,281 $482,038 Additional General Fund
Revenue (Rev-Exp):
$229,960 $239,042 $248,452 $258,200 $268,297
With respect to the 2 additional FTE staff, HHCS anticipates hiring them in FY 2027, after submitting the request as part of the AAO#1 process.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City Auditor issued a report on July 10, 2024, Berkeley Restaurant Inspections:
Chronically Understaffed Program Did Not Meet Targets1. The staffing shortage referenced in the report has prevented the Environmental Health Division (EHD) from meeting its essential inspection targets, potentially compromising food inspection oversight.
These findings were further substantiated by a comprehensive cost-of-service study and time-study analysis conducted by Wohlford Consulting. The analysis revealed the following:
Staffing Gap: Based on a baseline of 4,533 total annual inspections and a standard of 697 inspections per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), the City requires 6 FTEs to meet its targets. EHD currently only has 4 FTEs dedicated to inspections, resulting in a 2 FTE staffing deficit.
Budgetary Subsidy: Because inspection fees have remained largely flat since 2011, the City’s General Fund currently subsidizes EHD operations by approximately $980,000 annually.
Technological Needs: EHD is currently burdened by additional costs associated with transitioning from its legacy software (Envision Connect) to the Accela Civic Platform, a necessary move to improve data accuracy and customer service. 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley_Restaurant_Inspections_- _Chronically_Understaffed_Program_Did_Not_Meet_Targets.pdf
Changes to the Environmental Health Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2026
To address the issues outlined above, the proposed fee schedule has been proposed for City Council consideration. If adopted by the City Council, this comprehensive fee update will allow the City to adequately staff the food facility inspection program, improve transparency through placarding, and ultimately reduce the General Fund burden by approximately $229,960 annually.
New fees are proposed to go into effect on July 1, 2026, which does not impact current facility operators for calendar year 2026. Since permit fee invoicing occurs on a calendar year basis (typically in December for the following calendar year), current operators have already been billed for calendar year 2026. The new proposed fees would impact new facilities beginning operations on, or after, July 1, 2026. Facility owners will be notified of the fee changes/increases by US Mail, within two weeks of Council adoption, to allow for ample planning in advance. In addition, environmental health inspectors will notify facility operators in person during regular inspections, after Council adoption of new fees.
BACKGROUND
The EHD administers various public health programs. These programs rely primarily upon fees for their operation and fall into two main categories:
1. State-Mandated Programs (Fee-Supported)
Retail Food Safety Inspection Program
Public Pool and Spa Inspection Program
Tattoo and Body Piercing Registration Program
2. Local Programs (Required by Berkeley Municipal Code) are funded by grants, assessment district proceeds, or City special revenue funds. Vector Control Program
Styrofoam Ban
Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program
Restaurant Stormwater Protection Inspection Program
Sewer Emergency Response Program
Tobacco Licensing Program
Water Quality Monitoring Program (for the Aquatic Park, as an additional public health inspection service)
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Adjusting fees for the EHD programs will not negatively impact sustainability and climate impact goals. Several programs administered by the EHD support the City’s sustainability efforts.
Changes to the Environmental Health Fee Schedule PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2026
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
When fees are not regularly adjusted to keep pace with costs, service delivery becomes subsidized through other means. Over time, if left uncorrected, this will add to the structural budget deficit or force reductions in service time and quality. The fee changes proposed in this action would properly charge currently permitted businesses and prospective applicants for the expected costs of providing those services, without reducing the timeliness or efficiency of the services provided.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could consider not approving the fee increases; however, this would increase health and safety risk.
CONTACT PERSON
Scott Gilman, Department Director, HHCS, (510) 981-5100 Ronald Torres, Manager, Environmental Health Division, HHCS, (510) 981-5261 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Proposed New Environmental Health Fee schedule 2: Public Hearing Notice
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
FEE SCHEDULE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REGULATION AND
INSPECTIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026
WHEREAS, Environmental Health program fees are intended to cover the actual costs of permit and inspection services; and
WHEREAS, the present fees for retail food facilities, recreational health, body art, and tobacco retail licenses have remained largely unchanged since 2011, while inflation has increased by approximately 40% during the same period; and WHEREAS, a 2024 City Auditor report and a 2025 cost-of-service study confirmed that the Environmental Health Division (EHD) is understaffed by 2.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), preventing the City from meeting mandated inspection targets; and WHEREAS, the City currently subsidizes EHD operations by approximately $980,000 annually from the General Fund due to the gap between current fee revenue and the actual cost of service; and
WHEREAS, Council previously adopted Resolutions 67,495 (2016), 69,891 (2021), and 71,354 (2024) to add new facility categories, but these actions did not increase existing fee rates to keep pace with rising staffing and operational costs; and WHEREAS, the EHD is undergoing a necessary transition to the Accela Civic Platform and intends to implement a public-facing placard program to increase data accuracy and public transparency; and
WHEREAS, the recommended adoption of the new fee structure will result in an estimated $666,663 increase in annual revenue in FY 27, thereby reducing the General Fund subsidy of the EHD by approximately $229,960 annually, and ensure the long-term sustainability of public health oversight.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Resolution 71,354-N.S. is hereby rescinded effective June 30, 2026.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Proposed Annual Fees in the Fee Schedule for Environmental Health services, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, are hereby adopted to cover the costs of regulations and inspections required by the Berkeley Municipal Code and the California Retail Food Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 2026.
EXHIBITS
A: Proposed New Environmental Health Fee schedule