Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 2 of 9)

Page 1 ends

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Land Acknowledgement Statement: The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of xučyun (Huchiun (Hooch-yoon)), the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo (Cho-chen-yo)-speaking Ohlone (Oh-low-nee) people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone Tribes and descendants of the Verona Band. As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 -year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shellmound, and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay. We recognize that Berkeley’s residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land since the City of Berkeley’s incorporation in 1878. As stewards of the laws regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today. The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lisjan Tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.

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

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

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Up to ten persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons are identified to provide non-agenda comment, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons are selected to address matters not on the Council agenda, each person selected will be allotted one minute each.

In-person attendees wishing to address the Council on matters not on the Council agenda during the initial ten-minute period for such comment, must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk in person at the meeting location and prior to the moment that the Presiding Officer calls for public comment on non - agenda items. Remote attendees must raise their hand in the videoconference application when the Presiding Officer calls for non-agenda speakers. The first five raised hands on the videoconference application will be selected to speak and the first five cards drawn at the meeting will be selected to speak. The number of in-person and remote speakers selected may be adjusted by the Presiding Officer if fewer than five speakers from either format are identified.

The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Public Comment by Employee Unions (first regular meeting of the month): This period of public comment is reserved for officially designated representatives of City of Berkeley employee unions, with five minutes allocated per union if representatives of three or fewer unions wish to speak and up to three minutes per union if representatives of four or more unions wish to speak.

Page 2 ends

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 3
Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar for it to move to Action.

Items that remain on the “Consent Calendar” are voted on in one motion as a group. “Information” items are not discussed or acted upon at the Council meeting unless they are moved to “Action” or “Consent ”.

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

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

Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

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

Consent Calendar

1. Write-Off of a Delinquent Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Balance of $42,755 Owed by Minuteman Press (Synthesis Group, Inc)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the write-off of the outstanding loan balance of $42,755 owed by Synthesis Group, Inc. to the City’s Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) in accordance with the RLF Administrative Plan.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development, (510) 981-7530

2. Temporary Appropriations FY 2027
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing a temporary appropriation in the sum of $60,000,000 to cover payroll and other expenses from July 1, 2026, until the effective date of the FY 2027 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Page 3 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 4

3. FY 2027 Special Tax Rate: Fund the Provision of Library Relief Act of 2024 (Measure X)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for the Library Relief Act of 2024, approved by Berkeley voters in the November 2024 election, for funding the provision of Library Services in the City of Berkeley at $0.06297 (6.297 cents) per square foot for dwelling units and $0.09446 (9.446 cents) per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Bankhead, Library, (510) 981-6100, Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

4. FY 2027 Special Tax Rate: Fund the Provision of Library Services From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution to recommend that the Berkeley City Council set the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the provision of Library Services in the City of Berkeley at $0.3128 (31.28 cents) per square foot for dwelling units and $0.4729 (47.29 cents) per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Bankhead, Library, (510) 981-6100, Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

5. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Business License Tax on Large Non-Profits From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for Business License Tax on large non-profits at $0.9168 (91.68 cents) per square foot of improvements.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

6. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on 2015 Refunding General Obligation Bonds (Measures G, S & I)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate funding the debt service on the 2015 consolidation of Measures G, S and I (General Obligation Bonds - Elections of 1992, 1996 and 2002) at 0.0075%.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

7. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Debt Service on the Affordable Housing General Obligation Bonds (Measure O, November 2018 Election)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate funding the debt service on the Affordable Housing General Obligation Bonds (Measure O, November 2018) at 0.0200%.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Page 4 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 5

8. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Emergency Services for the Severely Disabled (Measure E)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the provision of emergency services for the disabled at $0.02339 (2.339 cents) per square foot of improvements.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

9. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness (Measure GG)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness in the City of Berkeley at the rate of $0.07026 (7.026 cents) per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and setting the rate for all other property at $0.10634 (10.634 cents) per square foot of improvements.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300, David Sprague, Fire, (510) 981- 3473

10. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Firefighting, Emergency Medical Response and Wildfire Prevention (Measure FF)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding Firefighting, Emergency Medical Response and Wildfire Prevention (Measure FF) in the City of Berkeley at the annual tax rate of $0.13633 (13.633 cents) per square foot of improvements.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

11. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Provision of Emergency Medical Services (Paramedic Tax)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the provision of emergency medical services to Berkeley residents at $0.0492 (4.92 cents) per square foot of improvements.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Page 5 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 6

12. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Debt Service on the Infrastructure and Facilities General Obligation Bonds (Measure T1, November 2016 Election) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate funding the debt service on the Infrastructure and Facilities Improvements General Obligation Bonds (Measure T1, November 2016) at 0.0140%.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

13. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Maintenance of Parks, City Trees and Landscaping From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding all improvements for the maintenance of parks, City trees, and landscaping in the City of Berkeley at $0.2783 (27.83 cents) per square foot of improvements.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

14. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on Neighborhood Branch Library Improvements Project General Obligation Bonds (Measure FF, November 2008 Election)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the debt service on the Neighborhood Branch Library Improvements Project General Obligation Bonds (Measure FF, November 2008 Election) at

0.0035%.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

15. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) (Measure FF)
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS), otherwise known as Measure FF, at an annual rate of $0.17842 per square foot of dwelling unit improvements and $0.26238 per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional improvements.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Page 6 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 7

16. FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Debt Service on the Street and Watershed Improvements General Obligation Bonds (Measure M, November 2012 Election) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2026 tax rate funding the debt service on the Street and Integrated Watershed Improvements General Obligation Bonds (Measure M, November 2012) at 0.0040%.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

17. Authorization to Apply for and Accept Funds (when awarded) of FY 2026 USDOT Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Fiscal Year 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program for Planning and Demonstration Grant funding; accept grant funds if awarded; execute all related agreements and amendments; and appropriate and allocate grant funds for activities supporting the City’s Street Trauma Prevention Program (STPP), Vision Zero, emergency response coordination, and related citywide roadway safety planning activities.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: David Sprague, Fire, (510) 981-3473

18. Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to receive up to the maximum grant award for the following Shelter Plus Care grants and to execute any resultant agreements and amendments. a. A Shelter Plus Care grant received via Alameda County in a not-to-exceed amount of $1,035,576 to provide tenant-based rental assistance to individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled from March 1, 2026, through February 28, 2027; and
b. A Shelter Plus Care grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the estimated amount of $7,305,893 for the Supportive Housing Collaborative Project (SHC) for the period September 1, 2026, through August 31, 2027.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

Page 7 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 8

19. Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan which formalizes the mandatory transition from the legacy Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) framework to the updated BHSA model mandated by California Proposition 1 (effective July 1, 2026); authorizing the signature of the City Council Certification form; forwarding the plan to appropriate state officials; and authorizing non- substantive, technical or ministerial modifications to the plan as required by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for final state approval.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

20. Memorandum of Understanding: Berkeley Police Association From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1) Approving a successor Memorandum of Understanding (hereafter referred to as "MOU") with the Berkeley Police Association (hereafter referred to as the "Union") for a term commencing upon adoption by Resolution of the City Council or on July 1, 2026, whichever occurs later, and expiring at 12:00 a.m. on July 1, 2028;
2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute and implement the successor MOU, including any agreements that may be operationally necessary during the term of the MOU, provided such agreements do not create increased economic obligations for the City or modify negotiated compensation or benefits; and 3) Approving a new Classification and Salary Table for Representation Units E and F, including the salary adjustments and Police Officer salary schedule changes reflected in the successor MOU, and superseding any prior inconsistent salary resolution or table as necessary.

The terms of the proposed successor MOU are within the parameters of authority approved by Council in closed session. The proposals were ratified by the Union following a five-day vote that concluded on May 28, 2026.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Janelle Rodrigues, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

21. Utility Easements for East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Water Meters at 80 and 90 Bolivar Drive
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to grant utility easements for two East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water meters at City-owned buildings at 80 and 90 Bolivar Drive at Aquatic Park.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Page 8 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 9

22. Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to Be Paid for by the State’s Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving a proposed list of projects that will utilize funding from the State of California’s Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) and authorize the City Manager to submit the proposed list to the California Transportation Commission.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

23. Declaration of Intent – Fiscal Year 2027 Street Lighting Assessments From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt two Resolutions granting the City Manager the authority to: 1. Approve the Engineer's Reports;

2. Set a public hearing to be held before the Council of the City of Berkeley at its July 14, 2026, meeting; and

3. Authorize the City Clerk to publish a Notice of the Public Hearing for Fiscal Year 2027 Levy of Assessments for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 and Street Lighting Assessment District 2018.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

24. Contract: Odyssey Power for On-Call Generator Maintenance From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Odyssey Power for On-Call Generator Maintenance in an amount not to exceed $125,000 for a full three-year contract term, with an option for the City Manager to extend for two additional one-year terms.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

25. Contract No. 32500082 Amendment: Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution amending the current contract with the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation, commonly known as the Telegraph Business Improvement District, for the janitorial maintenance of the 24-hour, seven days a week, public restroom increasing the not-to-exceed amount by $150,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 and extend the contract through June 30, 2027.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Page 9 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 10

26. Contract: Radius Earthwork, Inc. for FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1. Approving plans and specifications for the FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 26-11763- C; 2. Accepting the bid of Radius Earthwork, Inc., as the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder; and

3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $11,789,219.45.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

27. Contract No. 31900085 Amendment: Syn-Tech Systems Inc. for Fleet Fueling System and Software
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution amending the contract with Syn-Tech Systems Inc. for Fleet Fueling System and Software, increasing the contract amount by $68,528 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 and extend the contract through June 30, 2029.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

28. Contract No. 32400141 Amendment: Mercury Associates, Inc. for Fleet Consulting Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the contract with Mercury Associates, Inc. to continue working with the City on a fleet right-sizing study, fleet electrification analysis and other consulting services to comply with state mandates. This amendment increases the contract amount by $100,000, for a new total amount not to exceed $325,000 and extends through December 30, 2027.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

29. 2026 Bicycle Plan Update
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update and directing the City Manager to pursue implementation of the Plan as funding and staffing permit.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Page 10 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 11

30. Purchase Orders: Graybar Electric Company, Inc., W.W. Grainger, Inc. and WESCO Distribution, Inc. for Electrical Supplies and Parts From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute multi-year purchase orders as outlined below:

1. Purchase Order with Graybar Electric Company, Inc. for electrical supplies and parts, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.

2. Purchase Order with W.W. Grainger, Inc. for electrical supplies, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.

3. Purchase Order with WESCO Distribution, Inc. for electrical supplies, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Council Consent Items

31. Resorcery Org’s Mural Reveal and Food Drive Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds From: Councilmember Bartlett (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $500 from the discretionary Council Office Budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett, to Resorcery Org. The funds will be relinquished to the City’s General Fund from the Discretionary Council Office Budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett and the Discretionary Council Office Budgets of any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Ben Bartlett, Councilmember, District 3, (510) 981-7130

32. Adopt a Position of Support for SB 954 (Blakespear): Addressing Non-Housing CEQA Exemptions for Industrial Manufacturing and Environmental Health Protections
From: Councilmember Tregub (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor)
Recommendation: Adopt a Position of support for California Senate Bill (SB) 954 (Blakespear), which amends non-housing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions enacted in SB 131 (2025), including clarifying and narrowing the “advanced manufacturing” exemption, establishing environmental and labor safeguards for exempt industrial projects, extending CEQA exemptions for daycare facilities in residential zones, and ensuring habitat for protected species remains subject to environmental review, and distribute copies to Governor Gavin Newsom, Senators Jesse Arreguín and Catherine Blakespear, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks to support its passage.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

Page 11 ends

Council Consent Items
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 12

33. United for Health’s Moffitt Library Clinic: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Lunaparra’s discretionary fund, and funds from any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute, to United for Health (UFH) to continue its Moffitt Library Clinic for UC Berkeley students, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Cecilia Lunaparra, Councilmember, District 7, (510) 981-7170

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again during the Action Calendar public comment period on the item
The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield the ir time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

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

The Presiding Officer may open and close an additional comment period for Action items on this agenda (excluding any public hearings, appeals, and/or quasi-judicial matters), at the start of the Action Calendar.

Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. For certain hearings, this is followed by five-minute presentations each by first the appellant and then the applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking during a public hearing, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to e ach side to present their issue.

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

Page 12 ends

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 13

34. Implement Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program on the 1500 Block of Delaware Street
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion, adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 56,508-N.S. Section 25P by adding a subsection to implement Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) on the south side of Delaware Street between California Street and the Ohlone Greenway in RPP Area E.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Wahid Amiri, Public Works, (510) 981-6300

Action Calendar – New Business

35. Policy for Disruption of Remote Participation During Council Meetings From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Policy for Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings and append the Policy to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order as Appendix C.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

36. Affirming All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects (Reviewed by the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee)
From: Environment and Climate Commission
Recommendation: The Berkeley Environment and Climate Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution to: Adopt a formal policy prohibiting the installation of new natural gas infrastructure (hereafter referred to as “gas”) or the replacement of existing gas equipment with new gas equipment in any project funded by the proposed 2026 General Obligation Bond Measure; Include explicit all-electric construction and retrofit language in the bond measure itself; and Direct staff to apply this no-new-gas standard as a condition of all City capital spending, beyond bond-funded projects, thus affirming that public funds shall not be used to install new gas infrastructure in any municipal facility.

Policy Committee Recommendation: To send the item to Council with a Qualified Positive Recommendation with an addition to add exception language to be approved by City Council.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sarah Moore, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7400

Page 13 ends

Action Calendar – New Business

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 14

37. Placing a Charter Amendment Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot to Amend Multiple Administrative Provisions
From: City Manager
Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution placing charter amendment measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot to update election procedures and timelines to conform with modern standards, clarify the recall process, align the referendum process with new changes in state law, and other administrative changes related to candidates, petitions, and officeholders.

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

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900

38. Placing a General Obligation Bond Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot for the Acquisition or Improvement of Real Property for Public Infrastructure and Facilities
From: City Manager
Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution determining public interest and necessity for issuing a general obligation bond in the amount of $300 million for public infrastructure and facilities, submitting to the Berkeley electorate on the November 3, 2026 ballot a measure to authorize a general obligation bond in that amount, and finding that the proposed measure is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

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

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager, (510) 981-7000

39. Placing a Transactions and Use (Sales) General Tax Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot
From: City Manager
Recommendation: 1. Adopt a Resolution submitting to the Berkeley electorate on the November 3, 2026 ballot a measure to authorize a one-half of one percent (0.5%) transactions and use (sales) tax for general municipal purposes, bringing the aggregate sales tax rate in Berkeley to 10.75%, and finding that the proposed measure is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

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

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager, (510) 981-7000

Page 14 ends

Action Calendar – Public Hearing

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 15
40a. Proposed FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Proposed Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP Public Hearing No. 2
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Continue discussion and provide comments on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2027 and Fiscal Year 2028 Biennial Budget and Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP); conduct Public Hearing No. 2 on the Proposed Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP, with final adoption on June 23, 2026.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

40b. Budget Referral for the Solano Avenue Stroll (Reviewed by the Budget and Finance Policy Committee)
From: Councilmember O'Keefe (Author), Councilmember Blackaby (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: 1. Refer to the FY 2027-2028 Budget Process the cost of providing police, fire, and public works services to the Solano Stroll, totaling $81,000 per year, for a two-year total of $162,000, including: a. $55,000 per year for Police, including command/supervision, dispatch, community service officers, and parking enforcement officers to manage traffic control, safety, and missing children; b. $14,000 per year to cover the cost of Fire Department staffing and the use of fire engines and ambulances; and c. $12,000 per year for Waste Management Services.

2. Refer to the FY 2027-2028 Budget Process the cost of safety barricades, street closure supplies, and zero waste fees including: a. $50,000 per year for vehicle barricade rentals ($100,000 total); b. $6,000 per year for street closure supplies and rentals ($12,000 total); and c. $1,500 per year to cover zero waste fees ($3,000 total). 3. Refer to the City Manager to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of purchasing barriers for City use compared to the ongoing costs of renting barriers, and report back with findings and recommendations.

Policy Committee Recommendation: To send the item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation with amendments to include a referral to staff to cost out purchasing barriers as opposed to renting them.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Shoshana O'Keefe, Councilmember, District 5, (510) 981-7150

Information Reports

41. Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2276 Shattuck Avenue /#LMSAP2024-0005
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment

Page 15 ends

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 16
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas.

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

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

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street, and through the City's online records portal:
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/.

Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas
and may be accessed at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

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

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

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

Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

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

If you have obtained interpretation services for your use during a City Council meeting and would like to request assistance, please contact the City Clerk Department at (510) 981 -6900, [email protected], or in-person during the meeting.

Page 16 ends

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 17
Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on June 4, 2026.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

Berkeley Mobile Crisis Team

1. Jennifer Wydro

Letter of Support

2. Latinos Unidos de Berkeley

Sacramento St. and Dwight Way

3. Valentina Xavier

Free College and Career Exploration Night

4. Lexi Lopez Crothers

Proposed Parking Meter Changes

5. Andres Douzoglou

Downtown Revitalization

6. Krista Denton

World Cup Watch Party

7. Shelbi Walker on behalf of Visit Berkeley

Upzoning

8. Christopher Batson (2)

9. Barbara Hadenfeldt

10. Alice Waters

Tax Increase Concerns

11. Karen Borst-Rothe

Page 17 ends

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 18
Concern Withdrawal

12. Elizabeth Johnston (3)

2720 College Avenue

13. Anne Whyte

Solano Stroll

14. Phoebe Thomas (2)

Fire Trucks

15. David Lerman
San Pablo Ave Development

16. Gael Alcock

Bike Lanes

17. Dorothea Dorenz

Berkeley Police Dept.

18. Tillymaui

Case Concerns

19. Jon Ruel Holder II

Building Renovations

20. Thea Davison

Oxford Property

21. Bonnie Mitchell

Letter

22. Paul Kamen

California’s 911 Rebuild

23. 2,280 Similarly worded form letters

BMR Rent Clarifications

24. Alex S. Merenkov (2)

25. Misty Garrett

URLs

26. Gena McCarthy

27. Russbumper (4)

28. Josh Atwood

Forwards

29. Russbumper (3)

Page 18 ends

Tuesday, June 16, 2026 AGENDA Page 19
Newsletters

30. Berkeley Art Center

E-Scooters

31. Robert Borghese (4)

32. Carson Lepre (4)

33. Anosh Dumasia

Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.

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

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

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

Page 19 ends

Page 20 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Office of Economic Development Subject: Write-Off of a Delinquent Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Balance of $42,755 Owed by Minuteman Press (Synthesis Group, Inc).

RECCOMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the write-off of the outstanding loan balance of $42,755 owed by Synthesis Group, Inc. to the City’s Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) in accordance with the RLF Administrative Plan.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMENDATION
The city’s general fund will not be impacted by this loan write-off, but the RLF’s capital base will be reduced, and future RLF lending capacity will be curtailed by $42,755.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Synthesis Group Inc. has not made any payments towards the RLF loan #0474 since April 2024. During the RLF servicing transfer period (March 2025) from City of Berkeley to Working Solutions it was discovered that Synthesis Group, Inc. had sold the business assets of Minuteman Press to a new owner without disclosing the remaining balance of the RLF loan, for which Fred Fassett and his spouse are guarantors. Attempts to reach Fred Fassett have been unsuccessful. Per the regulations set forward in the RLF’s Administrative Plan, an act of council is needed to write off the loss to the revolving loan fund’s capital base for loans originating prior to 2024.

BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2016 the owner of Minuteman Press Berkeley (Synthesis Group, Inc), Fred Fassett, was granted a $150,000 loan to support working capital and debt consolidation for his printing business. The loan is backed by a personal guarantee from Fred Fassett and spouse.

On March 27, 2024, a loan modification was granted to Synthesis Group, per their 2023 request, to reduce monthly payments to $1,500 and extend the remaining number of payments from 17 to 35. In the time since, Synthesis Group has failed to make any payments on loan #0474 and sold the business assets without disclosing the outstanding loan. Attempts at collection were unsuccessful.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 21 ends

Write-Off - Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) #0474 – Synthesis Group, Inc. ($42,755) CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

After consultation with the federal RLF program administrator and program manager Working Solutions it was suggested that staff could file an IRS form 1099-C which would require the borrower to acknowledge the loan write-off amount as taxable income in addition to pursuing a civil judgment, selling the loan to a collection company and reporting the loan default to the credit bureaus. Currently, this approach is not being pursued because it would be cost neutral at best, and more likely cost more to collect than what the City would recoup.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMENDATION
The rationale for the recommendation is based on the requirements from the RLF Administrative Plan which regulates the procedures and actions staff shall follow when administering the revolving loan fund (RLF).

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Vincent McCoy, Office of Economic Development, (510) 981-7043 Attachments:
1: Resolution – Write-off of Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) #0474 for $42,755 owed by Synthesis Group, Inc.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 22 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###–N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE WRITE-OFF OF THE OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE OF $42,755 OWED BY SYNTHESIS GROUP, INC. TO THE CITY’S REVOLVING LOAN

FUND (RLF)
WHEREAS, Synthesis Group Inc., doing business as Minuteman Press, located at 1101 5th Street, Berkeley, CA and the City of Berkeley, a municipal corporation, entered into a Loan Agreement on August 15, 2016 for $150,000; and
WHEREAS, On March 27, 2024 the City’s Loan Administration Board (LAB) granted a loan modification to Synthesis Group Inc. to reduce monthly payments to $1,500 per month and extend the remaining number of payments from 17 to 35; and WHEREAS, Synthesis Group Inc. has not made any payments towards the RLF Loan #0474 since April 2024 and every first of the month thereafter; and WHEREAS, during the RLF servicing transfer period (March 2025) from City of Berkeley to Working Solutions it was discovered that Synthesis Group, Inc had sold the business of Minuteman Press to a new owner without disclosing the remaining balance of the RLF loan, for which Fred Fassett and his spouse are guarantors; and WHEREAS, staff has made diligent efforts to collect delinquent and default accounts, and attempts to reach Fred Fassett have been unsuccessful; and WHEREAS, the RLF Administrative Plan states that loan fund administrators shall analyze accounts and make write-off recommendations of bad debt to the City Council for loans originating in the RLF fund prior to 2024.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to write off the outstanding loan balance of loan number #0474 of $42,755 owed by Synthesis Group Inc., to the City’s Revolving Loan Fund (RLF).

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 23 ends

Page 24 ends

Office of the City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing a temporary appropriation in the sum of $60,000,000 to cover payroll and other expenses from July 1, 2026, until the effective date of the FY 2027 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The financial implications are stated in the Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
A temporary appropriation of funds is required to permit expenditures until the effective date of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance, which occurs 30 days after the second reading. Section 54, Article X of the Charter of the City of Berkeley authorizes such temporary appropriations.

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

BACKGROUND
The budget is scheduled for adoption on June 23, 2026, and the Annual Appropriations Ordinance is to be passed on the same day with a required second reading on June 30, 2026. A temporary appropriation of funds is required to permit expenditures until the effective date of the Annual Appropriations Ordinance, which occurs approximately 30 days after the second reading (i.e., July 30th). The sum appropriated, when expended, shall be chargeable to the Annual Appropriations Ordinance for FY 2027 when the budget has been adopted, and said Ordinance has been passed.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 981-7300
Attachments:
1: Resolution
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

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 25 ends

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

AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY APPROPRIATION FOR PAYROLL AND OTHER EXPENSES FROM JULY 1, 2026 UNTIL THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City Charter of the City of Berkeley grants authority to the City Council to annually adopt an appropriations ordinance, to pay the expenses of conducting the business of City government for the next ensuing fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Annual Appropriations Ordinance to be passed on June 23, 2026 will not be effective earlier than July 30, 2026.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that $60,000,000 be appropriated from available funds for payroll and other expenses from July 1, 2026 until the effective date of the FY 2027 Annual Appropriations Ordinance, chargeable to the appropriations for FY 2027.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the purpose and intent of this Resolution to make available funds as provided by Section 54, Article X, of the Charter of the City of Berkeley pending final adoption of the Annual Appropriations Ordinance for FY 2027.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum hereby appropriated shall, when expended, be chargeable to the appropriations of said fiscal year, when said Ordinance has been finally passed and adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that temporary inter-fund transfers be made as necessary to make funds available to carry out said purposes and intent of this resolution pending final adoption of said Ordinance.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 26 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Bankhead, Acting Director of Library Services Henry Oyekanmi, Director of Finance
Subject: FY 2027 Special Tax Rate: Fund the Provision of Library Relief Act of 2024 (Measure X)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for the Library Relief Act of 2024, approved by Berkeley voters in the November 2024 election, for funding the provision of Library Services in the City of Berkeley at $0.06297 (6.297 cents) per square foot for dwelling units and $0.09446 (9.446 cents) per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended $0.06297 for dwelling units and $0.09446 for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings will result in estimated collections of $5,912,645 for the Library Tax Fund. The tax rate of $0.06297 for dwelling units and $0.09446 for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings will result in a cost of $119.64 for the citywide average 1900 square foot dwelling and $179.47 for all other property of similar size.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On November 5, 2024, Berkeley Citizens approved the Library Relief Act of 2024 with

78.55% approval. The measure recommends a tax levy of $0.06 for dwelling units and $0.09 for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings which will result in estimated collections of $5,912,645 for the Library Tax Fund.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the levy of this special tax of $0.06297 per square foot for dwelling units and of $0.09446 for all other properties in the City of Berkeley. The tax will result in a cost to taxpayers in the following average amounts during FY 2027 compared to FY 2026:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 27 ends

FY 2027 Special Tax Rate: CONSENT CALENDAR
Fund the Provision of Library Relief Act of 2024 (Measure X) June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2024, over 78% of Berkeley voters approved Measure X to authorize an additional tax, the Library Relief Act of 2024. Both require the tax rate be approved by City Council on an annual basis.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing voter approved measure.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

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

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director of Finance, 981-7301
Henry Bankhead, Acting Director of Library Services, 981-6195 Attachments:
1: Ordinance
Dwelling Units All Other
Properties
Dwelling Units All Other
Properties
Square
Feet
FY27 FY27 FY26 FY26
1,200 75.56 113.35 72.00 108.00
1,500 94.46 141.69 90.00 135.00
1,900 119.64 179.47 114.00 171.00
3,000 188.91 283.38 180.00 270.00
3,900 245.58 368.39 234.00 351.00
10,000 629.70 944.60 600.00 900.00

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 28 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND THE PROVISION OF LIBRARY RELIEF ACT OF 2024 IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 Tax Rate to support usual and current expenses of operating library services is set at $0.06297 per square foot for dwelling units and $0.09446 per square foot for industrial, commercial and institutional buildings.

Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2027 will be $94.46 for a 1,500 square foot dwelling and $141.69 for all other property of similar size.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $5,912,645.

Section 4. The tax imposed by this ordinance does not apply to any property owner whose total personal income, from all sources for the previous calendar year, does not exceed that level which shall constitute a very low income, as established by resolution of City Council.

Section 5. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library, and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 29 ends

Page 30 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution to recommend that the Berkeley City Council set the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the provision of Library Services in the City of Berkeley at $0.3128 (31.28 cents) per square foot for dwelling units and $0.4729 (47.29 cents) per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended $0.3128 for dwelling units and $0.4729 for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings will result in estimated collections of $29,463,772 for the Library Tax Fund. The increase in the tax rate of $0.0148 for dwelling units and $0.02230 for industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings will result in an increase of $28.12 for the citywide average 1,900 square foot dwelling and $42.37 for all other property of similar size.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2026 tax of $0.3128 for dwelling units and $0.4729 for all other property are being adjusted by the Personal Income Growth factor in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area of 4.950%, as the voters approved the greater of that or the Consumer Price Index in California of 3.7975%. In addition, the Board of Library Trustees recommends that the City Council adjust the tax rate by 4.950%.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the levy of a special tax of $0.3128 per square foot for dwelling units and of $0.4729 for all other property in the City of Berkeley.

The tax will result in a cost to taxpayers in the following average amounts during FY 2027, as compared with amounts for FY 2026:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 31 ends

FY 2027 Special Tax Rate: CONSENT CALENDAR
Fund the Provision of Library Services June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

Annual Tax – Dwelling Units Annual Tax – All Other PropertiesSquare Feet FY27 FY26 FY27 FY26
1,200 $375.36 $357.60 $567.48 $540.72
1,500 469.20 447.00 709.35 675.90
1,900 594.32 566.20 898.51 856.14
3,000 938.40 894.00 1,418.70 1,351.80
3,900 1,219.92 1,162.20 1,844.31 1,757.34
10,000 3,128.00 2,980.00 4,729.00 4,506.00

BACKGROUND
The Central Library and neighborhood branch libraries received approximately 98% of their FY 2026 funding through a citywide special tax (referred to as the Library Relief Act of 1980) of $0.29800 per square foot on all improvements to residential real property in the City of Berkeley, and $0.45060 per square foot on all improvements to industrial, commercial, and institutional real property. The purpose of this voter-approved tax is to provide a stable revenue source to maintain the provision of library services at a consistent level, and which permits the purchase of library materials at levels which are commensurate with the libraries’ hours of service, staffing and patron needs.

On November 5, 2024, Berkeley voters approved Measure AA to re-authorize the City, for a period of four (4) years through FY 2028, to spend the Library Services tax as approved by the voters.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Adopting the Personal Income Growth factor in California would contribute an incremental increase of approximately $323,554 to projected FY 2027 revenue over that of the April Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The fiscal impact on the Library Tax Fund of adopting the per capita April Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area of 3.7975% instead of the Personal Income Growth factor in California of 4.950%% would be a reduction of $323,554 in projected FY 2027 library tax receipts.

The fiscal impact on the Library Tax Fund of forgoing an adjustment to the fiscal year’s library tax rate would be a reduction of $1,389,668 in projected FY 2027 library tax receipts when compared to the recommendation.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director of Finance, 981-7301
Henry Bankhead, Acting Director of Library Services, 981-6195 Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 32 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,####-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND LIBRARY

SERVICES TAX IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 Tax Rate to support usual and current expenses of operating library services is set at $0.31280 per square foot for dwelling units and $0.4729 per square foot for industrial, commercial and institutional buildings.

Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2027 will be $469.20 for a 1,500 square foot dwelling and $709.35 for all other property of similar size.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $29,463,772.

Section 5. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 33 ends

Page 34 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for Business License Tax on large non-profits at $0.9168 (91.68 cents) per square foot of improvements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax rate will increase from $0.8736 (87.36 cents) per square foot of improvements in FY 2026 to $0.9168 (91.68 cents) per square foot of improvements in FY 2027, based on a Personal Income Growth (PIG) adjustment of 4.95%. Estimated total collections are projected to increase from approximately $636,329 in FY 2026 to $667,827 in FY 2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The non-profit organizations with over 120,000 square feet of business improvements were taxed at a rate of $0.8736 (87.36 cents) in FY 2026, as approved by the voters with Measure S on November 2, 2010. That measure also approved the indexing of tax for inflation, based on the higher of Personal Income Growth or the Consumer Price Index in May. The Personal Income Growth (PIG) rate was 4.95%, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 3.7975%, as reported on May 1, 2026, and May 12, 2026, respectively.

BACKGROUND
In 1994, the voters of California adopted Article XIII, Section 26 of the California Constitution, which prohibits local governments from taxing non-profit organizations based on their gross receipts. Prior to this date, the City’s business license tax ordinance had imposed a gross receipts tax on non-profit organizations, which raised approximately $250,000 per year. Article XIII, Section 26 does not prohibit local agencies from taxing non-profit organizations on bases other than gross receipts. On November 3, 1998, the voters approved Measure G with over 61% of the votes cast. Measure G amended the City’s business license tax ordinance to impose a charge of $0.51 (51 cents) on the square footage of business improvements over the first 120,000 square feet, and would be indexed for inflation annually for the following year in May, by the greater of the increase in the CPI in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area or per capita PIG in the state, as verified by official United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 35 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Business License Tax on Large Non-Profits CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

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

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 981-7301
Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 36 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FY 2027 MUNICIPAL TAX RATE FOR THE CITY OF BERKELEY FOR

BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON LARGE NON-PROFITS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The rate of tax for the FY 2027 business license tax on large non-profits is as follows:
$0.9168 per square foot of improvements over 120,000 square feet Section 2. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $667,827.

Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its final passage.

Section 4. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 37 ends

Page 38 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate funding the debt service on the 2015 consolidation of Measures G, S and I (General Obligation Bonds - Elections of 1992, 1996 and 2002) at 0.0075%.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended 0.0075% will result in estimated collections of $2,400,000. This amount (along with existing funds on hand) is sufficient to make the debt service payments on March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The 0.0075% tax rate for FY 2027 being set by the City Council is based on the current debt service, the estimated FY 2027 assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured, and utility), a delinquency reserve of 5%, and the surplus remaining in the fund. Since Alameda County does not release final assessed value figures until early August, the City is using preliminary values. Staff is confident that the preliminary values will not be materially different from the County’s final figure. The City must establish a tax rate that will be sufficient to make debt service payments even if there are unusual levels of delinquency. The tax rate in FY 2027 is a decrease in the rate charged in FY 2026.

Because all taxes collected from the general obligation levy will be deposited in a special fund, and collections not used to pay debt service for the FY 2027 bond year will be retained in the fund to pay future obligations, the tax impact of any over-collection will be credited against future debt service payments and the required levy.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize a FY 2027 tax rate of 0.0075% which will result in the following cost to the average homeowner during FY 2027:

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 39 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on the Consolidated CONSENT CALENDAR General Obligation Bonds (Elections of 1992, 1996, 2002) June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

Annual Tax
Assessed
Value FY 2026 Tax FY 2027 Tax
$150,000 $13.50 $11.25
250,000 22.50 18.75
300,000 27.00 22.50
400,000 36.00 30.00
500,000 45.00 37.50
600,000 54.00 45.00
700,000 63.00 52.50
800,000 72.00 60.00
900,000 81.00 67.50
1,000,000 90.00 75.00

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

BACKGROUND
Measure G
On November 3, 1992, the voters of the City of Berkeley approved the incurring bonded indebtedness for fire safety and seismic improvements to emergency facilities (Measure G). This indebtedness was not to exceed an aggregate principal amount of $55,000,000. The Series A Bonds in the amount of $8,000,000 were issued on June 1, 1993; Series B Bonds in the amount of $14,000,000 were issued on July 25, 1995; and Series C bonds in the amount of $10,500,000 were issued on July 1, 1997.

The indebtedness on the total bonds issued of $32,500,000 is payable solely from the levy of an ad valorem tax against taxable property in the City. The proceeds of the bonds were used to pay for, among other things, “repairing and seismic retrofitting of existing fire stations, the Public Safety Building, which contains the City communication center, and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).” On November 1, 2002, the City issued $17,865,000 in General Obligation refunding bonds to refund the 1993 Measure G (Series A) and 1995 Measure G (Series B) General Obligation bonds. In May 2007, the City issued $4,340,000 in refunding bonds to refund the 1997 Measure G, (Series C) General Obligation bonds.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 40 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on the Consolidated CONSENT CALENDAR General Obligation Bonds (Elections of 1992, 1996, 2002) June 16, 2026

Page 3 ends

Measure S
On November 5, 1996, the voters of the City of Berkeley approved incurring a total of $49,000,000 bonded indebtedness to ensure the safety of its public and employees and to revitalize downtown.

The indebtedness is payable solely from the levy of an ad valorem tax against taxable property in the City. The proceeds were used to restore, expand and make the Main Library earthquake-safe and improve disabled access to it; to internally retrofit and increase disabled accessibility to Martin Luther King Jr., Civic Center Building; and to install landscaping, street improvements, street lighting, and other related capital improvements within the downtown area of Berkeley.

On June 4, 1997 Series A Bonds in the amount of $10,000,000 were issued; on December 1, 1998 Series B Bonds in the amount of $25,000,000 were issued; and on August 1, 1999 Series C Bonds in the amount of $14,000,000 were issued. In May 2007, the City issued $41,245,000 in refunding bonds to refund the 1997, 1998, and 1999 Measure S (Series A, B, and C) General Obligation bonds.

Measure I
In November 2002, the residents of Berkeley voted for and approved Ballot Measure I, in the sum of $7,200,000 of General Obligation Bonds to acquire property, if necessary, and to construct or rehabilitate a building for an animal shelter that meets the requirements of state law.

The indebtedness on the total bonds issued of $7,200,000 is payable solely from the levy of an ad valorem tax against taxable property in the City. The proceeds of the bonds were used to acquire property, and to construct a building for an animal shelter that meets the requirements of state law.

The General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $7,200,000 were issued on January 9, 2008.

All bonds were consolidated in a refinancing completed on July 15, 2015, including the issuance of $36,680,000 in general obligation refunding bonds.

The tax rate above reflects the debt service payments for the fiscal year.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 510-981-7301 Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 41 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FY 2027 TAX RATE FOR FUNDING THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE 2015

REFUNDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 tax rate for the debt service on the 2015 Refunding General Obligation Bonds - Measures G, S and I (General Obligation Bonds - Elections of 1992, 1996 and 2002) at 0.0075%.

Section 2. The Tax Rate will be based on estimated assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured, and utility) and will become a part of the FY 2027 property tax bill.

Section 3. This Tax Rate will result in estimated total collections of $2,400,000 needed to make the March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027 debt service payments on Refunding General Obligation Bonds.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 42 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department Subject: FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Debt Service on the Affordable Housing General Obligation Bonds (Measure O, November 2018 Election)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate funding the debt service on the Affordable Housing General Obligation Bonds (Measure O, November 2018) at

0.0200%.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended 0.0200% will result in estimated collections of $6,300,000. This amount will be sufficient to make the debt service payments on the 2020 Series A, 2022 Series B and 2025 Series C Bonds with debt service due March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The 0.0200% tax rate for FY 2027 being set by the City Council is based on the debt service of the Series A, Series B and Series C Bonds, the estimated FY 2027 assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured and utility), a delinquency reserve of 5%, and the surplus remaining in the fund. Since Alameda County does not release final assessed value figures until early August, the city is using preliminary values. Staff is confident that the preliminary values will not be materially different from the County’s final figure. The City must establish a tax rate that will be sufficient to make debt service payments even if there are unusual levels of delinquency. The tax rate in FY 2027 is the same rate as FY 2026.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 43 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on Affordable Housing CONSENT CALENDAR General Obligation Bonds (Measure O, November 2018 Election) June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

It is recommended that the City Council authorize a FY 2027 tax rate of 0.0200% which will result in the following cost to the average homeowner during FY 2027:

Assessed
Value FY 2026 Tax FY 2027 Tax
$150,000 $30.00 $30.00
250,000 50.00 50.00
300,000 60.00 60.00
400,000 80.00 80.00
500,000 100.00 100.00
600,000 120.00 120.00
700,000 140.00 140.00
800,000 160.00 160.00
900,000 180.00 180.00
1,000,000 200.00 200.00

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

BACKGROUND
In November 2018, the residents of Berkeley voted for and approved Ballot Measure O, for the sum of $135,000,000 of General Obligation Bonds to create and preserve affordable housing for low-income households, working families, and individuals including teachers, seniors, veterans, the homeless, and persons with disabilities.

The first series of bonds was issued in April 2020. The second series was issued in May 2022 and the third series was issued in July 2025.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 510-981-7301 Attachments:
1: Ordinance
Annual Tax

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 44 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 TAX RATE FOR FUNDING THE DEBT SERVICE

ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (MEASURE O, NOVEMBER 2018 ELECTION) IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 tax rate for debt service on the General Obligation Bonds is set at 0.0200%.

Section 2. The Tax Rate will be based on the estimated assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured, and utility) and will become a part of the FY 2027 property tax bill.

Section 3. This Tax Rate will result in estimated total collections of $6,300,000 needed to make the March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027 debt service payments on the outstanding General Obligation Bonds.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 45 ends

Page 46 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the provision of emergency services for the disabled at $0.02339 (2.339 cents) per square foot of improvements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended $0.02339 will result in estimated collections of $1,972,678 for the fund. The increase in the tax rate of $0.0011 per square foot will result in a $2.09 annual increase for the citywide average 1900 square foot home.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2026 tax of $0.02229 is being adjusted by the Personal Income Growth increase in California of 4.950% (or $0.02339) as the voters approved the greater of the of the Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area of 3.7975% or Personal Income Growth increase in California of 4.950%.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the levy of a special tax of $0.02339 per square foot of all improvements in the City of Berkeley. The tax will result in a cost to taxpayers in the following average amounts during Fiscal Year 2027, as compared with amounts for FY 2026:

Square Feet
Annual Tax
FY 2027 FY 2026
1,200 28.07 26.75
1,500 35.09 33.44
1,900 44.44 42.35
3,000 70.17 66.87
3,900 91.22 86.93
10,000 233.90 222.90

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 47 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Emergency Services for the Severely Disabled CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND
The Emergency Services for the Severely Disabled Tax (Measure E) was passed by the voters in November 1998. The tax is used to provide emergency services and incidental case management for severely physically disabled persons. The City Council is authorized to increase the tax rate by the greater of the Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area or Personal Income Growth in California.

On November 3, 2024, over 88% of Berkeley voters approved Measure AA to re-authorize the City, for a period of four (4) years through FY 2028, to spend the emergency services for the severely disabled tax.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City Council may consider maintaining the current tax rate of $0.02229 with projected revenue of $1,879,636 and no increase to property owners. Or the City Council may consider increasing the tax rate by the Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area of 3.7975%. This would result in projected revenue of $1,951,051 and a decrease of $2.09 for the citywide average 1,900 square foot home.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 981-7301
Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 48 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND EMERGENCY

SERVICES FOR THE SEVERELY DISABLED IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 Tax Rate to fund emergency services for severely disabled persons is set at $0.02339 per square feet of improvements.

Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2027 will be $28.07 for a 1,200 square foot home and $70.17 for a 3,000 square foot home.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $1,972,678.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 49 ends

Page 50 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department David Sprague, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Subject: FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness (Measure GG)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness in the City of Berkeley at the rate of $0.07026 (7.026 cents) per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and setting the rate for all other property at $0.10634 (10.634 cents) per square foot of improvements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended $0.07026 per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and $0.10634 per square foot of non-dwelling improvements. This will result in estimated collections of $6,621,319 for the fund. The tax rate will result in an increase in the citywide average for a 1,900 square foot dwelling and all other property from FY 2027 of $6.28 and $9.54, respectively.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2026 tax rates of $0.06695 for dwelling units and $0.10132 for all other property were adjusted by the per capita Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Personal Growth Index in California. The voters approved increasing the Measure GG tax rate annually by up to the greater of the Consumer Price Index increase in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area or the per capita Personal Income Growth in California. The Personal Growth Index per capita rate for FY 2027has been set at 4.950%. The CPI rate is 3.7975% in FY 2027.

At their regular meeting on May 20, 2026, the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission voted to recommend an increase to the Measure GG tax rate assessment using the Personal Income Growth Index Rate of 4.950%.

Action: M/S (Wilson, Herzer-Baptiste): Vote: 6 Ayes: Wilson, Bradstreet, Kinosian, Murphy, Herzer-Baptiste, Gordon; 0 Nayes; 0 Abstain; Absent; Katz, Darling

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 51 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Fire Protection and Emergency CONSENT CALENDAR Response and Preparedness (Measure GG) June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the levy of a special tax of $0.07026 per square foot for dwelling units and $0.10634 for all other property in the City of Berkeley. The tax will result in an increased cost to taxpayers in the following average amounts during Fiscal Year 2027, as compared with amounts for FY 2026:

FY 2027
Square Feet Dwelling Units
All Other
Properties
1,200 84.31 127.61
1,500 105.39 159.51
1,900 133.49 202.05
3,000 210.78 319.02
3,900 274.01 414.73
10,000 702.60 1063.40
FY 2026
Square Feet Dwelling Units
All Other
Properties
1,200 80.34 121.58
1,500 100.43 151.98
1,900 127.21 192.51
3,000 200.85 303.96
3,900 261.11 395.15
10,000 669.50 1013.20

BACKGROUND
In the November 2008 election, Berkeley voters approved Measure GG, which authorized the levying of a special tax. The tax proceeds will be used first to eliminate rotating closures of operating fire stations, and to provide advanced life support personnel (paramedics) and equipment on all first responder vehicles (ambulances, fire engines and ladder trucks). The funds would also be used to (1) hire a training officer to provide Emergency Medical Service training for first responders; (2) hire staff to conduct Community Emergency Response Training and other similar public disaster training and preparedness efforts and for neighborhood emergency preparedness caches; and (3) to acquire and maintain equipment to enhance emergency preparedness, including equipment to allow compatible radio communications throughout the City and with outside public safety agencies. On November 5, 2024, over 88% of Berkeley voters approved Measure AA to re-authorize the City, for a period of four (4) years through FY 2028, to spend the Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness tax.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 52 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Fire Protection and Emergency CONSENT CALENDAR Response and Preparedness (Measure GG) June 16, 2026

Page 3 ends

ALTERNATE CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council may consider adjusting the current recommended tax rate of $0.06614 per square foot of improvements for dwelling units and $0.10009 per square foot of improvements for all other property by the Consumer Price Index in California of 3.7975% with projected revenue of $6,548,608.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 981-7301
David Sprague, Fire Chief, 981-5500
Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 53 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,####-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND FIRE PROTECTION

AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS (MEASURE GG) IN THE CITY

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

Section 1. The FY 2027 Tax Rate for the Fire Protection and Emergency Response and Preparedness (Measure GG) is set at:
$0.07026 per square foot of improvements for dwellings
$0.10634 per square foot of improvements for all other properties Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2027 will be $84.31 for a 1,200 square foot dwelling and $210.78 for a 3,000 square foot dwelling.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $6,621,319 Section 4. The tax imposed by this ordinance does not apply to any property owner whose total personal income, from all sources for the previous calendar year, does not exceed that level which shall constitute a very low income, as established by resolution of City Council.

Section 5. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 54 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department David Sprague, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Subject: FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Firefighting, Emergency Medical Response and Wildfire Prevention (Measure FF)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding Firefighting, Emergency Medical Response and Wildfire Prevention (Measure FF) in the City of Berkeley at the annual tax rate of $0.13633 (13.633 cents) per square foot of improvements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy rate of the recommended $0.13633 per square foot of improvements is projected to yield approximately $11,483,638 in revenues.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2026 tax rate of $0.1299 is being adjusted by the Personal Income Growth in California of 4.950% based on Berkeley Municipal Code 7.83.020 as adopted by the City Council under Ordinance No. 7,745-N.S. on June 16, 2020. Measure FF is a special parcel tax for firefighting, emergency medical response and wildfire prevention that limits the annual tax rate based on the greater of the increase in the cost of living in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area or per capita Personal Income Growth in California.

It is estimated that the tax will cost taxpayers the following amounts for FY 2027, as compared with FY 2026:

Square
Feet FY 2027 FY 2026
1,200 163.60 $155.88
1,500 204.50 194.85
1,900 259.03 246.81
3,000 408.99 389.70
3,900 531.69 506.61
10,000 1,363.30 1,299.00

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 55 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Firefighting, Emergency Medical CONSENT CALENDAR Response and Wildfire Prevention (Measure FF) June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

Action: M/S (Wilson, Herzer-Baptiste): Vote: 6 Ayes: Wilson, Bradstreet, Kinosian, Murphy, Herzer-Baptiste, Gordon; 0 Nayes; 0 Abstain; Absent; Katz, Darling

BACKGROUND
Measure FF authorized a special parcel tax for the purpose of funding firefighters and emergency medical response, upgrades to the 9-1-1 dispatch system, hazard mitigation, and wildfire prevention and preparedness activities.

In 2008, voters passed Measure GG to stop fire stations from being closed and services from being reduced, in the context of a major economic downturn. Measure GG designated the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission a formal oversight role, the duties of which are replicated, with respect to Measure FF, through the passage of this Council item.

Now, with rising challenges from climate change and fires, bigger demands on our emergency services, and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Measure FF was placed on the November 2020 ballot by a unanimous vote of the City Council and it was approved by voters, to provide funds to modernize the City’s 9-1-1 dispatch system, upgrade equipment, hire additional paramedics, improve emergency alert systems and continue to clear fire fuels, among other things.

The effective date for this tax was January 1, 2021. The City will raise approximately $11,483,638 for FY 2027.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, (510) 981-7301 David Sprague, Fire Chief, (510) 981-5500
Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 56 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND FIREFIGHTING,

EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE AND WILDFIRE PREVENTION (MEASURE FF)

IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 tax rate to provide for the costs incurred for the firefighting, emergency medical response and wildfire prevention (Measure FF) is set at 0.13633 per square foot of improvements.

Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2027 will be $163.60 for a 1,200 square foot dwelling and $408.99 for a 3,000 square foot dwelling.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $11,483,638.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 57 ends

Page 58 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the provision of emergency medical services to Berkeley residents at $0.0492 (4.92 cents) per square foot of improvements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended $0.0492 per square footage will result in estimated total collections of $4,149,151 for the Emergency Medical Services fund. The increase in the tax rate of $0.0018 per square foot will result in a $3.42 annual increase for the citywide average 1,900 square foot home.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2026 tax of $0.0474 is being adjusted by the increase in the Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area of 3.7975%, as authorized by the voters on May 6, 1997.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the levy of a special tax of $0.0492 per square foot of all improvements in the City of Berkeley. The tax will result in a cost to taxpayers in the following average amounts during Fiscal Year 2027, as compared with amounts for FY 2026:

Annual Tax
Square Feet FY 2027 FY 2026
1,200 $59.04 $56.88
1,500 73.80 71.10
1,900 93.48 90.06
3,000 147.60 142.20
3,900 191.88 184.86
10,000 492.00 474.00

BACKGROUND

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 59 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Provision of Emergency Medical Services CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

On May 6, 1997, the voters authorized the City to replace the Emergency Medical Services Assessment District with an Emergency Medical Services Tax. On November 5, 2024, over 88% of Berkeley voters approved Measure AA to re-authorize the City, for a period of four (4) years through FY 2028, to spend the Emergency Medical Services tax.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 981-7301
Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 60 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND THE PROVISION

OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF BERKELEY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 Tax Rate for Emergency Medical Services is set at $0.0492 per square foot of taxable improvements.

Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2027 will be $59.04 for a 1,200 square foot home and $147.60 for a 3,000 square foot home.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collections of $4,149,151.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 61 ends

Page 62 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department Subject: FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Debt Service on the Infrastructure and Facilities General Obligation Bonds (Measure T1, November 2016 Election)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate funding the debt service on the Infrastructure and Facilities Improvements General Obligation Bonds (Measure T1, November 2016) at 0.0140%.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended 0.0140% will result in estimated collections of $4,400,000. This amount will be sufficient to make the debt service payments on the 2017 Series A, the 2021 Series B Bonds and the proposed 2026 Series C Bonds debt service on March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The 0.0140% tax rate for FY 2027 being set by the City Council is based on the current debt service of the Series A, the Series B and proposed 2026 Series C Bonds, the estimated FY 2027 assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured and utility), a delinquency reserve of 5%, and the surplus remaining in the fund. Since Alameda County does not release final assessed value figures until early August, the City is using preliminary values. Staff is confident that the preliminary values will not be materially different from the County’s final figure. The City must establish a tax rate that will be sufficient to make debt service payments even if there are unusual levels of delinquency.

The tax rate in FY 2027 is an increase in the rate charged in FY 2026 based on the addition of the 2026 Series C Bonds.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 63 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on Infrastructure and CONSENT CALENDAR Facilities Improvements (Measure T1, November 2016 Election) June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

It is recommended that the City Council authorize a FY 2027 tax rate of 0.0140% which will result in the following cost to the average homeowner during FY 2027:

Annual Tax
Assessed
Value FY 2026 Tax FY 2027 Tax
$150,000 $16.50 $21.00
250,000 27.50 35.00
300,000 33.00 42.00
400,000 44.00 56.00
500,000 55.00 70.00
600,000 66.00 84.00
700,000 77.00 98.00
800,000 88.00 112.00
900,000 99.00 126.00
1,000,000 110.00 140.00

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

BACKGROUND
In November 2016, the residents of Berkeley voted for and approved Ballot Measure T1, for the sum of $100,000,000 of General Obligation Bonds to make infrastructure and facility improvements. The pace of financing and tax rate will be determined based on the overall growth of the City’s assessed value and the total outstanding general obligation bond debt service such that the total combined tax rate (for general obligation bond repayment will not exceed 0.0492% which represents the 10-year historical tax rate as of June 2016).

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 510-981-7301 Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 64 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 TAX RATE FOR FUNDING THE DEBT SERVICE

ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (MEASURE T1, NOVEMBER 2016 ELECTION) IN THE CITY OF

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

Section 1. The FY 2027 tax rate for debt service on the General Obligation Bonds is set at 0.0140%.

Section 2. The Tax Rate will be based on the estimated assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured, and utility) and will become a part of the FY 2027 property tax bill.

Section 3. This Tax Rate will result in estimated total collections of $4,400,000 needed to make the March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027 debt service payments on the proposed General Obligation Bonds.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 65 ends

Page 66 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding all improvements for the maintenance of parks, City trees, and landscaping in the City of Berkeley at $0.2783 (27.83 cents) per square foot of improvements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended $0.2783 per square footage will result in estimated collections of $23,463,242 for the Park Tax Fund. The increase in the tax rate of $0.0131 per square foot will result in a $24.89 annual increase for the citywide average 1,900 square foot home.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2026 tax of $0.2652 is being adjusted by the greater of the Personal Income Growth increase in California of 4.95% against the Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area of 3.7975%.

It is recommended that City Council authorize the levy of a special tax of $0.2783 per square foot of all improvements in the City of Berkeley. The tax will result in a cost to taxpayers in the following average amounts during FY 2027, as compared with the amounts for FY 2026:

Annual Tax
Square Feet FY 2027 FY 2026
1,200 333.96 318.24
1,500 417.45 397.80
1,900 528.77 503.88
3,000 834.90 795.60
3,900 1,085.37 1,034.28
10,000 2,783.00 2,652.00

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 67 ends

BACKGROUND
On May 6, 1997, the voters of the City of Berkeley approved a special tax solely to provide funding for the direct cost of acquisition and maintenance of improvements related to parks and landscaping in the City of Berkeley. As a result of the requirements of State Proposition 218, this special tax replaced the annual revenue previously generated by the Citywide Landscape Assessment District.

On November 5, 2024, over 75% of Berkeley voters approved Measure Y increase the rate of the City’s special parcel tax for parks, trees, and landscaping maintenance.

The tax may be increased or decreased annually in May, according to the greater of the increase or decrease in the cost of living in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area or personal income growth in the state of California, as verified by official United States economic reports.

On November 5, 2024, over 88% of Berkeley voters approved Measure AA to re-authorize the City, for a period of four (4) years through FY 2028, to spend the Parks Maintenance tax as approved by the voters.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 981-7301
Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 68 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND MAINTENANCE

OF PARKS, CITY TREES AND LANDSCAPING IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 Tax Rate for the maintenance of parks, City trees and landscaping is set at $0.2783 per square foot of taxable improvements.

Section 2. The cost to the taxpayer during FY 2027 will be $333.96 for a 1,200 square foot home and $834.90 for a 3,000 square foot home.

Section 3. This Tax Rate will result in estimated total collections of $23,463,242.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 69 ends

Page 70 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department Subject: FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on Neighborhood Branch Library Improvements Project General Obligation Bonds (Measure FF, November 2008 Election)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding the debt service on the Neighborhood Branch Library Improvements Project General Obligation Bonds (Measure FF, November 2008 Election) at 0.0035%.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended 0.0035% will result in estimated collections of $1,100,000. This amount (along with existing funds on hand) is sufficient to make the debt service payments on March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The 0.0035% tax rate for FY 2027 being set by the City Council is based on the debt service, the estimated FY 2027 assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured and utility), a delinquency reserve of 5%, and the surplus remaining in the fund. Since Alameda County does not release final assessed value figures until early August, the City is using preliminary values. Staff is confident that the preliminary values will not be materially different from the County's final figure. The City must establish a tax rate that will be sufficient to make debt service payments even if there are unusual levels of delinquency. The tax rate in FY 2027 is a decrease in the rate charged in FY 2026.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize a FY 2027 tax rate of 0.0035% which will result in the following cost to the average homeowner during FY 2027:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 71 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on Neighborhood CONSENT CALENDAR Branch Library Improvements Project General Obligation June 16, 2026 Bonds (Measure FF, November 2008 Election)

Page 2 ends

Annual Tax
Assessed
Value FY 2026 Tax FY 2027 Tax
$150,000 $6.00 $5.25
250,000 10.00 8.75
300,000 12.00 10.50
400,000 16.00 14.00
500,000 20.00 17.50
600,000 24.00 21.00
700,000 28.00 24.50
800,000 32.00 28.00
900,000 36.00 31.50
1,000,000 40.00 35.00

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

BACKGROUND
In November 2008, the residents of Berkeley voted for and approved Ballot Measure FF, in the sum of $26,000,000 of General Obligation Bonds to renovate, expand, and make seismic and access improvements at the four neighborhood branch libraries (excluding the Central Library).

The indebtedness on the total bonds issued of $26,000,000 is payable solely from the levy of an ad valorem tax against taxable property in the City. The proceeds of the bonds were used to renovate, expand, and make seismic and access improvements at the four neighborhood branch libraries (excluding the Central Library). $10,000,000 of the $26,000,000 in authorized bonds were issued in 2009, and the remaining $16,000,000 of bonds were issued in 2010. The tax rate above reflects the debt service payments for the fiscal year.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 510-981-7301 Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 72 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FY 2027 TAX RATE FOR FUNDING THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE

NEIGHBORHOOD BRANCH LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (MEASURE FF, NOVEMBER 2008 ELECTION) IN THE CITY OF

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

Section 1. The FY 2027 tax rate for the debt service on the General Obligation Bonds is set at 0.0035%.

Section 2. The Tax Rate will be based on the estimated assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured, and utility) and will become a part of the FY 2027 property tax bill.

Section 3. This Tax Rate will result in estimated total collections of $1,100,000 needed to make the March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027 debt service payments on the outstanding General Obligation Bonds.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 73 ends

Page 74 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Department
Subject: FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) (Measure FF)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2027 tax rate for funding Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS), otherwise known as Measure FF, at an annual rate of $0.17842 per square foot of dwelling unit improvements and $0.26238 per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional improvements.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The FY 2026 tax of $0.1700 per square foot of dwelling unit improvements and $0.2500 per square foot for non-dwelling unit improvements is being adjusted by the greater of the Personal Income Growth increase in California of 4.95% against the Consumer Price Index in the immediate San Francisco Bay Area of 3.7975%.

The annual tax rate of $0.17842 per square foot of dwelling unit improvements and $0.26238 per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional improvements (cited as “Non-Residential” in table below) is projected to yield $16,651,651 in revenues. The overall tax rate for the current year is lower than the prior year; however, the prior year’s rate was based on an 18-month revenue period from January 1, 2025, when the tax first became effective, through June 30, 2026, whereas the current year’s rate is based on a standard 12-month period from July 1 through June 30. It is estimated that the tax will cost taxpayers the following amounts for FY 2026 and FY 2027:

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 75 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Sustainable Accountable
Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, CONSENT CALENDAR Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) June 16, 2026 2 Dwellings Non-Residential
Square
Feet
FY 27 FY 26
(12 month
basis)
FY 26
(18 month
basis)
FY 27
FY 26
(12 month
basis)
FY 26
(18 month
basis)
1,200 214.10 $204.00 $306.00 314.86 $300.00 $450.00
1,500 267.63 $255.00 $382.50 393.57 $375.00 $562.50
1,900 339.00 $323.00 $484.50 498.52 $475.00 $712.50
3,000 535.26 $510.00 $765.00 787.14 $750.00 $1,125.00
3,900 695.84 $663.00 $994.50 1,023.28 $975.00 $1,462.50 10,000 1,784.20 $1,700.00 $2,550.00 2,623.80 $2,500.00 $3,750.00

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Through Measure FF, as approved by voters in November 2024, the Council is authorized to impose and allocate a special tax as follows:
 Residential Rate: For all dwelling units, the tax may be imposed at the rate of up to $0.17842 per square foot of improvements.
 Non-Residential Rate: For all other property, the tax may be imposed at the rate of up to $0.26238 per square foot of improvements.

This rate was initially adopted through the adoption of Ordinance 7,952-N.S., on December 10, 2024. The Council may impose the tax authorized by this Chapter up to the rate, and subject to inflation adjustments, set forth in Section 7.11.020 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND
Measure FF, the Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) Initiative, was passed by voters on November 5, 2024, and adopted as Ordinance 7,952-N.S. on December 10, 2024.

The SAFE STREETS Initiative authorized an annual parcel tax for a 14-year period. This measure is projected to generate approximately $15 million annually, dedicated to funding street and sidewalk repairs, safety improvements, and environmental infrastructure projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental opportunities or impacts associated with the administration of this tax.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Ordinance 7,952-N.S., as adopted on December 10, 2024, authorizes the tax rate as described therein, to remain in place from the effective date, unless extended by voters.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 76 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Sustainable Accountable
Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, CONSENT CALENDAR Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) June 16, 2026 3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
If Council does not adopt the tax rate, as proposed, the requirements of Ordinance 7,952- N.S., as adopted on December 10, 2024 will not be met.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, (510) 981-7326 Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6302 Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 77 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 SPECIAL TAX RATE TO FUND THE SUSTAINABLE

AND ACCOUNTABLE FUNDING FOR EQUITABLE STREET TRANSFORMATION,

REVITALIZATION, ENHANCEMENTS, AND ESSENTIAL TRAFFIC SAFETY (SAFE

STREETS) INITIATIVE, MEASURE FF
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The rate of tax for FY 2027 to provide for the costs incurred for the funding street and sidewalk repairs, safety improvements, and environmental infrastructure projects (Measure FF) is hereby fixed and apportioned upon the square feet of improvements as defined in the Ordinance as follows:
$0.17842 per square foot of dwelling unit improvements and $0.26238 per square foot for industrial, commercial, and institutional building improvements (Non-Residential).

Section 2. The cost to taxpayers during FY 2027 will be $214.10 for a 1,200 square foot dwelling and $535.26 for a 3,000 square foot dwelling. For other non-residential properties, during FY 2027, the cost will be $314.86 for a 1,200 square foot dwelling and $787.14 for a 3,000 square foot dwelling.

Section 3. This tax rate will result in estimated total collection of $16,651,651.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 78 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department Subject: FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund the Debt Service on the Street and Watershed Improvements General Obligation Bonds (Measure M, November 2012 Election)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance setting the FY 2026 tax rate funding the debt service on the Street and Integrated Watershed Improvements General Obligation Bonds (Measure M, November 2012) at 0.0040%.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The tax levy of the recommended 0.0040% will result in estimated collections of $1,300,000. This amount (along with existing funds on hand) is sufficient to make the debt service payments on March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The 0.0040% tax rate for FY 2027 being set by the City Council is based on the current debt service, the estimated FY 2027 assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured and utility), a delinquency reserve of 5%, and the surplus remaining in the fund. Since Alameda County does not release final assessed value figures until early August, the city is using preliminary values. Staff is confident that the preliminary values will not be materially different from the County’s final figure. The City must establish a tax rate that will be sufficient to make debt service payments even if there are unusual levels of delinquency. The tax rate in FY 2027 is a decrease in the rate charged in FY 2026.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize a FY 2027 tax rate of 0.0040% which will result in the following cost to the average homeowner during FY 2027:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 79 ends

FY 2027 Tax Rate: Fund Debt Service on Street and CONSENT CALENDAR Integrated Watershed Improvements (Measure M, November June 16, 2026 2012 Election)

Page 2 ends

Annual Tax
Assessed
Value FY 2026 Tax FY 2027 Tax
$150,000 $7.50 $6.00
250,000 12.50 10.00
300,000 15.00 12.00
400,000 20.00 16.00
500,000 25.00 20.00
600,000 30.00 24.00
700,000 35.00 28.00
800,000 40.00 32.00
900,000 45.00 36.00
1,000,000 50.00 40.00

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

BACKGROUND
In November 2012, the residents of Berkeley voted for and approved Ballot Measure M, for the sum of $30,000,000 of General Obligation Bonds to accelerate street repaving and rehabilitation consistent with the 5-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan, integrating green infrastructure to the extent feasible. Green infrastructure includes but is not limited to: (a) surface level bio-retention measures (rain gardens, swales, bio-retention cells, permeable paving, etc.) within the parking strip, planter area of sidewalks, red zone curb-extensions, and in street medians as feasible; and (b) large underground storage pipes, which would fill during storm events and then discharge metered flows into the existing storm drain pipelines.
$15,000,000 of the $30,000,000 in authorized bonds were issued in 2014, and the remaining $15,000,000 were issued in 2016. The tax rate above reflects the debt service payments for the fiscal year.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance Department, 510-981-7301 Attachments:
1: Ordinance

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 80 ends

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

SETTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 TAX RATE FOR FUNDING THE DEBT SERVICE

ON THE STREET AND WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (MEASURE M, NOVEMBER 2012 ELECTION) IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The FY 2027 tax rate for debt service on the General Obligation Bonds is set at 0.0040%.

Section 2. The Tax Rate will be based on the estimated assessed values for all rolls (secured, unsecured, and utility) and will become a part of the FY 2027 property tax bill.

Section 3. This Tax Rate will result in estimated total collections of $1,300,000 needed to make the March 1, 2027 and September 1, 2027 debt service payments on the outstanding General Obligation Bonds.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 81 ends

Page 82 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Chief David Sprague, Director, Fire Department Subject: Authorization to Apply for and Accept Funds from FY 2026 USDOT Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Fiscal Year 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program for Planning and Demonstration Grant funding; accept grant funds if awarded; execute all related agreements and amendments; and appropriate and allocate grant funds for activities supporting the City’s Street Trauma Prevention Program (STPP), Vision Zero, emergency response coordination, and related citywide roadway safety planning activities.

SUMMARY
The United States Department of Transportation released the Fiscal Year 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Notice of Funding Opportunity on March 27, 2026.

The program provides competitive funding for planning, demonstration, operational, behavioral, infrastructure, and post-crash care strategies intended to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The proposed application aligns with the City’s Vision Zero priorities, Safe System Approach, and the Berkeley Fire Department’s Street Trauma Prevention Program.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The FY 2026 SS4A funding requires a minimum 20 percent non-federal match and allows federal participation up to 80 percent of eligible costs. Staff is applying for approximately $3.3 million in federal funding. The time of existing staff dedicated to the grant will be used to satisfy the match requirement and no General Fund appropriation will be required.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Berkeley Fire Department launched the Street Trauma Prevention Program (STPP) in March 2025 to integrate emergency response and Fire/EMS operational expertise into roadway safety planning and Vision Zero implementation efforts. Year 1 efforts focused on data analysis, operational gap identification, partnership development, project review, and cross-departmental coordination.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 83 ends

Authorization to Apply for and Accept Funds from FY 2026 USDOT CONSENT CALENDAR Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

The FY 2026 SS4A Notice of Funding Opportunity places greater emphasis on public safety infrastructure, operational safety strategies, emergency response coordination, and improvements in post-crash care. Eligible activities include public safety dispatch systems, digital alert systems, pilot deployments, operational technologies, and multidisciplinary roadway safety approaches.

The proposed grant application would support:
• Ful compensation (base salary and benefits) for a temporary Program Manager II Position
• Citywide safety action planning and supplemental planning activities • Emergency response-informed transportation safety analysis • Demonstration and pilot activities
• Operational and technology safety strategies
• Public education and stakeholder engagement
• Regional and academic partnerships
• Data integration and evaluation
• Blood Transfusion pilot activity
• Traffic Signal preemption “Green Corridor” pilot
Alignment with the city's strategic plan
The proposed grant application advances multiple City of Berkeley Strategic Plan goals, including:
• Create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city. • Provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities. • Champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.
• Be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community.
• Provide an efficient and financially healthy City government.

The proposed activities support Vision Zero goals, emergency response coordination, data-informed decision-making, community safety, and equitable investment in underserved communities.

BACKGROUND
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act established the Safe Streets and Roads for All funds to reduce roadway fatalities and severe injuries nationwide through Safe System planning and implementation activities. The FY 2026 SS4A Notice of Funding Opportunity includes Planning and Demonstration Grants ranging from $100,000 to $5,000,000.

Applications are due May 26, 2026. The City of Berkeley is eligible to apply as a political subdivision of the State of California.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 84 ends

Authorization to Apply for and Accept Funds from FY 2026 USDOT CONSENT CALENDAR Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant June 16, 2026

Page 3 ends

The proposed application would support the continued development of the Street Trauma Prevention Program and strengthen the City’s ability to pursue multidisciplinary roadway safety initiatives and to secure future implementation funding opportunities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Providing safe roadways for all road users, including active transportation (walking, biking, micromobility), inspires the use of multimodal infrastructure, supporting the City’s climate and sustainability goals, and aligns with its environmental justice priorities.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the recommendation would allow the City to pursue external funding aligned with existing City priorities related to roadway safety, emergency response coordination, Vision Zero implementation, operational innovation, and community safety.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City Council could decline to authorize submission of the grant application. This option is not recommended because it would reduce the City’s ability to pursue external funding supporting roadway safety planning, operational innovation, emergency response coordination, and implementation readiness efforts identified through the Street Trauma Prevention Program.

CONTACT PERSON
Chief David Sprague, Fire Chief, Fire Department, (510) 981-3473

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 85 ends

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

AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR FY 2026 USDOT SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A) FUNDING AND ACCEPTING THE FUNDS WHEN AWARDED WHEREAS, the United States Department of Transportation has released the Fiscal Year 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Notice of Funding Opportunity; and WHEREAS, the SS4A program supports local and regional initiatives intended to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries through planning, operational, infrastructure, behavioral, and post-crash care strategies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley launched the Street Trauma Prevention Program in March 2025 to integrate emergency response and prevention into roadway safety planning and Vision Zero efforts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed grant application would support citywide safety planning, emergency response coordination, demonstration activities, data analysis, and community engagement.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application to the FY 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program and execute all related grant agreements and amendments if awarded.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 86 ends

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to receive up to the maximum grant award for the following Shelter Plus Care grants and to execute any resultant agreements and amendments.
a. A Shelter Plus Care grant received via Alameda County in a not-to-exceed amount of $1,035,576 to provide tenant-based rental assistance to individuals who are chronically homeless and disabled from March 1, 2026, through February 28, 2027; and
b. A Shelter Plus Care grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the estimated amount of $7,305,893 for the Supportive Housing Collaborative Project (SHC) for the
period September 1, 2026, through August 31, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services’ Housing and Community Services Division (HHCS/HCS) has administered Shelter Plus Care grants for many years as part of the City’s strategy to end homelessness. The grant via Alameda County provides funding for rental subsidies, and the grant from HUD provides funding for rental subsidies and some supportive services provided by Berkeley’s Aging Services Division. Grant revenues are deposited and expensed out of Funds 347 (Shelter+Care HUD) and 348 (Shelter+Care County), respectively.

HUD allows up to 10% of each grant to be used to administer the rental subsidies, which support HHCS/HCS’s grant-related administrative activities.

The Shelter Plus Care program also requires a 25% match, which the City has always met through a range of program support and services provided by Berkeley Mental Health, Aging Services Division, the County’s physical health services, and the five community-based agencies that provide tenancy-sustaining services.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 87 ends

Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Based on a national competition, HUD and Alameda County awarded funding to the City of Berkeley to renew two Shelter Plus Care grants, which provide rental assistance to a minimum of 267 households annually. The City’s Shelter Plus Care Program provides federal rental subsidies that are matched by locally provided services to help transition formerly homeless, disabled individuals and families into permanent, supportive housing. These grants currently provide tenant-based rental subsidies for approximately 290 households to rent from private property owners in Berkeley, Albany, Alameda, Oakland, and Emeryville.

Each participant in the program is offered Tenancy Sustaining Services with the goal of housing stability. These services include case management and linkages to supportive services needed. Many of these services are provided by Berkeley Mental Health and Aging Services. Additionally, the City funds five community agencies: Bay Area Community Services (BACS); Insight Housing; Building Opportunities for Self- Sufficiency (BOSS); Lifelong Medical Care (LLMC); and the Women’s Daytime Drop-In Center (WDDC). The Tenancy Sustaining Services provided by the community partners ensures that tenants get connected to services that will aid in maintaining their tenancy, such as benefit advocacy, representative payee services, health and medical services, mental health and substance use, employment and education, landlord meditation, and community building activities.

BACKGROUND
Since 1995, the City of Berkeley Shelter Plus Care Program has been an important component of the continuum of housing available to disabled homeless families and individuals. The Shelter Plus Care Program is funded by HUD and the County of Alameda to provide housing subsidies for people who are homeless with a disability.

The program combines a rental subsidy with ongoing supportive services to assist chronically homeless individuals and families in obtaining and maintaining housing.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Acceptance of the two Shelter Plus Care renewal grants will assure that approximately 290 homeless and disabled individuals and families continue to benefit from receiving ongoing rental assistance and the supportive services necessary to retain stable housing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were identified that would be consistent with the City’s goal to house the most vulnerable members of the community.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 88 ends

Shelter Plus Care Program Renewal Grants CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Page 3 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Yesenia Lopez, Community Services Specialist III, HHCS, 510-981-5120 Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 89 ends

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

SHELTER PLUS CARE PROGRAM RENEWAL GRANTS

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the County of Alameda have awarded the City of Berkeley Health, Housing and Community Services Department the following two Shelter Plus Care grants:

1. $1,035,576 for County of Alameda Collaborative (AC Collaborative) for the period March 1, 2026, through February 28, 2027; and

2. $7,305,893 for Supportive Housing Collaborative Project (SHC) for the period September 1st, 2026, through August 31st, 2027; and

WHEREAS, the combined total for the two grants is an estimated $8,341,469 to provide direct rental assistance and supportive services to 53 households; and

WHEREAS, approximately 10% of the SHC grant is available to support the Health, Housing, and Community Services Department’s grant-related administrative activities (For the HUD grants budget, Fund 347 and 348 (Shelter+Care); and

WHEREAS, these Shelter Plus Care grants are an annual renewal of an existing program that provides rental subsidies and ongoing support services to approximately 290 homeless and disabled individuals; and

WHEREAS, the rent subsidies provided through the City’s Shelter Plus Care Program are partially matched by services provided by the City’s Mental Health Division and Aging Services Division and five community-based agencies that assist formerly homeless, disabled individuals and families in retaining stable housing.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to receive funds up to the maximum grant award, and execute any agreements and amendments resulting from the grants awarded from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the County of Alameda for the City’s Shelter Plus Care Program estimated to be as follows: 1) $1,035,576 for County of Alameda Collaborative (AC Collaborative) for the period March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2027; 2) $7,305,893 for Supportive Housing Collaborative Project (SHC) for the period September 1, 2026 through August 31, 2027.

A signed copy of said documents, agreements, and any amendments will be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 90 ends

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/

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Subject: Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan which formalizes the mandatory transition from the legacy Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) framework to the updated BHSA model mandated by California Proposition 1 (effective July 1, 2026); authorizing the signature of the City Council Certification form; forwarding the plan to appropriate state officials; and authorizing non-substantive, technical or ministerial modifications to the plan as required by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for final state approval.

SUMMARY
The BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan serves as Berkeley’s operational blueprint for stabilizing and expanding the City’s safety-net services, primarily directed at state prioritized populations. To ensure uninterrupted service delivery and state compliance, the plan requires adapting to three primary structural shifts mandated by Proposition 1:
 Component Restructuring: Realigning local programs into three state-defined funding buckets: Full Services Partnerships (FSP), Behavioral Health Services and Supports (BHSS), and Housing Interventions.
 Target Population Expansion: Formally expanding the Mental Health Division’s clinical target populations to treat individuals with severe substance use disorders (SUD) alongside serious mental illness (SMI) under a single, integrated behavioral health framework.
 Protected Housing Set-Asides: Authorizing dedicated funding streams explicitly restricted to permanent supportive housing, rental subsidies, and housing navigation infrastructure and other housing interventions.

By including all Behavioral Health funding sources, the new model creates a cohesive continuum of care. To provide a clear understanding of the breadth and type of services

Page 1 of 258 ends

Page 91 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

funded, the division's resources are split between direct-staffed city clinical teams and target-specific community agency contracts.

The development of the Behavioral Health Services Act (FY2027-2029) Three-Year Integrated Plan (BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan) was driven by an extensive community planning process designed to align local safety-net priorities with the new statutory requirements of California Proposition 1. To capture essential feedback from stakeholders, service recipients, and community providers, the Mental Health Division hosted twelve dedicated Community Input Meetings during the month of February, gathering targeted perspectives on local behavioral health needs, expanding substance use disorder interventions, and housing supports. Following these collaborative sessions, a Draft BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan was developed and posted online for a formal 30-day public review and comment period running from March 25 through April 23, 2026.

During the 30-day public review period, two additional Community Meetings were held to gather input on the Draft BHSA Three-Year Plan. This public engagement process culminated on the evening of Thursday, April 23, 2026, when the City of Berkeley Behavioral Health Commission convened an official Public Hearing at the South Berkeley Senior Center. This hearing provided a final platform for public testimony and discussion, ensuring that community voices directly informed the strategic priorities and funding frameworks submitted to the City Council. Following the closure of the Public Hearing, the Behavioral Health Commission passed the following motion:

M/S/C (Teague, Sol) The Behavioral Health Commission thanks Berkeley Mental Health for the 3-year draft plan and understands that changes will be made from the public comment and city council and support the plan and will continue to give input throughout its progress to completion.

Ayes: Fontana-Narell, Hunt, Opton, Sol, Teague, Noes: None; Abstentions: Tregub;

Absent: Gu, Krishnan, Turner
Important Administrative Note: A comprehensive understanding of the Mental Health Division’s budget is included in the City’s budget documents. While this Council Report and BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan contains many projections, this document does not constitute a final, financial statement or budgetary report. The state required instructions and template format in the plan are a series of questions regarding all funding streams received by the City. This three-year plan document serves as an operational snapshot aggregating many different, distinct funding streams and other information required by the state. The figures detailed below represent the best available estimates of utilization and projected revenues at the time of drafting.

Because BHSA allocations fluctuate monthly based on state tax receipts, these estimates are intended for strategic planning and transparent service continuum mapping.

Page 2 of 258 ends

Page 92 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 3 ends

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the BHSA IP enables funding for BHSA programs and services, as well as programs and services provided through all other funding sources received by the City of Berkeley Mental Health Division.

A. BHSA Funding
The three tables below outline the expected funding flows for each specific BHSA component, separating new annual allocations from legacy MHSA carryover funds designated for continuous programming. All figures represent forecasted revenues and allocations across the designated three-year cycle.

Table 1: Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Projections
BHSA Funding
Component
Estimated BHSA
Component
Allocation
Estimated Usage of
Carryover Funds
(MHSA Legacy)
Estimated Total
Funds Available for
Expenditures
Full Services
Partnership (FSP)
$4,093,381 $0 $4,093,381
Behavioral Health
Services &
Supports (BHSS)
$4,093,380 $564,292 $4,657,672
Housing
Interventions
$3,508,611 $0 $3,508,611
TOTALS $11,695,372 $564,292 $12,259,664

Page 3 of 258 ends

Page 93 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 4 ends

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2027–2028 Projections
BHSA Funding
Component
Estimated BHSA
Component
Allocation
Estimated Usage of
Carryover Funds
(MHSA Legacy)
Estimated Total
Funds Available for
Expenditures
Full Services
Partnership (FSP)
$4,216,181 $0 $4,216,181
Behavioral Health
Services &
Supports (BHSS)
$4,216,181 $564,292 $4,780,473
Housing
Interventions
$3,613,870 $0 $3,613,870
TOTALS $12,046,232 $564,292 $12,610,524
Table 3: Fiscal Year 2028–2029 Projections
BHSA Funding
Component
Estimated BHSA
Component
Allocation
Estimated Usage of
Carryover Funds
(MHSA Legacy)
Estimated Total
Funds Available for
Expenditures
Full Services
Partnership (FSP)
$4,342,667 $0 $4,342,667
Behavioral Health
Services &
Supports (BHSS)
$4,342,667 $361,182 $4,703,849
Housing
Interventions
$3,722,286 $0 $3,722,286
TOTALS $12,407,620 $361,182 $12,768,802
Note on Prudent Reserve: In compliance with state safety-net laws during economic downturns, a standalone MHSA Prudent Reserve of $1,233,738.00 will carry forward into the BHSA transition. This reserve is held independently and is excluded from the active expenditure tables above.

Page 4 of 258 ends

Page 94 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 5 ends

B. Integrated Mental Health Division Funding (All Sources) State regulations mandate that the BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan serve as a transparent dashboard for all revenue streams that support expenditures identified in the plan flowing into the City of Berkeley’s Mental Health Division, not just BHSA revenues. The following table aggregates the comprehensive, multi-source funding baseline that enables citywide behavioral health operations.

Funding
Component/Source
Fiscal Year
2026-2027
Fiscal Year
2027-2028
Fiscal Year
2028-2029
BHSA (Active
Component
Baseline)
$12,723,320 $13,088,090 $13,463,804
1991 Health &
Welfare
Realignment
$6,610,087 $6,709,239 $6,809,877
Federal Financial
Participation
(FFP/Medi-Cal)
$7,283,928 $7,393,187 $7,504,085
County General
Funds
$1,188,925 $1,206,213 $1,223,752
Opioid Settlement
Funds (OSF)
$275,000 $275,000 $0
Other State
Funding
$148,508 $0 $0
TOTALS $28,229,768 $28,671,729 $29,001,518

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan is a strategic document required by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) for continued state funding eligibility. To operationalize the structural shifts mandated by Proposition 1 and transition smoothly into the BHSA model, the Mental Health Division relies on a dual-delivery framework that maximizes both internal clinical expertise and localized community outreach when appropriate. Rather than viewing municipal teams and contracted providers as separate entities, the division integrates them into a singular, cohesive network of care. The following sections outline how these resources are actively deployed on the ground detailing the direct-staffed city services that form our clinical backbone, followed by the

Page 5 of 258 ends

Page 95 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 6 ends

specialized partner infrastructure funded to target our community's most vulnerable and historically underserved populations.

A. Direct-Staffed City Services
Berkeley contracts with Alameda County for the provision of some Medi-Cal services.

This partnership allows Berkeley to unlock federal health funding through a “dollar-for- dollar” matching system. For every $1.00 that Berkeley invests from local funds (like the BHSA), the federal Medi-Cal program contributes another $1.00 to match it. This 50% match requirement effectively doubles our local funding, allowing the City to operate the specialized frontline teams detailed below:
 Adult Case Management Team: Providing core navigation and stability coordination.
 Adult FSP-Intensive Case Management Team: Providing intensive case management care for individuals with high acuity needs.  Adult FSP-Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) modeled teams: Delivering intensive, multidisciplinary psychiatric care directly in the field.  Adult Peer-Wellness Team: Incorporating lived-experience practitioners to drive recovery and self-advocacy.
 Children’s Full-Service Partnership (FSP): High-acuity, family-centered clinical wraparound services.
 Dedicated FSP TAY Support Teams addressing critical young adult transition gaps.
 Mobile Crisis Services
 High School Health Center Behavioral Health Team: Providing rapid-access, on- site clinical care within public education infrastructure.

B. Contracted & Partner Infrastructure
Berkeley extends its baseline capabilities by funding external community contracts focused on historically underserved populations (including LGBTQ+, older adults, Transition Age Youth (TAY), cultural and ethnic populations, and individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness). Key interventions include:
 Co-located Substance Use Disorder (SUD) specialists embedded inside the City’s behavioral health clinics, including high school sites.  Mobile Encampment Wellness peer outreach teams targeting street-level populations.
 An SUD Peer Provider integrated directly into the City’s Mobile Crisis Team.  Local Board and Care stabilization programs and Permanent Supportive Housing for FSP-level clients.
 Early intervention services contracts in community-based agencies, and the paired with Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD).

Page 6 of 258 ends

Page 96 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 7 ends

The programmatic composition of this plan, specifically regarding locally funded programs currently under review in the City of Berkeley Fiscal Year 2027-2028 budget process, is based on the best available data at the time of the State-mandated filing deadline. Following Council approval, the BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan will be submitted to DHCS to undergo a final State review. In the event that City Council adopts a final budget that differs from the programmatic assumptions currently reflected in this plan, and/or if substantive revisions are required following the final review by DHCS, an Intermittent Update to this plan will be prepared, circulated for a 30-Day Public Review, and submitted to City Council.

This update will ensure that the BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan will remain in strict alignment with the City’s finalized fiscal appropriations and any requested revisions by the State. Approval of this plan as submitted does not constitute a final fiscal commitment to the specific programs currently under budgetary review, but enables the strategic framework required to secure and maintain the City’s access to State behavioral health funding.

BACKGROUND
California voters adopted Proposition 1, the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), on March 5, 2024. BHSA modernizes and replaces the previous Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) State legislation, which adds a 1% tax on every dollar of personal income over $1 million. BHSA revenues are allocated to mental health/behavioral health jurisdictions across the state to be utilized on local programming and housing interventions for individuals experiencing significant mental health or behavioral health, and housing needs. BHSA includes the following three funding components:
 Full Services Partnerships: Primarily for treatment services and supports for Severely Mentally Ill Adults and Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Children.  Behavioral Health Services and Supports: For Early Intervention, Mental Health and Behavioral Health Services and Supports; Outreach and Engagement; Workforce Education and Training; Capital Facilities and Technological Needs and Innovative Projects.
 Housing Interventions: For permanent supportive housing, rental subsidies, operating subsidies, capital development, and other housing supports for individuals with serious behavioral health needs who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

In addition to providing crucial mental health and behavioral health services for individuals in need, BHSA funds will advance the City’s Strategic Plan goal of providing housing support services for the most vulnerable community members in Berkeley.

The BHSA Three-Year Integrated Plan is the local plan, informed by area stakeholders, that details the proposed uses of funds for mental health and behavioral health

Page 7 of 258 ends

Page 97 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 8 ends

programs and services, and supports for housing. Per state legislation, BHSA Plans and Annual Updates must also include all other City of Berkeley Mental Health Division funding sources. Development BHSA Plans and Annual Updates requires the following state required steps: Initiating a community program planning process to obtain input on local behavioral health and housing needs; creating the draft plan; submitting the draft plan to DHCS for review; initiating a 30-day Public Review on the draft plan; and conducting a Public Hearing on the draft BHSA Plan at the Behavioral Health Commission.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Approval of this integrated plan supports citywide sustainability and health goals.

Providing field-based mental health triage, substance use counseling, and housing stabilization minimizes systemic inefficiencies and reduces emergency vehicle transport emissions by stabilizing high-risk individuals directly within community settings.

Furthermore, permanent housing interventions directly address health disparities exacerbated by climate-related weather anomalies among unsheltered populations.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
A. Systemic Volatility and the Necessity of Unspent Carryover Funds Maintaining a baseline of unspent carryover funds from year to year is an absolute operational necessity for a local behavioral health system. Because the City's BHSA funding is tied directly to a highly volatile revenue mechanism, these unspent funds function as a localized shock absorber to ensure that long-term direct care clinical teams and multi-year community agency contracts are not abruptly defunded during a low-revenue year. This extreme volatility is driven by specific economic realities:

High Reliance on a "Millionaire's Tax": The core of BHSA funding is a 1% tax surcharge on personal income exceeding $1 million. High-earning individuals derive a significant portion of their wealth from volatile sources like capital gains and stock market performance. When the market dips, this specific pool of tax revenue drops drastically and disproportionately faster than the general economy.

Disconnect Between Service Demand and Funding Cycles: BHSA distributions and state Realignment funds rely heavily on state tax receipts and sales taxes, which are completely untethered from actual community caseloads. During an economic downturn, local revenue generation slows down precisely when community trauma, housing insecurity, and substance use crises spike.

State-Level Processing Delays: Delays in state tax filing deadlines or administrative macro-adjustments can artificially starve a fiscal year of its projected revenue, creating severe, unpredictable funding cliffs at the local level.

Page 8 of 258 ends

Page 98 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 9 ends

B. Transitioning From a "Slow Burn" Model to Structural Stability Historically, the Mental Health Division has strategically utilized a "slow burn" (deficit spending) model to manage its behavioral health allocations. By design, the City intentionally maintained and spent down accumulated legacy carryover funds over multiple fiscal years to expand frontline services and maintain a robust safety net, even when annual expenditures outpaced new annual revenues.

While this deliberate deficit model successfully protected vital community programs from immediate economic downturns, relying on a dwindling pool of carryover funds is unsustainable over the long term.

To address this, the recent proposed structural budget reductions that are part of the budget balancing plan are specifically designed to bring this specialty fund back into structural alignment. By recalibrating core operational costs and aligning them more precisely with predictable, recurring revenue baselines estimates, these adjustments ensure that the division will no longer carry such a large structural deficit in future years.

Transitioning to this stabilized model preserves our essential direct-staffed clinical teams and contracted partner infrastructure, protecting them from the extreme peaks and valleys of state-level funding allocations.

C. Demonstrating a Quantifiable Difference ("Is Anyone Better Off?") The structural model drives improvements in three distinct ways:

Explicit Integration of Housing Navigation: Under the legacy framework, housing support was an incidental task absorbed by case managers. Transitioning to BHSA legally isolates Housing Interventions as an independent pillar, ensuring housing navigation and tenancy-sustaining activities are explicitly tracked and funded. Local performance metrics show that when clients are brought into these specialized housing pathways, 26 out of 28 individuals transitioning from unsheltered settings successfully secured permanent, long-term housing stability.

Direct Treatment of Co-Occurring Disorders: Legacy regulations limited the flexibility of utilizing mental health funds to aggressively treat addiction by itself. The BHSA blueprint intentionally weaves SUD care into primary psychiatric frameworks, deploying dollars to embed dedicated SUD peer providers into high-leverage emergency response units (like the Mobile Crisis Team) and expanding co-located substance use counselors inside local public high schools to address emerging youth crises.

Cross-System Collaborative Accountability: The BHSA model requires structural integration with regional networks and Managed Care Plans (MCPs). Instead of operating in a municipal silo, Berkeley is leveraging the state transition to align its programming with CalAIM initiatives, deploy Enhanced Care Management (ECM), and establish local Homeless Multidisciplinary Teams via California’s updated AB210

Page 9 of 258 ends

Page 99 ends

Behavioral Health Services Act Fiscal Years 2027-2029 CONSENT CALENDAR Three Year Integrated Plan June 16, 2026

Page 10 ends

framework. This ensures that high-utilizer populations are identified across healthcare, housing, and justice systems, redirecting them from costly institutional settings into sustainable community care.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Mental Health Division evaluated maintaining the legacy framework or delaying the transition timeline. However, because California Proposition 1 legally mandates the implementation of the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) effective July 1, 2026, delaying or rejecting this integrated plan would result in non-compliance with state safety-net statutory requirements. This would freeze the City’s authorization to pull down state allocations, Medi-Cal matching funds, and realigned revenue streams, causing an immediate disruption to citywide mental health operations.

CONTACT PERSON
Jeff Buell, Mental Health Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-7682 Karen Klatt, Community Services Specialist III, (510) 981-7644 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: BHSA Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan Exhibit B: City Council Certification Form

Page 10 of 258 ends

Page 100 ends

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

APPROVING THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT (BHSA) FISCAL YEARS 2027–2029 THREE-YEAR INTEGRATED PLAN
WHEREAS, California voters approved Proposition 1 on March 5, 2024, modernizing and replacing the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) with the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) effective July 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the state statutory frameworks require local mental health jurisdictions to submit a comprehensive Three-Year Integrated Plan detailing projected allocations and expenditures across state-mandated pillars: Full Services Partnerships (FSP), Behavioral Health Services and Supports (BHSS), and Housing Interventions; and WHEREAS, the Mental Health Division has formulated a strategic plan leveraging multiple braided funding streams totaling $28,229,768 for Fiscal Year 2026–2027, $28,671,729 for Fiscal Year 2027–2028, and $29,001,518 for Fiscal Year 2028–2029 to deliver critical safety-net operations; and
WHEREAS, due to the high revenue volatility inherent in a personal income tax structure on high earners, maintaining unspent carryover funds is designated as an operational necessity to smooth fiscal fluctuations and ensure continuity of field-based direct clinical care and partner agency contracts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed plan institutes necessary structural budget reductions to shift the division away from a historical "slow burn" spend deficit model into long-term structural alignment with recurring annual allocations; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with state requirements, the BHSA Fiscal Years 2027 through 2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan must be approved by City Council; and WHEREAS in addition to obtaining City Council approval on the BHSA Fiscal Years 2027 through 2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan, the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) also requires the local governing board to sign a form to certify the plan; and WHEREAS, following City Council approval, the BHSA Fiscal Years 2027 through 2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan, along with the signed City Council Certification form, will be submitted to the DHCS to undergo a final State review; and WHEREAS, the programmatic composition of this plan, specifically regarding programs currently under review in the Fiscal Year 2027-2028 budget process, is based on the best available data at the time of the State-mandated BHSA Plan filing deadline; and WHEREAS, approval of this Plan as submitted does not constitute a final fiscal commitment to the specific programs currently under budgetary review, but rather enables the strategic framework required to secure and maintain the City’s access to State behavioral health funding; and

Page 11 of 258 ends

Page 101 ends

June 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, in the event that City Council adopts a final budget that differs from the programmatic assumptions currently reflected in this draft Plan, and/or if revisions substantive revisions are required following the final review by DHCS, an Intermittent Update to the plan will be prepared and circulated for a 30-Day Public Review and submitted to City Council for approval; and
WHEREAS, the Intermittent Update will ensure that the BHSA Fiscal Years 2027 through 2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan will remain in strict alignment with the City’s finalized fiscal appropriations and any requested revisions by the State.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Fiscal Years 2027–2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan is hereby approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to sign the attached certification form, incorporated herein as Exhibit B; and that the Director of Health, Housing, and Community Services is authorized to take all administrative actions necessary to submit the plan to state oversight authorities; to make any non-substantive, technical or ministerial modifications to the plan as required by the DHCS for final approval; and to execute continuous program operations in accordance with the baseline funding frameworks detailed herein.

Exhibits
A: BHSA Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Three-Year Integrated Plan B: City Council Certification Form

Page 12 of 258 ends

Page 102 ends

Exhibit A
City of Berkeley
Behavioral Health
Services Act (BHSA)
Fiscal Years 2027 – 2029
Integrated Plan

Page 13 of 258 ends

Page 103 ends

1 City of Berkeley
BHSA Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Integrated Plan
Table of Contents

2026 - 2029 Integrated Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 2

General Information ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Plan Review Information ............................................................................................................................................... 4

County Behavioral Health System Overview .......................................................................................................................... 5

Statewide Behavioral Health Goals .................................................................................................................................... 11

Community Planning Process ..................................................................................................................................... 45

Comment Period and Public Hearing .......................................................................................................................... 52

County Behavioral Health Services Care Continuum ............................................................................................................. 54

County Provider Monitoring and Oversight .................................................................................................................. 54

Behavioral Health Services Act/Fund Programs .................................................................................................................... 56

Behavioral Health Services and Supports (BHSS) .................................................................................................. 56

Full Service Partnership Program ........................................................................................................................... 79

Housing Interventions ............................................................................................................................................ 101

Workforce Strategy ....................................................................................................................................................... 123

Budget and Prudent Reserve.......................................................................................................................................... 126

Plan Approval and Compliance ................................................................................................................................. 152

Full Services Partnership Evidence Based Practices Exemption Requests ................................................................ 158

Attachment A – Public Input ...................................................................................................................................... 161

Page 14 of 258 ends

Page 104 ends

2 2026 - 2029 Integrated Plan
City of Berkeley

The Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) requires counties to submit three-year Integrated Plans (IPs) for Behavioral Health Services and Outcomes. For related policy information, refer to 3.A. Purpose of the Integrated Plan .

General Information

County, City, Joint Powers, or Joint Submission
City

Entity Name
City of Berkeley

Behavioral Health Agency Name
City of Berkeley, Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Mental Health Division

Behavioral Health Agency Mailing Address
2640 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley, CA 94704

Primary Mental Health Contact
Name: Jeff Buell
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7682

Secondary Mental Health Contact
Name: Yvette Katuala
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7654

Primary Substance Use Disorder Contact
Name: Jeff Buell
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7682

Page 15 of 258 ends

Page 105 ends

3 Secondary Substance Use Disorder Contact
Name: Yvette Katuala
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7654

Primary Housing Interventions Contact
Name: Jeff Buell
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7682

Compliance Officer for Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS) Name: Yvette Katuala
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7654

Compliance Officer for Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC - ODS) Services
Name: Yvette Katuala
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (510) 981-7654

Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Coordinator

Name Email address
Karen Klatt [email protected]

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) liaison

Name Email address
Jeff Buell [email protected]
Quality Assurance or Quality Improvement (QA/QI) lead
Name Email address
Yvette Katuala [email protected]

Page 16 of 258 ends

Page 106 ends

4 Medical Director

Name Email address
Jeff Johns [email protected]

Plan Review Information

Outlined below is information to assist in reviewing the City of Berkeley Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Fiscal Years 2027-2029 Integrated Plan (IP).

General Overview - The City of Berkeley BHSA IP, is a community and stakeholder informed plan that outlines the uses of State of California BHSA funds for programs and services over the 7/1/27- 6/30/29 three-year timeframe. In alignment with community input received, the Draft BHSA IP proposes to:
• Keep each of the BHSA components at the state allotted funding amounts of 30% for Housing Interventions, 35% for Full Service Partnership programs, and 35% for Behavioral Health Services and Supports.
• Maintain crucial services for individuals who experience significant mental health needs. • Increase supports for Transition Age Youth in the Full Services Partnership program. • Ensure a greater proportion of programs include some level of services for Children Youth and/or Transition Age Youth.
• Implement Early Intervention services to support Children, Youth, Transition Age Youth, Adults and Older Adults and individuals in underserved cultural and ethnic populations. • Increase Peer Supports and maintain wellness services. • Expand Substance Use Disorder services.
• Increase housing interventions and supports for individuals experiencing Behavioral Health needs.

For information on proposed programs to be implemented, access the Behavioral Health Services & Supports, Full Service Partnership, and the Housing Interventions sections of the BHSA IP. For information on community input received, access the Community Program Planning section and Attachment A – Public Input, of the BHSA IP.

BHSA IP Format - The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) provided a template that all mental health jurisdictions used to create the BHSA Integrated Plan (IP). The template required the specific information and format that make up the City of Berkeley BHSA IP. To facilitate an understanding and review of each section, incorporated throughout the BHSA IP are clickable hyperlinks in blue that link to related policy information within the DHCS BHSA Policy Manual.

Page 17 of 258 ends

Page 107 ends

5 Definition of “County” – For the purposes of the BHSA Fund and the BHSA IP, DHCS considers the City of Berkeley as a “small County”. As such, the term “County” in the BHSA IP, refers to Berkeley as the County, instead of Alameda County. Within the BHSA IP, there are places where This distinction can be confusing including where it indicates that “cities submitting their plan independently from their Counties, do not have to fill out this section”. Again, per the DHCS BHSA definition of Berkeley as a small county, and except where otherwise noted, Berkeley is the “County” in the City of Berkeley BHSA IP.

BHSA IP Data – While most of the information and data throughout the BHSA IP, is specific to the City of Berkeley, there are some sections where per DHCS, Berkeley was required to use Alameda County’s data as follows:

• Statewide Behavioral Health Goals: Berkeley was required to use Alameda County’s data in this section, as the publicly available population-level measures that the state compiled, did not include City level data. Berkeley specific data can be found in the Disparities Analysis, Cross Measures Questions, and Categories of Funding sections of each Behavioral Health goal.

• Full Service Partnership Program: DHCS provided each County with projected numbers of eligible Full Service Partnership and Evidence-Based Practice populations to use in their BHSA IP. These numbers did not include City level projections. Therefore, in this section, except where “County Actuals” is indicated, Berkeley was required to use the projected numbers that the state provided on Alameda County.

Full Services Partnership Evidence-Based Practices Exemption Requests – Per DHCS for this first BHSA IP, small counties, such as Berkeley, are exempt from having to implement specific evidence-based practices within their Full Service Partnership programs. Although small counties are exempt, DHCS required requests to be submitted in the BHSA IP that outlined the need for these exemptions.

County Behavioral Health System Overview

Please provide the ci ty/county behavioral health syste m (inclusive of mental health and
substance use disorder) information listed throughout this section. The purpose of this section is to provide a high-level overview of the city/county behavioral health system’s populations served, technological infrastructure, and services provided. This information is intended to support city/county planning and transparency for stakeholders. The Department of Health Care Services recognizes that some information provided in this section is subject to change over the course of the Integrated Plan (IP) period. All data should be based on FY preceding the year plan development begins (i.e., for 2026-2029 IP, data from FY 2023-2024 should be used).

Page 18 of 258 ends

Page 108 ends

6 For related policy information, refer to 3.E.2 General Requirements .

Populations Served by County Behavioral Health System
Includes individuals that have been served through the county Medi-Cal Behavioral Health Delivery System and individuals served through other county behavioral health programs. Population-level behavioral health measures, including for untreated behavioral health conditions, are covered in the Statewide Behavioral Health Goals section and County Population-Level Behavioral Health Measure Workbook. For related policy information, refer to 2.B
.3 Eligible Populations and 3.A
.2 Contents of the Integrated
Plan .

Children and Youth

In the table below, please report the number of children and youth (under 21) served by the county behavioral health system who meet the criteria listed in each row.

Counts may be duplicated as individuals may be included in more than one category.

Criteria Number of Children and Youth Under Age 21
Received Medi-Cal Specialty
Mental Health Services (SMHS)
86 Received at least one substance use
disorder (SUD) individual-level prevention
and/or early intervention service
<11*
Received Drug Medi-Cal (DMC) or Drug
Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC-
ODS) services
N/A
Received mental health (MH) and SUD
services from the mental health plan (MHP)
and DMC county or DMC-ODS plan
N/A

Page 19 of 258 ends

Page 109 ends

7 Accessed the Early Psychosis Intervention
Plus Program, pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code Part 3.4 (commencing
with section 5835), Coordinated Specialty
Care, or other similar evidence-based
practices and community defined evidence
practices for early psychosis and mood
disorder detection and intervention
programs
<11*
Were chronically homeless or
experiencing homelessness or at risk of
homelessness
<11*
Were in the juvenile justice system <11*
Have re-entered the community from a
youth correctional facility
<11*
Were served by the Mental Health Plan and
had an open child welfare case
<11*
Were served by the DMC County or
DMC-ODS plan and had an open child
welfare case
N/A
Have received acute psychiatric care <11*
* Values marked with "*" have been suppressed per DHCS de-identification standards. C ounts between 1–10 ar
e displayed as "<11”

Page 20 of 258 ends

Page 110 ends

8 Adults and Older Adults
In the table below, please report the number of adults and older adults (21and older) served by the county behavioral health system who meet the criteria listed in each row. Counts may be duplicated as individuals may be included in more than one category.

Criteria Number of Adults and Older Adults
Were dual-eligible Medicare and
Medicaid members
198
Received Medi-Cal SMHS 362
Received DMC or DMC-ODS services 18
Received MH and SUD services
from the MHP and DMC county or
DMC-ODS plan
18 Were chronically homeless, or
experiencing homelessness, or at
risk of homelessness
173
Experienced unsheltered
homelessness
70 Moved from unsheltered
homelessness to being sheltered
(emergency shelter, transitional
housing, or permanent housing)
17 Of the total number of those who moved
from unsheltered homelessness
to being sheltered, how many
transitioned into permanent
housing
17

Page 21 of 258 ends

Page 111 ends

9 Criteria Number of Adults and Older Adults
Were in the justice system (on
parole or probation and not
currently incarcerated)
24 Were incarcerated (including state
prison and jail)
43 Reentered the community from
state prison or county jail
41 Received acute psychiatric services 48

Input the number of persons in designated and approved facilities who were:

Admitted or detained for 72-hour evaluation and treatment rate 0 Admitted for 14-day and 30-day periods of intensive treatment N/A

Admitted for 180-day post certification intensive treatment N/A

Please report the total population enrolled in Department of State Hospital (DSH) Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act programs N/A

Please report the total population enrolled in DSH community solution projects (e.g., community-based restoration and diversion programs)

N/A

Of the data reported in this section, are there any areas where the county would like to provide additional context for DHCS’s understanding? No

Page 22 of 258 ends

Page 112 ends

10 Please describe the local data used during the planning process The local data used was from the FY23/24 timeframe.

Local CARE Act Implementation

Identify the specific service components within your 3-year Integrated Plan that will support CARE participants. Explain how the county will ensure these individuals receive priority access and specialized coordination within the broader behavioral health continuum, including housing if appropriate.

As member providers of Alameda County’s regional system, Berkeley will continue to ensure these individuals receive priority access and specialized coordination within the broader behavioral health continuum, including housing if appropriate. Berkeley coordinates closely within Alameda County’s regional system to address the specific needs of CARE participants, which is necessary to prioritize the limited system resources to the vulnerable populations who need to continue their access of these behavioral health and housing supports.

Describe how CARE referral pathways will be integrated into existing referral and service pathways within the county behavioral health system.

As member providers of Alameda County’s regional system, Berkeley will continue to ensure these individuals are also integrated into the existing referral and service pathways within the CARE system. Berkeley coordinates closely within Alameda County’s regional system to address the specific needs of CARE participants, and this includes ensuring that regional partners and providers are informed and connected to referral and service pathways available to the community and other petitioners. Berkeley providers connect regularly with CARE Court staff to facilitate these referral and service connections.

Describe the process for identifying and redirecting individuals who are potentially eligible for CARE to alternative pathways when a formal petition is not required or appropriate. For individuals redirected from CARE, describe how the county will confirm and document successful connection to services.

As member providers of Alameda County’s regional system, Berkeley service providers identify and refer all potential CARE eligible individuals in the community to all necessary and appropriate services. For individuals who are seeking voluntary services or who are otherwise not appropriate for the CARE program, a robust regional system of service provider referrals is available both through the Behavioral Health Division’s as well as Alameda Count
y’s own access portal. These individuals are screened, documented, and then connected with a warm hand-off to an appropriate provider to ensure successful connection to services.

Page 23 of 258 ends

Page 113 ends

11 County Behavioral Health Technical Infrastructure
Cities submitting their Integrated Plan independently from their counties do not have to complete this section. For related policy information, refer to 6.C.1 Promoting Access to Care Through Efficient Use of State and County Resources Introduction.

County Behavioral Health System Service Delivery Landscape Cities submitting their Integrated Plan independently from their counties do not have to complete this section. For related policy information, refer to 6.C.1 Promoting Access to Care Through Efficient Use of State and County Resources Introduction.

Care Transitions

Has the county implemented the state -mandated Transition of Care Tool for Medi-Cal Mental Health Services (Adult and Youth)?
Yes

Does the county’s Memorandum of Understanding include a description of the system used to transition a member’s care between the member’s mental health plan and their managed care plan based upon the member’s health condition? No

Statewide Behavioral Health Goals
Population-Level Behavioral Health Measures
The statewide behavioral health goals and associated population- level behavioral health measures must be used in the county Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) planning process and should inform resource planning and implementation of targeted interventions to improve outcomes for the fiscal year(s) being addressed in the IP. For more information on the statewide behavioral health goals, please see the Policy Manual Chapter 2, Section C .

Page 24 of 258 ends

Page 114 ends

12 Please review your county’s status on each population-level behavioral health measure, including the primary measures and supplemental measures for each of the 14 goals.

All measures are publicly available, and counties are able to review their status by accessing the measures via DHCS-provided instructions and the County Population- Level Behavioral Health Measure Workbook.

As part of this review, counties are required to evaluate disparities related to the six priority statewide behavioral health goals. Counties are encouraged to use their existing tools, methods, and systems to support this analysis and may also incorporate local data sources to strengthen their evaluation.

Please note that several Phase 1 measures include demographic stratifications – such as race, sex, age, and spoken language – which are included in the prompts below.

Counties may also use local data to conduct additional analyses beyond these demographic categories.

For related policy information, refer to E.6.1 Population-level Behavioral Health Measures .

Priority statewide behavioral health goals for improvement Counties are required to address the six priority statewide behavioral health goals in this section. Cities should utilize data that corresponds to the county they are located within. As such, the City of Berkeley should use data from Alameda County and Tri-City should use data from Los Angeles County. For related policy information, refer to E.6.2 Primary and Supplemental Measures.

Access to care: Primary measures

Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS) Penetration Rates for Adults and Children & Youth (DHCS), FY 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? For adults/older adults
Same

For children/youth
Same

Page 25 of 258 ends

Page 115 ends

13 What disparities did identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Sex
Spoken Language

Non-Specialty Mental Health Services (NSMHS) Penetration Rates for Adults and Children & Youth (DHCS), FY 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? For adults/older adults
Below

For children/youth
Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Sex
Spoken Language

Drug Medi-Cal (DMC) Penetration Rates for Adults and Children & Youth (DHCS), FY 2022 - 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? For adults/older adults
Not Applicable

For children/youth
Not Applicable

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? No Disparities Data Available

Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC-ODS) Penetration Rates for Adults and Children & Youth (DHCS), FY 2022 - 2023

Page 26 of 258 ends

Page 116 ends

14 How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? For adults/older adults
Same

For children/youth
Same

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Race or Ethnicity

Access to care: Supplemental Measures

Initiation of Substance Use Disorder Treatment (IET-INI) (DHCS), FY 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? Above

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? No Disparities Data Available

Access to care: Disparities Analysis
For any disparities observed, please provide a written summary of your findings, including the measures and population groups experiencing disparities and a description of the data that supported your analysis.

Berkeley's Local Data:

In FY24-25, Berkeley Mental Health served 466 individuals through Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS), including 94 children and youth and 372 adults and older adults. These service counts represent local service engagement within the Medi-Cal population residing in Berkeley, highlighting the population potentially eligible for specialty behavioral health services. Youth service utilization is generally proportional to the size of the youth Medi-Cal population. Children and youth represent approximately 21% of the Medi-Cal population in Berkeley and account for approximately 20% of SMHS clients served. Adults and older adults represent approximately 79% of the Medi-Cal population and account for approximately 80% of SMHS clients served.

Overall, Berkeley service distribution is aligned with population need. In general, service utilization of Berkeley Mental Health programs align with statewide SMHS penetration trends. Service utilization by race and ethnicity shows disparities in access to Specialty Mental Health Services in Berkeley.

Page 27 of 258 ends

Page 117 ends

15 Children and Youth (Race & Ethnicity)
Black or African American youth make up the largest share of those served with 39 youth (41%), despite representing a much smaller share of the Medi -Cal population (approximately 16%). This community appears to be overrepresented in SMHS services relative to their share of the Medi-Cal population, suggesting higher levels of service engagement or greater behavioral health needs within this population.

Hispanic or Latino and Asian or Pacific Islander youth appear to be underrepresented in SMHS services relative to their share of the Medi -Cal population. Hispanic or Latino youth account for 18 clients (19%), which is still slightly above their share of the Medi-Cal population (approximately 16%). White youth represent 12%, compared to about 22% of the Medi-Cal population. These patterns suggest that both White and Asian youth are underrepresented among those receiving services. Additionally, 20 youth (approximately 21%) are categorized as Other or Unknown, which limits the ability to fully assess disparities across all groups.

Overall, while some populations are accessing services at higher rates, others may face barriers to care. This highlights the importance of strengthening culturally responsive outreach, language access, and early engagement strategies to ensure more equitable access to services.

Adults and Older Adults (Race & Ethnicity Disparities)
White adults represent a larger portion of those served, with 158 clients (42%), compared to approximately 22% of the Medi-Cal population, suggesting higher levels of engagement relative to population size. Adults identifying as Black or African

American also represent a high number among SMHS clients relative to their share of the Medi-Cal population, accounting for 151 clients (41%), significantly higher share of the Medi-Cal population (approximately 16%).

Conversely, Hispanic or Latino adults represent only 15 clients (4%), despite accounting for approximately 16% of the Medi-Cal population. Asian adults represent 24 clients (6%) compared to about 10% of the population. These patterns indicate that both Latino and Asian adults are underrepresented in service utilization.

A smaller number of clients are identified as Other or Unknown (approximately 14% combined), which may reflect limitations in demographic reporting. These findings suggest that while Berkeley Mental Health programs are effectively reaching some populations, there are clear gaps in access for others. Addressing these disparities will require continued focus on culturally responsive services, targeted outreach, and strengthening pathways to care for underserved communities.

Page 28 of 258 ends

Page 118 ends

16 Age Groups
Children and Youth (Ages 0– 20):

In FY24-25, Berkeley Mental Health served 94 children and youth. Service utilization is heavily concentrated among adolescents. Youth ages 13–17 accounted for 64% of clients served, followed by ages 6–12 (19%) and transition-age youth (18–20, captured within the 18–25 category) at approximately 16%. These patterns suggest that adolescents are more likely to access specialty mental health services, while younger children may be underrepresented in service utilization which may reflect barriers related to early identification, referral pathways, and caregiver and family engagement. Overall, this data highlights the importance of strengthening early childhood screening and intervention, expanding school-based and adolescent- focused services, and improving transition planning for youth aging into adult systems of care.

Adults and Older Adults (Ages 21+)
In FY24-25, Berkeley Mental Health served 372 adults and older adults, representing approximately 2% of the Medi-Cal eligible adult population (ages 21+). Service utilization is distributed across age groups, with higher concentrations among middle- aged and older adults. Individuals ages 60– 69 accounted for 24% of clients served, followed by ages 40–49 (22%) and ages 50–59 (19%). In contrast, younger adults ages 18–29 accounted for a relatively small proportion of clients served (approximately 8% combined), suggesting lower engagement among this population. Adults ages 30–39 represented 17% of clients, while older adults ages 70+ accounted for 11%.

These patterns suggest that middle-aged and older adults are more likely to access specialty mental health services, while younger adults may be underrepresented relative to their presence in the Medi-Cal population. Overall, these findings indicate a need to strengthen outreach and engagement strategies for younger adults, while continuing to support the needs of older adults who demonstrate higher levels of service utilization. Expanding transition -age youth services, early adult intervention

programs, and
community-based outreach may help improve access among
younger populations.

Gender
Children and Youth (Ages 0– 20)
SMHS utilization among children and youth in Berkeley indicates variation in service engagement across gender identity groups. In FY24-25, female youth accounted for 48% of clients served, while male youth represented 39%. The remaining 13% of clients were distributed across categories including missing or unknown responses, including those who identified as gender non- conforming and transgender youth.

Page 29 of 258 ends

Page 119 ends

17 These patterns suggest that female youth may be more likely to engage in specialty mental health services compared to male youth The presence of diverse youth within the system, while representing a small proportion of clients, highlights the importance of ensuring services are inclusive and responsive to diverse gender identities.

Overall, these findings highlight the need to continue strengthening gender - responsive and inclusive services, including outreach strategies that engage male youth and support for gender diverse populations.

Adults and Older Adults (Ages 21+)
In FY24-25, male adults represented the largest proportion of clients served (51%), followed by female adults (39%). A smaller proportion of clients identified using pronoun-based categories and clients representing across additional gender identity categories. The presence of individuals identifying across a range of gender identities highlights the importance of maintaining culturally responsive, inclusive services.

Additionally, the use of both traditional gender categories and pronoun -based reporting indicates evolving data collection practices, which may affect comparability across groups. Overall, these findings suggest the need to continue strengthening gender-responsive service delivery, including targeted outreach and engagement strategies, while also improving the consistency and completeness of gender identity data collection.

Data Findings
Service utilization among adults is broadly distributed across age groups, with higher engagement observed among middle- aged and older adults, suggesting sustained connection to care among individuals with ongoing behavioral health needs.

Equity Analysis
Analysis of demographic data indicates disparities in access to and engagement with behavioral health services across multiple population groups. Racial and ethnic disparities are evident relative to the share of the Medi-Cal population. Age-related disparities are also observed, with higher engagement among adolescents and older adults, and lower participation among young children and younger adults. These patterns suggest potential gaps in early identification of behavioral health needs and challenges in engaging individuals during key transition periods, particularly among transition-age youth and young adults. Gender-based differences in service utilization further indicate variation in engagement across the lifespan, with female youth more likely to access services compared to male youth, while male adults are more
represented among adult service populations.

Page 30 of 258 ends

Page 120 ends

18 Access to care: Cross-Measure Questions
Please describe what programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is planning to strengthen or implement beginning July 1, 2026 that may increase your county’s level of access to care. In your response, please describe how you plan to address measures where your status is below the statewide average or median, within the context of local needs. Additionally, please refer to any data that was used to inform new programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is implementing (e.g., developing an intervention targeting a sub- population in which data demonstrates they have poorer outcomes.

The Behavioral Health Statewide dataset that was provided to mental health jurisdictions to use for the BHSA Integrated Plan, did not include City specific data.

As such, the Department of Health Care services (DHCS) was instructed to use Alameda Counties measures for all of the BH Statewide Data, and where possible to add in any Berkeley local data that may align with each of the six Behavioral Health Priority goals.

Alameda County's data measures are shown in the Access to Care Primary and Secondary Measures of this section. Since these measures are comprised of a combination of all the Cities within the larger County, it is not possible to evaluate how Berkeley is doing within the dataset. Berkeley specific information is reflected

in the Access to Care Disparities Analysis Section, and the Cross-Measures Questions.

Access to Care (Specialty/Non-Specialty Mental Health Service Penetration) is a priority goal within all programs at Berkeley Mental Health. While Berkeley has an Access Team that serves as an entry point into the system, the City receives referrals from community partners to all level of care services and a "no wrong door approach" is embraced within all three Full Service Partnership programs. In order to strengthen the City's level of access to care, Berkeley will undergo a process with each program to assess where current practices may need to be shifted and/or new ones implemented. This process may also include eval uating the feasibility and utility of whether local data collection measures should be added to better understand how Berkeley is doing with Access to Care goals.

Please identify the category or categories of funding that the county is using to address the access to care goal.
1991 Realignment
BHSA Full Services Partnership (FSP)
BHSA Behavioral Health Services and Supports (BHSS)
Federal Financial Participation (SMHS, Drug Medi-Cal/Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC/DMC-ODS)
State General Fund

Page 31 of 258 ends

Page 121 ends

19 Homelessness: Primary measures
People Experiencing Homelessness Point-in-Time Count (Rate per 10,000 people by Continuum of Care Region) (HUD), 2024

How does your county status compare to the PIT Count Rate out of every 10,000 people by Continuum of Care region?
Above

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations?
Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Other:

Veterans, Unaccompanied youth

Homeless Student Enrollment by Dwelling Type, California Department of Education (CDE), 2023 - 2024

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations?
Race or Ethnicity
Other: African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Pacific Islander students are overrepresented in unstable and emergency housing situations.

Homelessness: Supplemental Measures

PIT Count Rate of People Experience Homelessness with Severe Mental Illness, (Rate per 10,000 people by Continuum of Care Region) (HUD), 2024

How does your county status compare to the PIT Count Rate out of every 10,000 people by Continuum of Care region?
Above

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender

Page 32 of 258 ends

Page 122 ends

20 Race or Ethnicity
Sex

PIT Count Rate of People Experience Homelessness with Chronic Substance Abuse, (Rate per 10,000 people by Continuum of Care Region) (HUD), 2024

How does your county status compare to the PIT Count Rate out of every 10,000 people by Continuum of Care region?
Same

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity

People Experiencing Homelessness Who Accessed Services from a Continuum of Care (CoC) Rate (BCSH), 2023 (This measure will increase as people access services.)

How does your local CoC’s rate compare to the average rate across all CoCs? Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Sex

Homelessness: Disparities Analysis
For any disparities observed, please provide a written summary of your findings, including the measures and population groups experiencing disparities and a description of the data that supported your analysis.

In Berkeley, homelessness and behavioral health are deeply interconnected. The City of Berkeley Homeless Census and Survey 2024 this reality, with 43% of individuals experiencing homelessness reporting SMI and 26% reporting SUD, underscoring the central role behavioral health plays in both the causes and consequences of homelessness. In the same report, the Point -in-Time (PIT) Count provides a snapshot of this challenge, identifying 844 individuals experiencing homelessness. More than half of those counted 445 individuals (53%) were living unsheltered, while 399

Page 33 of 258 ends

Page 123 ends

21 individuals (47%) were connected to shelter. Compared to Alameda County, where 67% of individuals are unsheltered, Berkeley has a lower rate suggests relatively stronger engagement with the shelter system.

Within this broader landscape, Berkeley Mental Health (BMH) offers a closer look at how individuals move through care. In FY 24-25 across its programs, BMH served 188 adults and older adults who were experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Among them, 79 individuals were living unsheltered, reflecting the level of vulnerability among those who do connect to services. As individuals engaged in care, movement toward stability included 28 individuals that transitioned from unsheltered conditions into sheltered settings, and notably, 26 ultimately secured permanent housing. These outcomes demonstrate that when individuals are connected to services and housing pathways, meaningful progress toward stability is possible.

For children and youth, the number of those experiencing or at risk of homelessness remains fewer than 11. While small, this group reflects ongoing housing instability among youth and families and points to the importance of early intervention and prevention.

Data Comparison
Taken together, the PIT Count and BMH data reflect the reality that many individuals experiencing homelessness, particularly those who are unsheltered, are not yet connected to behavioral health services. At the same time, BMH data reveals what happens once individuals do enter care. Across active clients, a majority are connected to housing or shelter through the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), suggesting strong alignment with coordinated entry and housing pathways.

Disparities

The PIT count data shows that Black or African American individuals make up 43% of the homeless population, a disproportionate share relative to the general population.

Age patterns also tell an important story. Homelessness in Berkeley is most concentrated among adults ages 25 to 64, particularly those ages 35–44 and 55–64, where the largest shares are observed. Younger individuals are less visible in the data youth under 18 account for just 4% but this likely reflects differences in how homelessness presents, often within family systems rather than as unsheltered homelessness. Meanwhile, older adults (65+) account for

12.2%, pointing to signs of
vulnerability among aging populations.

Programs Addressing Homelessness
BMH plays a key role within the City’s broader continuum of care by supporting individuals at multiple points along their housing journey. Through outreach, field-

Page 34 of 258 ends

Page 124 ends

22 based teams engage individuals where they are, and BMH partners help individuals move toward stability.

Key Takeaway
Berkeley’s behavioral health system is effective in connecting engaged clients to housing and supporting positive outcomes, a significant portion of individuals experiencing homelessness particularly those who are unsheltered remain outside of care. Together, these data points reflect a system that is both functioning and strained.

BMH demonstrates clear strengths, once individuals are connected to care, they are frequently linked to housing resources, and outcomes such as the transition into permanent housing show that the system can effectively support movement toward stability. The PIT Count highlights a persistent front -end challenge. Many individuals, particularly those who are unsheltered, remain outside of the system entirely. The presence of 79 unsheltered individuals, even among those already connected toservices, further underscores the difficulty of engaging individuals with the highest needs. This suggests that there is more opportunity for improvement in how individuals are reached, connected, and brought into care in the first place.

Homelessness: Cross-Measure Questions
Please describe what programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is planning to strengthen or implement beginning July 1, 2026 that may reduce your county’s level of homelessness in the population experiencing severe mental illness, severe SUD, or co-occurring conditions. In your response, please describe how you plan to address measures where your status is below the statewide average or median, within the context of local needs. Additionally, please refer to any data that was used to inform new programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is implementing (e.g., developing an interven tion targeting a sub-population in which data demonstrates they have poorer outcomes).

Alameda County's data measures are shown in the Homelessness Primary and Secondary Measures of this section. Since these measures are comprised of a combination of all the Cities within the larger County, it is not possible to evaluate how Berkeley is specifically doing within the dataset. Berkeley specific information is reflected in the Homelessness Disparities Analysis Section, and the Cross-Measures Questions.

Berkeley is planning to strengthen its collaboration with Alameda County's regional housing collaborative, including the coordination between FSP programs and County flex pool run by Abode Services. Combined with the intensive, wraparound services of

Page 35 of 258 ends

Page 125 ends

23 FSP's, Berkeley aims to improve its housing retention rates. Berkeley sponsored and is awaiting California's update to AB210, which will now include Local Health Jurisdictions (like Berkeley) in its ability to establish a homeless multidisciplinary team to share information
and support individuals who are unhoused, whereas the
previous legislation only allowed this function to be performed by a County. Not only does Berkeley participate in the Alameda County MDT meeting regarding high utilizers of services, but it also has historically held its own with local providers. With the AB210 update, coordination and communication will be strengthened between local providers to support the Berkeley community and its residents in using lowest levels of appropriate care and avoiding unnecessary homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement whenever possible.

A three-year Prop 47 grant is being leveraged to stand up Berkeley CareBridge, a diversion program designed to support stabilization of justice involved individuals with mental health, SUD, housing, and supportive service needs. This will help address homelessness, institutionalization, and justice-involvement for the most vulnerable in our community.

Please identify the category or categories of funding that the county is using to address the homelessness goal:

BHSA Housing Interventions
BHSA
FSP
BHSA
BHSS
1991 Realignment
State General Fund
Federal Financial Participation (SMHS, DMC/DMC-ODS)
Other: Prop. 47 Funds

Institutionalization
Per 42 CFR 435.1010, an institution is "an establishment that furnishes (in single or Multiple facilities) food, shelter, and some treatment or services to four or more persons unrelated to the proprietor." Institutional settings are intended for individuals with conditions including, but not limited to, behavioral health conditions.

Care provided in inpatient and residential (i.e., institutional) settings can be clinically appropriate and is part of the care continuum. Here, institutionalization refers to individuals residing in these settings longer than clinically appropriate. Therefore, the goal is not to reduce stays in institutional settings to zero. The focus of this goal is on reducing stays in institutional settings that provide a Level of Care that is not – or is no

Page 36 of 258 ends

Page 126 ends

24 longer – the least restrictive environment. (no action)

Institutionalization: Primary Measures
Inpatient administrative days (DHCS) rate, FY 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For adults/older adults
Below

For children/youth
Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Sex
Institutionalization: Supplemental Measures
Involuntary Detention Rates, FY 2021 - 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? 14-day involuntary detention rates per 10,000
Above
30-day involuntary detention rates per 10,000
Below
180-day post-certification involuntary detention rates per 10,000 Same

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? No Disparities Data Available.

Conservatorships, FY 2021 - 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Temporary Conservatorships
Above
Permanent Conservatorships
Below

Page 37 of 258 ends

Page 127 ends

25 What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Sex

SMHS Crisis Service Utilization (Crisis Intervention, Crisis Residential Treatment Services, and Crisis Stabilization) (DHCS), FY 2023 Increasing access to crisis services may reduce or prevent unnecessary admissions to institutional facilities

How does your county compare to the statewide rate/average?

Crisis Intervention
For adults/older adults
Below

For children/youth

Above

Crisis Residential Treatment Services
For adults/older adults
Below

For children/youth
Below

Crisis
Stabilization
For adults/older adults
Above

For children/youth
Above

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Sex
Spoken Language

Page 38 of 258 ends

Page 128 ends

26 Institutionalization: Disparities Analysis
For any disparities observed, please provide a written summary of your findings, including the measures and population groups experiencing disparities and a description of the data that supported your analysis.

Per Alameda County's data analysis, in fiscal year 2023, disparities in Institutionalization for Inpatient Administrative Days were seen across age, race, and sex. Adults age 57-68 (16.3 days) and white adults (16.2) were above Alameda County’s average of 15.1 days.

Adult females (13.1) also had longer inpatient administrative days than males. For the Alameda County youth population, the average administrative days were 7.7. No disparity youth data for Inpatient Administrative Days was made available by DHCS.

These disparities highlight step down placement need for culturally responsive, gender specific, and age-appropriate community care options to reduce institutional stays and ensure the least restrictive environment.

Supplemental Measure - Crisis Intervention Utilization total by minutes per beneficiary: Disparities were
identified among adults ages 57-69 (189.86), Hispanics
(191.54), Asian/Pacific Islanders (192.44), Spanish writers (188.7) and Females (191.87) had higher crisis residential usage. For Children ages 6- 11 (389.93), White youth (521.84), Female youth (334.14), and English writers (313.7) showed elevated crisis service usage.

Supplemental Measure - Crisis Stabilization Utilization by hours per beneficiary:

Disparities identified were adults ages 45-56 (36.79), Alaskan Native or American Indian (52.69), Black (37.46), Female (34.16), English writers (34.51). For the youth, ages 12-17 (26.06), Black youth (30.96), Female (25.47) and English writers (25.1) had the highest usage.

Supplemental Measure - 14 day Involuntary Detention Rate. Alameda County’s rate was (32.2) which is over the state rate (10.2) by 3 times. The longer 30 days and 180- day detentions are 0.0 which shows disparities in short term use and possible reporting gaps. Alameda County reports temporary conservatorships and permanent conservatorships differently, that is why they are not included in the data.

Institutionalization: Cross-Measure Questions
What additional local data do you have on the current status of institutionalization in your county? (Example: utilization of Mental Health Rehabilitation Center or Skilled Nursing Facility-Special Treatment Programs)
N/A

Please describe what programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is planning to strengthen or implement beginning July 1, 2026 that may reduce your county’s rate of institutionalization. In your response, please describe how you

Page 39 of 258 ends

Page 129 ends

27 plan to address measures where your status is below the statewide average or median, within the context of local needs. Additionally, please refer to any data that was used to inform new programs, services, partnerships or initiatives the count is implementing (e.g., enhancing crisis response services targeting a sub-population in which data demonstrates they have poorer outcomes).

The Behavioral Health Statewide dataset that was provided to mental health jurisdictions to use for the BHSA Integrated Plan, did not include City specific data.

Alameda County's data measures are shown in the Institutionalization Primary and Secondary Measures of this section. Since these measures are comprised of a combination of all the Cities within the larger County, it is not possible to evaluate how Berkeley is doing within the dataset. Berkeley specific information is reflected in Institutionalization Disparities Analysis Section, and the Cross -Measures Questions.

Berkeley is looking to strengthen partnerships with local MCP's Alameda Alliance and Kaiser, leaning on
options such as Enhanced Care Management (ECM) as a cross- collaborative tool to keep bringing CalAIM alternatives to the table first and foremost, promoting community supports as alternatives to institutionalization whenever possible and appropriate.

A three-year Prop 47 grant is being leveraged to stand up Berkeley CareBridge, a diversion program designed to support stabilization of justice involved individuals with mental health, SUD, housing, and supportive service needs. This will help address homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement for the most vulnerable in our community.

Berkeley sponsored and is awaiting California's update to AB210, which will now include Local Health Jurisdictions (like Berkeley) in its ability to establish homeless multidisciplinary team (MDT) to share information and support individuals who are unhoused, whereas the previous legislation only allowed this function to be performed by a County. Not only does Berkeley participate in the Alameda County MDT meeting regarding high utilizers of services, but it also has historically held its own with local providers. With
the AB210 update, coordination and communication will be strengthened between local providers to support the Berkeley community and its residents in using lowest levels of appropriate care and avoiding unnecessary homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement whenever possible.

Page 40 of 258 ends

Page 130 ends

28 Please identify the category or categories of funding that the county is using to address the institutionalization goal:

BHSA BHSS

BHSA FSP
1991 Realignment
Federal Financial Participation (SMHS, DMC/DMC-ODS)
State General Fund
Other: Prop. 47 Funds

Justice-Involvement: Primary Measures
Arrests: Adult and Juvenile Rates (Department of Justice), Statistical Year 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For adults/older adults - N/A
For juveniles
Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity
Sex

Justice-Involvement: Supplemental Measures
Adult Recidivism Conviction Rate (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)), FY 2019 - 2020

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity

Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) Count (Department of State Hospitals (DSH)), FY 2023 Note: The IST count includes all programs funded by DSH, including, state hospital, Jail Based Competency Treatment (JBCT), waitlist, community inpatient facilities, conditional release, community-based restoration and diversion programs. However, this count excludes county-funded programs. As such, individuals with Felony IST designations who are court-ordered to

Page 41 of 258 ends

Page 131 ends

29 county-funded programs are not included in this count.

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Other

Please describe other
The metric means that fewer individuals in Alameda County are being determined to be incompetent to Stand Trial under DSH funded Hospitals. This could mean that Alameda County has strong diversion practices, behavioral health interventions and differences in determining who is unfit to stand trial.

Justice- Involvement: Disparities Analysis
For any disparities observed, please provide a written summary of your findings, including the measures and population groups experiencing disparities and a description of the data that supported your analysis.

Berkeley local data on Justice-Involvement:

Within the Berkeley Mental Health system of care:
• 21 individuals were involved in the justice system (on parole or probation, not currently incarcerated)
• 42 individuals were incarcerated (state prison or county jail) • 39 individuals reentered the community from incarceration

Berkeley-specific system data reveals a continued concentration of justice involvement within the behavioral health population, particularly among those with complex needs (e.g., co-occurring disorders, homelessness, or limited service engagement). This suggests that even within a comparatively lower-rate county, BMH clients remain disproportionately impacted.

Disparities
While Berkeley-specific demographic breakdowns for justice involvement are limited, broader system data mirror patterns observed across Alameda County Behavioral Health data, reinforcing the need for culturally responsive and equity-centered interventions.

A portion of the BMH population is cycling between incarceration, community supervision, and reentry, with nearly double the number of individuals incarcerated (42) compared to those on probation/parole (21). A volume of reentry (39 individuals), indicating ongoing system churn. This pattern may suggest both ongoing justice

Page 42 of 258 ends

Page 132 ends

30 involvement among individuals with behavioral health needs, and a system opportunity (reentry as a critical intervention point). Reentry, in particular, represents a high-leverage moment where coordinated behavioral health services can interrupt recidivism and improve long-term outcomes.

Diversion Programs
Consistent with BHSA priorities, Berkeley’s system emphasizes diversion from incarceration into treatment, including:
• Crisis response services (e.g., mobile crisis)
• Field-based engagement
• Connections to outpatient and Full Service Partnership (FSP) programs These approaches align with statewide goals to reduce unnecessary law enforcement involvement for individuals with behavioral health conditions.

Reentry Services
The data reflects a significant reentry population (39 individuals), underscoring the importance of care coordination upon release, linkage to housing and behavioral health services, establishment of continuity of care.

Future Strategies
Berkeley’s data reflects both progress at the county level and ongoing challenges within the behavioral health population, reinforcing the need for continued investment in diversion, reentry, and equity-driven strategies to reduce justice system involvement over time.

Justice-Involvement: Cross-Measure Questions
Please describe what programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is planning to strengthen or implement beginning July 1, 2026 that may reduce your county’s level of justice-involvement for those living with significant behavioral health needs. In your response, please describe how you plan to address measures where your status is below the statewide average or median, within the context of local needs. Additionally, please refer to any data that was used to inform new programs, services, partnerships or initiatives the count is implementing (e.g., developing an intervention targeting a sub- population in which data demonstrates they have poorer outcomes).

The Behavioral Health Statewide dataset that was provided to mental health jurisdictions to use for the BHSA Integrated Plan, did not include City specific data.

Page 43 of 258 ends

Page 133 ends

31 Alameda County's data measures are shown in the Justice Involvement Primary and Secondary Measures of this section. Since these measures are comprised of a combination of all the Cities within the larger County, it is not possible to evaluate how Berkeley is doing within the dataset. Berkeley specific information is reflected in the Justice Involvement Disparities Analysis Section, and the Cross -Measures Questions.

Berkeley is looking to strengthen partnerships with local MCP's Alameda Alliance and Kaiser, leaning on
options such as Enhanced Care Management (ECM) as a cross- collaborative tool to keep bringing CalAIM alternatives to the table first and foremost, promoting community supports as alternatives to justice involvement whenever possible and appropriate.

A three-year Prop 47 grant is being leveraged to stand up Berkeley CareBridge, a diversion program designed to support stabilization of justice involved individuals with mental health, SUD, housing, and supportive service needs. This will help address homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement for the most vulnerable in our community.

Please identify the category or categories of funding that the county is using to address the justice-involvement goal:

BHSA BHSS

BHSA FSP
1991 Realignment
Federal Financial Participation (SMHS, DMC/DMC-ODS)
State General Fund
Other: Prop. 47 Funds

Page 44 of 258 ends

Page 134 ends

32 Removal Of Children from Home: Primary Measures
Children in Foster Care (Child Welfare Indicators Project (CWIP)), as of January 2025

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Sex
Gender

Removal Of Children from Home: Supplemental Measures
Open Child Welfare Cases SMHS Penetration Rates (DHCS), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? Above

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Race or Ethnicity
Sex

Child Maltreatment Substantiations (CWIP), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate? Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Race or Ethnicity
Gender
Sex

Removal Of Children from Home: Disparities Analysis
For any disparities observed, please provide a written summary of your findings, including the measures and population groups experiencing disparities and a description of the data that supported your analysis.

Per Alameda County's data analysis, a disparities analysis was conducted using 2022

DHCS SMHS
Penetration Rates, Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP), and local/state data to identify drivers of child removal and inform equitable strategies. Adolescents

Page 45 of 258 ends

Page 135 ends

33 ages 12-17 show highest Child Welfare SMHS penetration at 57.4%, Transitional Age Youth (TAY) 18-21 account for 25.2% of Child Welfare and 60.4% of Probation cases.

TAY face elevated risks of homelessness, unemployment, and prolonged system involvement, indicating the need for expanded transitional housing, wraparound services and life skills programs.

Black children are disproportionately represented in open Child Welfare case with a rate of 51.3% and Probation 52.1% and highest substantiation rate 6.3 per 1,000 vs. county average 1.5. Latino youth are also rising in both systems-Child Welfare 46.1% and Probation 33.3%. DHCS data shows high service usage among Black and Latino youth, reflecting unmet behavioral health needs and highlighting the importance of culturally responsive early interventions.

Gender disparities are also evident: girls represent a rate of 244 per 1,000 of children in foster, while boys compromise 79.2% of probation based foster care. Although SMHS access shows minimal gender gaps, these differences call for gender specific services focused on trauma, emotional well-being and school engagement.

Out of county placements are rising while relative/NREFM placements are declining, signaling local placement shortages. Permanent placements are trending upward, but continued monitoring is needed to
ensure equity.

Removal Of Children from Home: Cross-Measure Questions
Please describe what programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is planning to strengthen or implement beginning July 1, 2026 that may increase your county’s level of access to care. In your response, please describe how you plan to address measures where your status is below the statewide average or median, within the context of local needs. Additionally, please refer to any data that was used to inform new programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is implementing (e.g., developing an intervention targeting a sub- population in which data demonstrates they have poorer outcomes.

The Behavioral Health Statewide dataset that was provided to mental health jurisdictions to use for the BHSA Integrated Plan, did not include City specific data. As such, the Department of Health Care services (DHCS) instructed City of Berkeley to use Alameda Counties measures for all of the BH Statewide Data, and where possible to add in any Berkeley local data that may align with each of the six Behavioral Health Priority goals.

Alameda County's data measures are shown in the Removal of Children From Their Home Primary and Secondary Measures of this section. Since these meas ures are
comprised of a combination of all the Cities within the larger County, it is not possible to evaluate how Berkeley is doing within the dataset. Berkeley specific information is

Page 46 of 258 ends

Page 136 ends

34 reflected in the Removal of Children from Their Home Disparities Analysis Section, and the Cross-Measures Questions.

City of Berkeley is strengthening and revamping its Children's FSP model, shifting staffing resources as well as High Fidelity Wraparound (HFW) model standards. While this team has historically treated the entire the family as a unit, the goal will be to bring more staff, collaboration with community resources, Early Intervention services, and connection to housing partners to the equation. As mentioned previously, leaning into collaborations with MCP partners such as Alameda Alliance is one of the planned strategies,
supporting the Family Path model to explore resources to protect the household unit, stabilize the environment, and support tenancy sustaining services.

Please identify the category or categories of funding that the county is using to address the removal of children from home goal:

BHSA FSP

BHSA BHSS
1991 Realignment
Federal Financial Participation (SMHS, DMC/DMC-ODS)
State General Fund

Untreated Behavioral Health Conditions: Primary Measures

Follow-Up After Emergency Department Visits for Substance Use (FUA-30), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average?

For the full population measured
Same

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? No Disparities Data Available
Follow-Up After Emergency Department Visits for Mental Illness (FUA-30), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For the full population measured
Above

Page 47 of 258 ends

Page 137 ends

35 What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? No Disparities Data Available.

Untreated Behavioral Health Conditions: Supplemental Measures

Adults that needed help for emotional/mental health problems or use of alcohol/ drugs who had no visits for mental/drug/alcohol issues in past year (CHIS), 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate?

For the full population measured
Below

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or special populations? Age
Gender
Race or Ethnicity

Untreated Behavioral Health Conditions: Disparities Analysis For any disparities observed, please provide a written summary of your findings, including the measures and population groups experiencing disparities and a description of the data that supported your analysis.

Per Alameda County's data analysis, performance on measures related to untreated behavioral health conditions shows both areas of relative strength and disparities. For the primary measure, Follow Up After Emergency Department Visit for Substance Use (FUA-30, year 2022 data), the county rate is 29.7%, which is slightly above the statewide rate of 28.8%, this indicates marginally better performance but still reflects that more than two thirds of clients do not receive timely follow -up care. For Follow Up After Emergency Department Visit for Mental Illness (FUM-30, year 2022 data), Alameda County’s rate 48.3% is significantly higher than the statewide rate 38.2%. When it was broken down by Manage Care Plan for FUM-30, Alameda Alliance had 49.03% and Anthem Blue Cross had 42.99% (although Ant hem Blue Cross is no longer a MCP for the county, Kaiser is now). No demographic data level disparities data were available for this primary measure.

The supplemental measure, Adults needing help for emotional/mental health problems or alcohol/drug use who had no visits in the past year, shows pronounced disparities among adults needing help for emotional/mental health or alcohol/drug use who had no visits in the past year. Alameda County’s unmet need rate of 45.4% is

Page 48 of 258 ends

Page 138 ends

36 below the statewide rate of 48.4%, but disparities appear by race, gender, and age.

Females 39.6% report lower unmet needs than males 45.9%. Black residents 47.6%, Latino residents 55.5%, individuals Two or More Races have the highest unmet need

66.5%, far above Asian residents 37.9%, White 34.4%. By age, young adults 18-24 have the highest rate, 50.7% without visits, adults 25-64 show 40.2% and older adults 65+ report 38.2%. These results indicate significant barriers to care for Black and Latino residents and younger adults, particularly those ages 18- 24, a possible solution for this group could be targeted, culturally responsive interventions.

Untreated Behavioral Health Conditions: Cross-Measure Questions Please describe what programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is planning to strengthen or implement beginning July 1, 2026 that may reduce your county’s level of untreated behavioral health conditions. In your response, please describe how you plan to address measures where your status is below the statewide average or median, within the context of local needs. Additionally, please refer to any data that was used to inform new programs, services, partnerships or initiatives the count is implementing (e.g., developing an intervention targeting a sub-population in which data demonstrates they have poorer outcomes).

In order to address the disparities in the supplemental measures with Alameda County’s data, the City of Berkeley is strengthening in several key areas:

1.) Berkeley is looking to strengthen partnerships with local MCP's Alameda Alliance and Kaiser, leaning on options such as Enhanced Care Management (ECM) as a cross-collaborative tools to keep bringing CalAIM alternatives to the table first and foremost, promoting community supports as alternatives to SUD services institutionalization whenever possible and appropriate. This intervention will strengthen the services and engagement for Adults needing help for emotional/mental health problems or alcohol/drug use who had no visits in the past year who are not engaged in preventive, primary, or behavioral health services for their unmet needs.

2.) Berkeley is broadening through current partners, expanding current SUD care to the public high schools. The outreach and linkage services will continue to be grown and developed to bring more underserved community members into services through the Mobile Encampment Wellness Center and the Homeless Response Team. This intervention will will strengthen the services and engagement for Adults needing help for emotional/mental health problems or alcohol/drug use who had no visits in the past year who are not engaged in preventive, primary, or behavioral health services for their unmet needs.

3.) A three-year Prop 47 grant is being leveraged to stand up Berkeley CareBridge, diversion program designed to support stabilization of justice involved individuals

Page 49 of 258 ends

Page 139 ends

37 with mental health, SUD, housing, and supportive service needs. This will help address homelessness, institutionalization, and justice-involvement for the most vulnerable in our community. This intervention will will strengthen the services and engagement for Adults needing help for emotional/mental health problems or alcohol/drug use who had no visits in the past year who are not engaged in preventive, primary, or behavioral health services for their unmet needs.

4.) Berkeley sponsored and is awaiting California's update to AB210, which will now include Local Health Jurisdictions (like Berkeley) in its ability to establish homeless multidisciplinary team (MDT) to share information and support individuals who are unhoused, whereas the previous legislation only allowed this function to be performed by a County. Not only does Berkeley participate in the Alameda County

MDT meeting regarding high utilizers of services, but it also has historically held its own with local providers. With the AB210 update, coordination and communication will be strengthened between local providers to support the Berkeley community and its residents in using lowest levels of appropriate care and avoiding unnecessary homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement whenever possible. This
intervention will strengthen the services and
engagement for Adults needing help for emotional/mental health problems or alcohol/drug use who had no visits in the past year who are not engaged in preventive,
primary, or behavioral health services for their unmet needs.

Please identify the category or categories of funding that the county is using to address the untreated behavioral health conditions goal:

BHSA BHSS

BHSA FSP
State General Fund
Federal Financial Participation (SMHS, DMC/DMC ODS)
1991 Realignment
Other: Prop. 47 Funds

Additional statewide behavioral health goals for improvement Please review your county’s status on the remaining eight statewide behavioral health goals using the primary measure(s) to compare your county to the statewide status and review the supplemental measure(s) for additional insights in the County Performance Workbook. These measures should inform the overall strategy and where relevant, be incorporated into the planning around the six priority goals.

In the next section, the county will select AT LEAST one goal from below for which your county is performing below the statewide rate/average on the primary measure(s) to improve on as a priority for the county

Page 50 of 258 ends

Page 140 ends

38 For related policy information, refer to E.6.2 Primary and Supplemental Measures .

Care Experience: Primary Measures

Perception of Cultural Appropriateness/Quality Domain Score (Consumer Perception Survey (CPS)), 2024

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average?

For adults/older adults
Same

Quality Domain Score (Treatment Perception Survey), 2024

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For adults/older adults
Above

For children/youth
Above

Engagement In School: Primary Measures

Twelfth Graders who Graduated High School on Time (Kids Count), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average?

Above

Engagement In School: Supplemental Measures

Meaningful Participation at School (California Health Kids Survey (CHKS)), 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Below

Student Chronic Absenteeism Rate (Data Quest), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Same

Page 51 of 258 ends

Page 141 ends

39 Engagement In Work: Primary Measures

Unemployment Rate (California Employment Development Department (CA EDD)), 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Same.

Engagement In Work: Supplemental Measures

Unable to Work Due to Mental Problems (California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)), 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Below

Overdoses: Primary Measures

All Drug-Related Overdose Deaths (California Department of Public Heath), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For the full population measured
Below
For adults/older adults
Below

For children/youth
Below

Overdoses: Supplemental Measures

All-Drug Related Overdose Emergency Department Visits (CDPH), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average?

For the full population measured
Below

For adults/older adults
Below

For children/youth
Below

Page 52 of 258 ends

Page 142 ends

40 Prevention And Treatment of Co- Occurring Physical Health Conditions: Primary Measures

Adults’ Access to Preventive/Ambulatory Health Service & Child and Adolescent Well-Care Visits (DHCS), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average?

For adults (specific to Adults’ Access to Preventive/Ambulatory Health Service) Same

For children/youth (specific to Child and Adolescent Well-Care Visits) Same

Prevention And Treatment of Co- Occurring Physical Health Conditions: Supplemental Measures

Diabetes Screening for People with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder Who Are Using Antipsychotic Medications & Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics: Blood Glucose and Cholesterol Testing (DHCS), 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For adults/older adults (specific to Diabetes Screening for People with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder Who Are Using Antipsychotic Medications) Same

For children/youth (specific to Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics: Blood Glucose and Cholesterol Testing)
Same

Quality Of Life: Primary Measures

Perception of Functioning Domain Score (CPS), 2024

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For the full population measured
Same

For adults/older adults
Same

Page 53 of 258 ends

Page 143 ends

41 For children/youth
Same

Quality Of Life: Supplemental Measures

Poor Mental Health Days Reported (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)), 2024

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For the full population measured
Same

Social Connection: Primary Measures

Perception of Social Connectedness Domain Score (CPS), 2024

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For the full population measured
Same

For adults/older adults
Same

For children/youth

Same

Social Connection: Supplemental Measures

Caring Adult Relationships at School (CHKS), 2023

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? Same

Suicides: Primary Measures

Suicide Deaths, 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For the full population measured
Below

Page 54 of 258 ends

Page 144 ends

42 Suicides: Supplemental Measures

Non-Fatal Emergency Department Visits Due to Self-Harm, 2022

How does your county status compare to the statewide rate/average? For the full population measured
Below

For adults/older adults
Below

For children/youth

Below

County-selected statewide population behavioral health goals

For related policy information, refer to 3.E.6 Statewide Behavioral Health Goals .

Based on your county’s performance or inequities identified, select at least one additional goal to improve on as a priority for the county for which your county is performing below the statewide rate/average on the primary measure(s). For each county-selected goal, provide the information requested below.

Overdoses

Please describe why this goal was selected
Although Alameda County is below the Statewide measure in Overdoses, individuals experiencing substance use disorder needs are widely prevalent in both the County and the City. Additionally, according to the 2022 California Overdose Surveillance Dashboard one of the top five zip codes with the highest stable rate of overdoses in Alameda County, is in Central Berkeley. For this reason, Berkeley chose Overdoses as the additional BH Statewide goal.

What disparities did you identify across demographic groups or priority populations among the Additional Statewide Behavioral Health Goals? For any disparities observed, please provide a written summary of your findings, including the measures and population groups experiencing disparities and a description of the data that supported your analysis.

Overview and Community Context
Available data suggests that overdose is an emerging and meaningful behavioral

Page 55 of 258 ends

Page 145 ends

43 health concern in Berkeley, with clear implications for both community health and equity. Community input reflects this concern directly. In Berkeley’s Community Health Assessment, drugs and alcohol use ranked among the top concerns for youth and Hispanic/Latine/Latinx residents, based on survey responses and community engagement activities (Community Health Assessment, 2025). This indicates that, even where overdose may not yet appear as the highest concern across the full population, specific communities are already experiencing or recognizing its impact more acutely.

At the same time, local mortality data confirms that overdose is not only a perceived issue, but a measurable one. Drug overdose is among the leading causes of death for Black or African American residents in Berkeley, and also appears among the leading causes of death for men and other racial and
ethnic groups (Leading Causes of Death
Summary, 2022–2024). This points to a pattern where overdose is both a growing health risk and an equity issue, affecting some populations more than others.

Trends
While Berkeley-specific overdose data is limited compared to larger jurisdictions, available indicators show that overdose-related harm has been increasing over time.

Emergency department visit rates for opioid-related overdoses increased from 8.7 to

29.2 per 100,000 between 2017 and 2021, representing more than a threefold increase (Biennial Syringe Services Report, 2023). This trend suggests that overdose is not a static issue, but one that has been intensifying in recent years, consistent with broader patterns seen across Alameda County and California, where fentanyl and polysubstance use are driving increases in overdose risk.

Community-level observations reinforce these trends. Information shared across local reports and community sources indicates that overdose risk is particularly visible among youth and people experiencing homelessness, and that awareness of fentanyl-related risk has increased across the community. Together, these patterns suggest that overdose is increasingly recognized not only within systems of care, but also at the community level as a growing and evolving issue.

Response and System Capacity
At the same time, Berkeley has an established and multi -layered response to overdose that are active particularly through community -based harm reduction efforts that appear in street-based outreach, behavioral health services, school and youth settings. Local syringe service programs reported serving over 10,000 individuals combined, 3,955 naloxone kits, and documenting 415 overdose reversals (Biennial Syringe Services Report, 2023).

Page 56 of 258 ends

Page 146 ends

44 Berkeley’s response also extends beyond harm reduction into clinical and youth- serving systems. Berkeley Mental Health provides overdose education, prescribes naloxone, and coordinates with substance use providers. In addition, school-based efforts at Berkeley High School include naloxone distribution and fentanyl test strip access.

Berkeley is not only responding to overdoses, but also building a prevention infrastructure capable of intervening at multiple points along the risk continuum.

Overdose in Berkeley is reflected in mortality and increasing emergency department visits. It is also an equity concern, with disproportionate impact on Black or African American residents and heightened concern among youth and Hispanic/Latine/Latinx communities. This is a growing community awareness issue, with residents and local systems increasingly recognizing the risks associated with substance use. At the same time, Berkeley systems are not starting from scratch, the system is already responding but the data suggests a need to continue strengthening early engagement, targeted outreach, and coordination, particularly for populations most at risk .

Please describe what programs, services, partnerships, or initiatives the county is planning to strengthen or implement beginning July 1, 2026 that may improve your county’s level of Overdoses and refer to any data that was used to make this decision (e.g., developing an intervention targeting a sub -population in which data demonstrates they have poorer outcomes).

The Behavioral Health Statewide dataset that was provided to mental health jurisdictions to use for the BHSA Integrated Plan, did not include City specific data.

As such, the Department of Health Care services (DHCS) instructed City of Berkeley to use Alameda Counties measures for all of the BH Statewide Data, and where possible to add in any Berkeley local data that may align with each of the six Behavioral Health Priority goals.

Alameda County's data measures are shown in the Overdoses Primary and Secondary Measures of this section. Since these measures are comprised of a combination of all the Cities within the larger County, it is not possible to evaluate how Berkeley is doing within the dataset. Berkeley specific information is reflected in the Overdoses Disparities Analysis Section, and the Cross-Measures Questions.

Berkeley is looking to strengthen partnerships with local MCP's Alameda Alliance and Kaiser, leaning on options such as Enhanced Care Management (ECM) as a cross- collaborative tools to keep bringing CalAIM
alternatives to the table first and
foremost, promoting community supports as alternatives to institutionalization whenever possible and appropriate. Berkeley is broadening its SUD services through current partners, expanding current SUD care to the public high schools. The outreach

Page 57 of 258 ends

Page 147 ends

45 and linkage services will continue to be grown and developed to bring more underserved community members in to services through the Mobile Encampment Wellness Center and the Homeless Response Team.

Berkeley is promoting SUD education in the high schools through the High School Health Center, as well as exploring an incentivized training program for current behavioral health staff to undergo SUD counselor certification.A three-year Prop 47 grant is being leveraged to stand up Berkeley CareBridge, a diversion program designed to support stabilization of justice involved individuals with mental health, SUD, housing, and supportive service needs. This will help address homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement for the most vulnerable in our community.

Berkeley sponsored and is awaiting California's update to AB210, which will now include Local Health Jurisdictions (like Berkeley) in its ability to establish the homeless multidisciplinary team (MDT) to share information and support individuals who are unhoused, whereas the previous legislation only allowed this function to be performed by a County. Not only does Berkeley participate in the Alameda County MDT meeting regarding high utilizers of services, but it also has historically held its own with local providers. With the AB210 update, coordination and communication will be strengthened between local providers to support the Berkeley community and its residents in using lowest levels of appropriate care and avoiding unnecessary homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement whenever possible.

Please identify the category or categories of funding that the county is using to address this goal:

BHSA BHSS

BHSA FSP
Other
State General Fund
1991 Realignment
Other: Opiod Settlement Funds; Prop. 47 Funds

Community Planning Process

All fields must be completed unless marked as optional. You don’t need to finish everything at once–your progress will be saved automatically as you go.

Use “Return to plan” to navigate between sections and track overall progress.

For more information on this section, please see 3.B Community Planning Process .

Page 58 of 258 ends

Page 148 ends

46 Stakeholder Engagement
For related policy information, refer to 3.B.1 Stakeholder involvement

Please indicate the type of engagement used to obtain input on the planning process.

County outreach through
Social M edia
Meeting(s) with county
Survey participation
Training, education, and outreach related to community
planning
Workgroups and committee meetings

Include date(s) of stakeholder engagement for each type of engagement

Type of engagement
Training, education, and outreach related to community planning Dates: 1/13/2026; 1/16/2026; 1/20/2026; 1/22/2026; 1/23/2026; 1/26/2026; 1/27/2026; 2/3/2026; 2/4/2026; 2/5/26; 2/9/26; 2/10/2026; 2/11/2026; 2/17/2026; 2/18/2026; 2/19/2026; 2/23/2026; 2/24/2026; 2/26/2026

Type of engagement
Survey participation
Date: 1/21/2026 through 3/5/26

Type of engagement
Workgroups and committee meetings
Date: 1/22/2026

Type of engagement
Meeting(s) with county
Date: 1/26/2026; 1/27/26; 2/3/2026; 2/4/2026 (2 Meetings); 2/5/2026 (2 Meetings); 2/9/2026; 2/10/2026; 2/11/2026 (2 Meetings); 2/17/2026; 2/18/2026; 2/19/2026; 2/20/2026; 2/23/2026; 2/24/2026; 2/25/2026 (2 Meetings); 2/26/2026 (3 Meetings)

Type of engagement
County outreach through social media (Announcements of Community Input opportunities were released on all City of Berkeley Social Media Channels).

Date: 2/5/2026

Page 59 of 258 ends

Page 149 ends

47 Please list specific stakeholder organizations that were engaged in the planning process. Please do not include specific names of individuals.

A Better Way; African American Holistic Resource Center; Alameda Alliance; Alameda County Network of Mental Health Clients; Bananas; Bay Area Clinical Associates; Bay Area Community Land Trust; Bay Area Community Resources (BACR); Bay Area Community Services (BACS); Bay Area Hearing Voices Network; Bay Children’s Services; Bahia Inc.; Berkeley Addition Treatment services; Berkeley Aging Services; Berkeley City Commissions; Berkeley Community Scholars; Berkeley Federation of Teachers; Berkeley Food Network; Berkeley Free Clinic; Berkeley Housing and Community Services; Berkeley Human Rights Center; Berkeley Labor Unions; Berkeley Organizing Congregations for Action; Berkeley Police Department; Berkeley Public Health Division; Berkeley Unified School District; Berkeley Youth Alternatives; Big Oaks Learning Center; Biotech Partners; Bonita House; Bread Project; Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency; Center for Independent Living; Concentra Urgent Care; Dorothy Day House; Downtown Streets Team; East Bay community Law Center; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Easy Does It Services; Echo Fair Housing; Ecology Center; Emergency Service s; Family Violence Law Center; Felton Institute; Foundation Housing; Fred Finch Youth Center; Habitat East Bay Silicon Valley; Healthy Black Families; Homeless Action Center; Insight Housing; Inter-City Services; Friends of Adeline; Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay; Kaiser Permanente; Lifelong Medical Services; Looking Glass; Meals on Wheels; Mental Health Association of Alameda County; Mindfulness Centered Psychotherapy; Narika; Native American Health Center; Nia House; Niroga Institute; OnTrack Program Resources; Options Recovery Services; Pacific Center for Human Growth; Path to Care, Lifelong Street Medicine Team; UC Berkeley; Peer Wellness Collective; Peralta Community College; Psychiatric Alternatives; Resources for Community Development; Rising Sun Center for Opportunity; Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Homes; Soar for Youth; Sutter Health; Tang Center, UC Berkeley; Tool Works; Village of Love; Woman’s Cancer Resource Center; Women’s Day-Time Drop In Center; Wright Institute; YMCA East Bay; Youth Spirit Artworks; Youth Works.

What are the five most populous cities in counties with a population greater than 200,000 (Cities submitting IP independently are not required to collaborate with other cities) (Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State)
Were you able to engage all required stakeholders/groups in the planning pr ocess? No

If not, which required stakeholder/groups were you unable to engage in the planning process?
Disability insurers
Regional centers

Page 60 of 258 ends

Page 150 ends

48 County social services and child welfare agencies

Please describe
During this process, Berkeley was not able to find a direct contact for Disability Insurers in the City. Additionally, Social Services and Child Welfare agencies, and the Regional Centers, are operated at the County level and Berkeley was not able to find direct contacts to engage these Stakeholders in this process. During the 30 Day Public Review the City continued to explore obtaining contacts and was able to outreach to these Stakeholders in an attempt to engage them to provide input on the Draft BHSA IP.

Please describe and provide documentation (such as meeting minutes) to support how diverse stakeholder viewpoints were incorporated into the development of the Integrated Plan, including any community-identified strengths, needs, and priorities.

During the City of Berkeley BHSA Community Program Planning Process (CPPP) 23 meetings were held: Twelve Community Input Meetings, eight Individual Meetings, one Provider Meeting, one BHSA Advisory Committee Meeting, and one Staff Meeting.

Community Input was also collected through an anonymous BHSA Community Input Survey that was open to the public over a six -week period.

Announcements of the Survey and Community Input Meetings were sent on all City of Berkeley Social Media channels, and emailed and/or mailed to BHSA Stakeholders, mental health peers, family members, representatives from community-based organizations, community advocates, individuals from unserved, underserved and inappropriately served populations, BHSA Advisory Committee members, City Staff and Commissioners, and other Berkeley stakeholders and community members.

Although as outlined above attempts were made to outreach to Disability Insurers, Regional Centers, and County Social Services and Child Welfare Agencies, during the community program planning process and the 30-Day Public Review, these stakeholder groups did not directly participate in the process. The areas of needs of each of these stakeholders were likely indirectly represented through aligned concerns that were voiced during Community Meetings and input received on the BHSA Community Input Survey via participants with disabilities and disability organizations; children, youth and transition age youth advocates and organizations

providing mental health services to these groups; and representatives from area schools, mental health and social service agencies, and healthcare organizations.

The input received and needs of all potentially affected populat ions in Berkeley was
carefully considered in the development of the BHSA IP.

Page 61 of 258 ends

Page 151 ends

49 During the BHSA Advisory, Provider, and Community Input Meetings a presentation was conducted to provide information on the CPPP, and the BHSA background, funding, and program requirements. The presentation also covered information on the City of Berkeley BHSA Integrated Plan to enable opportunities for input from the community. A total of 86 individuals participated in one of the meetings held during this process.

The survey was available online or in-person through Berkeley Mental Health’s Wellness Recovery Team and the Family Services Staff; Berkeley High School Health Center; Options Recovery Services; and the Berkeley Mental Health Black History Month Event. Over the six-week period, 228 Survey were collected (159 online, and 69 hand filled). During this timeframe community input was compiled on a weekly basis and provided to the Health, Housing & Community Services Department Director, Deputy Director, Berkeley Mental Health Manager and Assistant Manager to facilitate real-time discussions on community priority needs.

All input received was organized into priority categories based on how often it was mentioned. Per input received, the top six service priorities for the BHSA Integrated Plan were as follows:
• Housing and Homelessness Services
• Transition Age Youth and Youth Mental Health Services • Peer Support and Wellness Services
• Substance Use Disorder and Co-Morbidity Services
• Prevention and Early Intervention Services

The City of Berkeley was most appreciative of all the valuable and detailed input received in this process, and the time and effort participants put into providing it. All input received was used to inform this first BHSA Integrated Plan and will be re- visited regularly to inform future programs and practices. Additional information on the CPPP, including Survey and Community Input Meeting results can be found in Attachment A .

Local Health Jurisdiction (LHJ)
Cities submitting their Integrated Plan independently from their counties do not have to complete this section. For related policy information, refer to B.2 Considerations of Other Local Program Planning Processes .

Did the county work with its LHJ on the development of the LHJ’s recent Community Health Assessment (CHA) and/or Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP)? Additional information regarding engagement requirements with

Page 62 of 258 ends

Page 152 ends

50 other local program planning processes can be found in Policy Manual Chapter 3, Section B.2.3.

Yes.

Please describe how the county engaged with LHJs, along with Medi -Cal managed care plans (MCPs), across these three areas in developing the CHA and/or CHIP:
collaboration, data-sharing, and stakeholder activities.

The City of Berkeley worked closely with JSI Research & Training Institute, a consulting firm, to convene a Community Steering Committee, who in turn, collaborated closely with City staff to identify priority areas from the CHA and broad goals for the CHIP. MCPs & Steering Committee members, along with other community stakeholders, participated in community meetings to provide additional input on goals and objectives for each priority area. MCPs also provided administrative support in ensuring the CHA and CHIP met accessibilty standards.

Did the county utilize the County-LHJ-MCP Collaboration Tool provided via technical assistance?
No.

Collaboration
Please select how the county collaborated with the LHJ
Attended key CHA and CHIP meetings as requested.

Served on CHA and CHIP governance structures and/or subcommittees as requested.

Data-Sharing
Data-Sharing to Support the CHA/CHIP

Select Statewide Behavioral Health Goals that were identified for data -sharing to support behavioral health-related focus areas of the CHA and CHIP Access to Care, Institutionalization, Overdoses, Social Connection.

Was data shared?
No

Data-Sharing from MCPS and LHJs to Support IP development

Select Statewide Behavioral Health Goals that were identified for data - sharing to inform IP development
Access to Care, Institutionalization, Overdoses, Social Connection. Untreated Behavioral Health (BH) Conditions (e.g., substance use disorder, depression, maternal and child behavioral disorders, other adult mental health conditions)

Page 63 of 258 ends

Page 153 ends

51 Was data shared?
No

Stakeholder Activities
Select which stakeholder activities the county has coordinated for IP development with the LHJ engagement on the CHA/CHIP. Please note that although counties must coordinate stakeholder activities with LHJ CHA/CHIP processes (where feasible), the options below are for illustrative purposes only and are not required forms of stakeholder activity coordination (e.g., counties do not need to conduct each of these activities) .

Collaborated with LHJ to identify shared stakeholders
that are key for both the IP and CHA/CHIP process.

Most Recent Community Health Assessment (CHA), Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) or Strategic Plan
Has the county considered either the LHJ’s most recent CHA/CHIP or strategic plan in the development of its IP ? Additional information regarding engagement requirements with other local program planning processes can be found in Policy Manual Chapter 3, Section B.2.3 Yes.

Provide a brief description of how the county has considered the LHJ’s CHA/CHIP or strategic plan when preparing its IP.

Consideration was made by intentionally involving City behavioral health staff in the CHA/CHIP development process, as well as inviting community stakeholders with lived experience to provide input at community meetings.

Medi-Cal Managed Care Plan (MCP) Community
Reinvestment
For related policy information, refer to B.2 Considerations of Other Local Program Planning Processes .

Please list the Managed Care Plans (MCP) the county worked with to inform the MCPs’ respective community reinvestment planning and decision-making processes.

Alameda Alliance for Health, Kaiser Permanente

Page 64 of 258 ends

Page 154 ends

52 Which activities in the MCP Community Reinvestment Plan submissions address needs identified through the Behavioral Health Services Act community planning process and collaboration between the county, MCP, and other stakeholders on the county’s Integrated Plan?
To address needs identified in our BHSA community planning process, Berkeley established regular collaboration and planning with Alameda Alliance and Kaiser Permanente. This collaboration is governed by specific SMART Objectives aimed at creating seamless referral pathways for our most vulnerable residents. Key activities that will inform future MCP Community Reinvestment Plan (CRP) submissions include: 1) Infrastructure Development: The appointment of MCP point-persons to lead protocol development and data integration; 2) Targeted Data Alignment: Sharing member-level data to refine our focus on chronic illness, maternal health, and low-income families; 3) Validated Referrals: implementation of research-validated screening tools and a shared database to track referral outcomes. These steps ensure that MCP investments are directly responsive to the service gaps identified in our Integrated Plan and the local City of Berkeley CHA/CHIP.

Comment Period and Public Hearing

Comment Period and Public Hearing
For related policy information, refer to B.3 Public Comment and Updates to the Integrated Plan .

Date the draft Integrated Plan (IP) was released for stakeholder comment 3/25/2026

Date the stakeholder comment period closed
4/23/2026

Date of behavioral health board public hearing on draft IP 4/23/2026

Please provide proof of a public posting with information on the public hearing. Please select the county’s preferred submission modality Link

Please provide the link to the public posting
The link for this BHSA Integrated Plan is located on the following webpage:

City of Berkeley MHSA and BHSA Webpage

Page 65 of 258 ends

Page 155 ends

53 Please select the process by which the draft plan was circulated to stakeholders Public posting
Email outreach

If the county uses an existing landing page or other web -based location to publicly post IPs for comment, please provide a link to the landing page City of Berkeley MHSA and BHSA Webpage

Please describe stakeholder input in the table below. Please add each stakeholder group into their own row in the table .

Stakeholder Input Received
Community Agency - Bay Area Hearing Voices
Network
Support Hearing Voices Groups.

Community Member Request for additional information on the Budgets.

Housing Agency – Resources for Community
Development
Support for Housing interventions and
request for clarity on areas of the
housing budget.

Community Agency - Youth Spirit Artworks Request for increased funding, services and supports for transition age youth.

City of Berkeley Peace & Justice Commission Request for increased access to mental health services through prioritizing BHSA
funding for the Pacific Center and other
Transgender and Gender non-
Conforming (TGNC) specific mental
health lifelines.

Summarize the substantive revisions recommended by this stakeholder during the comment period.

Input received by stakeholder is outlined in the table above. Written input received can be found in Attachment A – Public Input.

Please describe any substantive recommendations made by the local Behavioral Health Board that are not included in the final Integrated Plan or update. If no substantive revisions were recommended by stakeholders during the comment period, please input N/A.

N/A

Substantive recommendations
N/A

Page 66 of 258 ends

Page 156 ends

54 County Behavioral Health Services Care Continuum
County Behavioral Health Services Care Continuum
The Behavioral Health Care Continuum is composed of two distinct frameworks for substance use disorder and mental health services. These frameworks are used for counties to demonstrate planned expenditures across key service categories in their service continuum. Questions on the Behavioral Health Care Continuum are in the Integrated Plan Budget Template.

County Provider Monitoring and Oversight

Medi-Cal Quality Improvement Plans
Cities submitting their Integrated Plan independently from their counties do not have to complete this section, or Question 1 under All BHSA Provider Locations.

Contracted BHSA Provider Locations

As of the date this report is submitted, please provide the total number of contracted Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) provider locations offering

non-Housing services for SFY 2025-26. I.e., BHSA-funded locations that are (i) not owned or operated by the county, and (ii) offer BHSA services other than Housing Interventions services. (A provider location should be counted if it offers both Housing Interventions and mental health (MH) or substance use disorder services (SUD); provider location that contracts with the county to provide both mental health and substance use disorder services should be counted separately.

Services Provided Number of contracted BHSA provider
locations
Mental Health (MH) services only 7

Page 67 of 258 ends

Berkeley City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Berkeley City Council
June 16, 2026