Berkeley City Council
October 27, 2026

1.  Closure of a major arterial or collector City street, as defined in the City of Berkeley General Plan;

2.  An anticipated crowd in excess of one thousand people;

3.  A street closure anticipated to have a major effect on the flow of traffic in the area; i.e., closure of two or more intersections and rerouting of AC Transit or other public transportation; or

4.  Use of any part of the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza.

B.  No permit applicant shall be required to comply with the insurance requirement of this section if the activity proposed is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the applicant produces satisfactory evidence that complying with the insurance provision would preclude the proposed street event from occurring.

C.  The amount of insurance required shall not be based on the existence or content of any expression involved in the event, or on the expected reactions of observers.

D.  If insurance is required pursuant to this section, a certificate of insurance shall be provided to the City and must be approved as to form and sufficiency by the City no later than 5 days before the event. If the applicant is unable to obtain insurance or does not provide the City with the certificate of insurance, the City Manager may obtain such insurance on behalf of the permit applicant and charge the permit applicant for the cost. (Ord. 7594-NS § 5, 2018: Ord. 7062-NS § 9 (part), 2008: Ord. 6647-NS § 2, 2001) 1 13.44.120 Fees and Deposits.

A.  The City Council may establish by resolution the fees that shall be charged for permits issued under this chapter.

B.  If a permittee is unable to hold or conduct a street event because of inclement weather or due to some other cause not within the permittee’s control, and the permittee submits written request for the refund of such fees to the City Manager’s office within ten days after the date that the event was to have been held or conducted, the City Manager may authorize the refund of the fees, or a pro rata portion thereof, except for non-refundable application fees, if any.

C.  Any indigent person who cannot apply for a permit because of an inability arising from such indigence to pay the application fee shall not be required to pay the fee.

Applications for indigent status shall be made upon application for the permit and shall be accompanied by such relevant information and documentation as is reasonably necessary to verify indigence. For purposes of this section, an indigent person is one who is eligible for county relief pursuant to Sections 17000 et seq. of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Ord. 6647-NS § 2, 2001)

D. The City Manager may impose a conditionally refundable deposit for permits issued under this Chapter, and may condition refunding of deposits on event organizer’s compliance with the requirements of the permit, as provided in Chapter 13.44.130.

13.44.130 Violation--Penalty.

A. An intentional violation of this Chapter is a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of this code, but may be charged, in the discretion of the prosecutor, as an infraction. For purposes of this section, violation of a street event rule is not a violation of this Chapter. (Ord. 7062-NS § 10 (part), 2008: Ord. 6647-NS § 2, 2001) B. The City Manager may impose administrative penalties for violations of permit requirements, including but not limited to: (i) forfeiture of all or a portion of a permit deposit; (ii) imposition of additional requirements for subsequent permits (such as mandating a third-party greener contractor to perform recycling/composting/trash collection services; (iii) denial of subsequent permits for repeated violations. The City Manager or his/her designee may impose a penalty in his/her discretion, based on the severity and/or frequency of the violation or size of the event. An event organizer may appeal to the City Manager a penalty imposed by a designee of the City Manager. The City Manager shall act upon said appeal promptly. The City Manager’s decision shall be final.
1 13.44.140 Removal.

Any person who refuses to comply with a street event rule proposed and approved under Section 13.44.040.D.13 may be removed from the street event. (Ord. 6647-NS § 2, 2001)
1 13.44.150 City Manager authority.

The City Manager may adopt regulations for the implementation and administration of this Chapter. (Ord. 7439-NS § 3, 2015)
Section 2. 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.

Sam
ple Vendor Agreement

Thank you for your participation in EVENT NAME. The organizing committee of the event is committed to making this a Zero Waste Event. You must follow all State, County and City regulations to reduce waste by following the requirements below. Please return the signed form indicating your agreement.

Waste Reduction & Disposal Guidelines

The City of Berkeley requires all event vendors to properly sort all recyclable and compostable materials generated during the event. Well-marked containers must be available to both vendors and attendees. The items listed below will be collected for recycling/composting at the event:

• Recycle bottles, cans, plastic food and beverage containers. • Compost paper, cardboard, boxes, mixed paper, food waste, food soiled paper and BPI certified compostable foodware

1383 Food Donations Requirements

Vendors with excess food that is still safe for human consumption must donate the excess food to a local food pantry.
• Food Donation Guide for Event Vendors Surplus Food Donation Guide • Surplus Food Donation Guide
• RE: Source | Your Online Guide for Reuse, Repair, Recycling, and Safe Disposal (stopwaste.org)

Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance Requirements for Food Vendors BMC 11.64

• All foodware must be reusable or BPI certified compostable. • All disposable foodware must be recyclable or compostable in the City’s Zero Waste program.
• Reusable plates, cups, utensils and other accessory items are preferred

Required Plastic Bag Charges BMC 11.63

• Please avoid providing bags where possible.
• If you must provide bags for food or retail items, the bags must not be plastic, they must be paper or reusable, you may charge ten cents per bag

Unacceptable materials

o Plastic Bags and Polystyrene foam are banned in Berkeley o Electronic Waste must not be disposed in the trash
o The following items are not recyclable, they must be placed in the trash  Milk cartons, juice/soup/broth boxes, plastic wrap, balloons, laminated paper.

If you have any questions as to whether an item is recyclable or compostable, contact [event coordinator].

Thank you, we look forward to seeing you at EVENT NAME!

Vendor Name ________________________________________
Contact (print name):__________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________ Date__________

Zero Waste Events Requirements:

Application timeline.
• The application form must be submitted at least 45 days prior to the event and all trash, recycle and compost bin reservation and ClearStream reservation requests must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the event.

Contents of application form.

All applicants must submit an Events Recycling Plan clearly stating all of the following:
• How event discards will be properly sorted into trash, recycle, and compost; • Proof of reservation and payment or plan for post event collection services for trash, recycle and compost;
• Confirmation that you are responsible for your vendors following all regulations and requirements
If you have food or vendors at the event you must also state the following:
• Documentation that all foodservice ware intended for use at the event will be compliant with BMC Chapter 11.64 and state law regarding single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments;
• Documentation that all retailers and food vendors will be compliant with BMC Chapter 11.63 regarding carryout bags
• Plan for how excess edible food will be managed for safe donation after the event per BMC Chapter 12.34;
• Proof of an agreement with a local food recovery organization that will either receive or collect the excess edible food for donation, if the event or venue meets the threshold for large event or large venue as contained in the definitions per BMC Chapter 12.34; Post event follow-up.

Events with 2,000 people or more are subject State diversion reporting. • All event organizer or event greener must submit weight tickets and/or photo documentation verifying service levels and final contents of each material type for short term dumpster rentals, extra service or self-haul.

Conditional approval of permit.

The City Manager may impose additional conditions to a permit in the exercise of his or her reasonable discretion when conditionally granting a permit, including but not limited to:

• Requiring a third-party vendor to conduct education on proper trash, recycle and compost sorting at zero waste stations and for post-collection sorting after the event. • Requiring reusable food service ware at the event.

Grounds for denial of application.

Permits for special events will be granted at the discretion of the City Manager. A special event permit application may be denied upon evidence that:

• The applicant has failed in the past to adhere to their Events Recycling Plan by neglecting to provide either trash, recycle and compost collection or compliant food service ware and/or the donation of excess edible food.

Revocation of event permit.

An event permit may be revoked at any time, including during the event, by the City Manager for; • Failure to provide trash, recycle and compost collection or compliant food service ware and/or donation of excess edible food.

Short Term Trash, Recycle and Compost Collection Service with the City of Berkeley o Rates f
or short term service can be found at: https://berkeleyca.gov/city-services/trash- recycling/dumpster-rental
o Recycling service can only be ordered in conjunction with refuse and or compost services o Compost service is 20% discounted from refuse service rates o The City only offers short term service for refuse bins. Short term cart service is not available.

Requesting and Paying for Short Term Service
• Email order details to [email protected] including:
o The volume and type of desired service
o A map clearly indicating the bin drop off location
• Receive
confi
rmation from Zero Waste staff that they have approved and submitted your order to Customer Service
• The City of Berkeley, temporarily is unable to process credit card payment by phone. Please pay for the collection services in person at the Finance Customer Service office at 1947 Center Street Monday-Thursday, 8:30-4:00.

If You Are Not Using Short Term Collection Service with the City of Berkeley Bring Sorted Materials to the Berkeley Transfer Station and Community Conservation Center (locations are neighboring)
o Landfill and compost materials can be taken to the Berkeley Transfer Station at 1201 Second Street for paid disposal. Hours of operation and rate details can be found at https://www.cityofberkeley.info/transferstation/
o Recycling can be taken to the Community Conservation Center at 669 Gilman St. for free disposal.

Coordinate with business sponsors
o Work with local businesses to dispose of event waste using their compost, recycling, and landfill service.
o Depending on restaurant service volume and event size, the restaurant may need to order extra service to accommodate the added volume of waste.
o The authorized caller can schedule extra service on existing bins by contacting Customer Service 510-981-7270 (311 within Berkeley)
Take home event waste to your personal cans
o If the volume of event waste is small enough, you have the option of disposing of event waste in your personal cans
Event Greeners
Hiring event greeners is highly recommended for a successful zero waste event.

Below are suggested event greeners.
• Green Mary – Mary Munat (707) 548-7582
• Waste Busters – Mike Siminitus (510) 473-2087
• SF Clean City Coalition – Gia Grant: (415) 440-4409
• Clean Vibes – Anna Borofsky (828)738-3817
• Race to Zero Waste – Teresa Bradley: (4 15) 377-8931

Before the Event
□ Limit the number of giveaways (i.e. free samples, paper fliers). □ Make sure all items purchased for the event (i.e. banners, display materials, and operational materials) are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.
□ Offer hydration station for water bottle refill when possible. □ If you will have vendors, review applicable regulations and share the vendor agreement in advance of the event.
□ Ensure all foodware is BPI certified compostable per BMC 11.64 & use reusable foodware when possible □ Consider the following questions.
 How much of the waste generated will be compostable vs. recyclable vs. landfill?  How long is your event?
 How many people will attend the event?
 Where will most waste generation occur?
• Anticipate where to set-up zero waste stations so it will be most convenient for event patrons to sort properly
• Will you need to hire an event greening service to help educate event patrons on what goes where and to help you sort material after the event if patrons do not do a suitable job
□ Provide Zero Waste staff a Zero Waste Event Plan.
□ Include a map of where your Zero Waste Stations will be set-up (for event patron sorting). □ Work with Zero Waste staff to reserve ClearStreams
□ Work with Zero Waste staff to reserve short term dumpster collection service for trash, recycle and compost, if not self-hauling.
□ Include a map of where trash, recycling and composting dumpsters with be delivered (for final collection), if applicable.

During the Event
□ Ensure Zero Waste ClearStream Stations have been set-up appropriately and have clear signage so event patrons will be able to easily sort materials properly
□ All stations should include three components: trash, recycle, and compost o There should be no stand-alone trash receptacles
□ Compost ClearStreams should be lined with compostable bags, NOT plastic bags □ Recycling and trash ClearStreams should be lined with a clear plastic bag □ Ensure volunteers arrive on time and have been assigned to monitor waste sorting at stations and understand which materials go where.
□ Ensure City litter containers have been covered
□ Ensure vendors understand they must also sort the materials they generate □ Ensure vendors understand if they are expected to back-haul their trash, recycle and compost or if they can place it in the short-term dumpsters
□ Ensure vendors are following the vendor agreement and are providing compostable or reusable foodware After the Event
□ Place all compostables (i.e. food scraps, food-soiled paper, compostable foodware, clean cardboard) in the green compost bin.
□ Place tied bags of trash in the correctly labeled (usually brown/gray) trash bin. □ Empty bottles/cans/plastic containers LOOSE into the blue recycling bin. Place plastic bags in the trash. □ Break down and flatten all cardboard. Place cardboard in the Paper/Cardboard Recycling bin, if applicable.

If a Paper/Cardboard bin is not available, you may place cardboard in the compost. □ Retrieve and clean all ClearStream frames, lids, bins & extra bags from the site (your deposit will not be returned in full if you do not return the clean ClearStreams). □ Store ClearStreams and extra bags securely until you return them to 1201 2nd St. □ Event Organizer or Event Greener will send Zero Waste Staff an event recap with attendance, estimated waste generated and any other notable details from event.

Zero Waste Division
For general questions, please contact City of Berkeley Customer Service at 510-981-7270 (311 within Berkeley) or [email protected]
ClearStream Event Equipment Reservation Form
Name of Event:

Event Date(s):

Estimated # of Attendees Per Day:

Event Location:

Name of Organization:

Website (if applicable):

Name of Borrower:

Borrower Phone #:

Borrower Email Address:

Equipment Requested Color/material Quantity
requested
Frames/lids Black (trash)
Blue (recycling)
Green (compost)
Bags Clear plastic bags (for trash frames)
Clear plastic bags (for recycling frames)
Compostable bags
ClearStreams must be picked up/dropped off at the Berkeley Transfer Station: 1201 2nd St.

Pick-Up Date: Pick-Up Time:

Return Date: Return Time:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Portion below to be completed at the time of pick up/drop off.

City staff will verify all equipment is returned clean, dry, & in good condition by initialing below.

I am an authorized agent for the above-named organization.

I agree to return all equipment clean, dry, & in good condition within 2 business days of the end of the event.

I will report all missing or damaged items.

I authorize the City of Berkeley to charge for lost or damaged items: Frame: $50; Lid: $25 Equipment
picked up by
Print Name: Signature: Date:

Equipment
returned by
Print Name: Signature: Date: Staff Initials:

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Zero Waste Commission
Submitted by: Steven Sherman, Zero Waste Commission Chair Subject: Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance

RECOMMENDATION
Recommend Council to direct the City Manager to refer Public Works Zero Waste staff and Planning, Safety and Building, Energy and Sustainability and Green Building staff work together to develop recommendations to implement a clear path to enforcement for non-compliance with Berkeley Green Code (BMC 19.37) Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste diversion requirements, including the possibility of fines and citations and other mechanisms to increase compliance.

SUMMARY
Compliance with Berkeley Green Code’s more stringent amendment to the California Green Building Standards Code to recycle 100% of asphalt and concrete instead of the States requirement of 65%, relies on self-reporting through Green Halo. Self-reporting has resulted in fraudulent ticket uploads, poor sorting, and repeated noncompliance. As a result, 17% of projects in 2025 failed to meet code requirements but, the property owners, developers or contractors were not penalized.

Staff have diligently worked to educate and build relationships with contractors over the past three years and compliance has increased steadily. However, staff have identified approximately 40 offenders who have repeatedly been non-compliant for the past decade. With no clear path for penalization, staff are unable to simply encourage those bad actors into compliance.

Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026

C&D debris is one of the largest sources of material self-hauled to the Transfer Station, and a significant driver of greenhouse gas emissions and local pollution, particularly affecting low-income and minority communities. Strong enforcement is essential to advancing Berkeley’s climate and equity goals. Researching and implementing an effective path to enforcement will streamline the process of meeting diversion requirements and make it easier for staff to hold contractors and haulers accountable.

Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff in the Zero Waste Division of the Public Works Department, in conjunction with the Planning Department will research the fiscal impacts for the implementation of a menu of potential enforcement options and develop an associated cost model for each option. Assessment of these Fiscal Impacts will require minimal staff time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This C&D enforcement referral is a Zero Waste Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

Construction waste diversion is the process of redirecting waste materials generated from C&D debris away from landfills, toward salvage, recycling, and composting.

Berkeley Green Code diversion requirements were adopted in the Berkeley Municipal Code as Chapter 19.37 in 2025. Chapter 19.37 requires that 65% of construction and demolition (C&D) material be diverted from landfill, and 100% of excavated soil, concrete, and asphalt. Reducing the amount of C&D material that goes to landfill is essential to reducing associated GHG emissions, decreasing land use needed for landfills, and reducing environmental degradation.

Because there is no consequential mechanism outlined in the Berkeley Municipal Code to provide guidance in regard to penalizing non- compliant contractors, staff have difficulty when it comes to ensuring contractors and haulers comply with diversion requirements. To understand diversion levels in Berkeley, staff rely on self-
reporting from contractors on Green Halo, a C&D debris diversion tracking platform.

Common issues surrounding compliance include:

1. Improper source separation to the extent that it impedes meeting C&D debris diversion requirements.

2. Uploading fraudulent weight tickets to the Green Halo platform.

3. Uploading weight tickets in an untimely manner.

4. Repeated non-compliance beyond three violations.

Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
As a result, 17% of projects in 2025 failed to meet Berkeley Green Code (BMC

19.37) requirements. Figure 1 displays the
rates by project type for all registered projects in the database since 2012. Construction projects tend to divert the least amount of debris, while stand-alone demolition projects tend to divert the most.

Proper sorting and bagging ensure that C&D debris remains uncontaminated. Source separation is particularly important for materials like cement and asphalt so that these waste streams can achieve their required 100% diversion requirement. Many contractors transport C&D debris, mixed with residential waste, in black plastic bags– leading to recyclable debris being coded as landfill, leading to projects failing to achieve the 65% C&D diversion requirement. Miscoded tickets also prevent staff from verifying data, leading to unreliable documentation surrounding C&D debris diversion and potential missed opportunities to increase diversion.

Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
The biggest area where diversion could improve is by penalizing repeat offenders.

Over 40 contractors, who have repeatedly been out of compliance annually for over a decade, have been identified by staff. Contractors often attempt to reuse or tamper with weight tickets, causing staff to spend extra time scrutinizing each weight ticket.

Some claim to have no weight tickets because the amount hauled to a transfer station was too minimal to be measured, leading to the improper disposal of C&D material that could have been diverted from landfill. Projects taken on by repeat offenders vary in size, illustrated by Figure 2, but the most problematic repeat offenders are those with high-value projects that produce a significant amount of C&D material.

BACKGROUND
The City requires that all construction, demolition, and some remodel projects submit a Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) that complies with its zero-waste requirements (Berkeley Green Code BMC 19.37 and California Green Building Standards Code Sections 4.408.2 and 5.408.1.1). Besides CWMP, all contractors are required to upload C&D debris weight tickets to the Green Halo platform. These weight tickets include information on the tons debris diverted from landfill and quantify project materials which have been recycled or reused. Staff also host office hours at the Permit Service Center on Tuesdays and Thursdays, allowing any contractors who are having issues with Green Halo to consult with Zero Waste staff first-hand and address their issues.

Zero Waste staff have been working on launching educational awareness campaigns to further assist contractors lacking experience with the Green Halo platform, and to encourage onboarding onto the Green Halo platform. Staff also conduct random site inspections, to ensure that projects comply with state requirements, allowing for interventions and flexibility when necessary. Additionally, Zero Waste staff participate in Design-Stage Round Table reviews, and Field Inspection Project Kickoff meetings, to provide notice of projects’ Berkeley Green Code (BMC 19.37) requirements.

Penalizing repeat offenders for non-compliance will level the playing field and encourage development by contractors acting in good faith. The 65% diversion requirement is already embedded in the Berkeley Green Code and applies to most permitted construction and demolition projects in the City. Therefore, enforcing the requirement should not materially slow development or reduce project feasibility.

On June 19, 2025, the Zero Waste Commission authorized its Green Building Subcommittee to write and submit this referral to the City Council to request the City Manager refer the Zero Waste Division of the Public Works Department, and the Building and Safety Division, Energy and Sustainability and Green Building Program Management staff from the Planning Department to research and recommend best practices to codify enforcement mechanisms for improving compliance with state and city-mandated C&D debris diversion requirements.

Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
Action Taken: M/S (Chrise/Barun) to approve the Green Building Ordinance. Ayes:

Unanimous; Abstain: None; Absent: Layla Dargahi

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Lack of effective diversion can be damaging to local communities. The construction industry is considered to be the primary contributor to landfill material; in the United States, 67% of all solid waste is generated by the C&D industry alone (Chen et al., 2021). C&D debris is also the primary cause of environmental pollution; debris that ends up in landfill contains inorganics, heavy metals, organics, pesticides, and oils that leach into the landscape and contaminate soil and groundwater (Chen et al., 2021). Improper C&D debris salvaging also leads to indirect environmental damage, such as consumption of usable land, energy and non-energy resource consumption, resource depletion, air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution, and more (Chen et al., 2021).

Inadequate diversion introduces health-harming pollutants to the environment, as wind carries particles from landfills into neighboring communities. As landfills expand, substances like silica, asbestos, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds can become airborne, and expose particularly low-income populations to respiratory irritants, allergens, and carcinogens (Dorevitch et al., 2006). This is especially alarming, as studies show that higher percentages of Black and Hispanic residents, as well as households with lower socioeconomic status, are in close proximity to landfills (Joseph and Kamanmalek, 2025).

Successful C&D diversion can yield results that are beneficial to surrounding communities. A study by the EPA found that diverting 70-90% of debris can reduce 250- 400 kg of CO2 per ton of material, improving air quality in the area (Shajidha, and Mortula, 2025). In India, the recycling of C&D debris was found to improve all 15 impact categories of the recycling life cycle assessment, with observations like decreased leachate improving soil and groundwater, lower contamination from heavy metals, and reduced habitat disruption (Ram et al., 2020). Effective enforcement of C&D diversion is necessary if Berkeley is to sustain healthy communities and mitigate the harmful effects of climate change.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Establishing an effective enforcement mechanism will support staff in bringing repeat offenders into compliance, levelling the playing field for all contractors and encouraging contractors who work in good faith. Beyond informing contractors of their responsibilities to meet the 65% diversion minimum, staff currently have little power to hold contractors accountable, especially those that are repeatedly out of compliance, and repeatedly act in bad faith.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The alternative is no action as it relates to enforcement. Staff continue increasing outreach and education measures which only address part of the non-compliance issue

Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
and do not target those bad actors who have repeatedly been out of compliance for the past decade with no consequence.

CITY MANAGER
See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON
Julia A. Heath, Zero Waste Commission Secretary, Recycling Program Manager, (510) 981-6357

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jamie Parks, Director, Public Works
Subject: Companion Report: Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance

RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Manager to assign the Public Works Department, in conjunction with the Planning and Development Department, to:

1. Review and consider research conducted by the Zero Waste Commission and UC Berkeley student researchers on enforcement mechanisms in other jurisdictions; and,

2. Develop a recommendation for City Council to adopt an appropriate enforcement mechanism(s) to strengthen compliance with California Green Building Standards Code by adding to Berkeley Green Code (BMC

19.37).

SUMMARY
The City seeks to develop a clear and enforceable process for addressing non- compliance with construction and demolition (C&D) waste diversion requirements in the Berkeley Green Code. Currently, the Green Code does not provide a clear enforcement pathway when contractors fail to meet diversion requirements. Based on the Zero Waste Commission’s recommendations, City staff will evaluate and then recommend specific enforcement mechanisms to the City Council that will improve compliance with state and city waste diversion requirements. It is anticipated that this work will be substantially completed by the end of 2026, and that staff will bring a recommendation to City Council no later than Spring 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Public Works and Planning and Development departments have agreed to allocate 42 hours of staff time to meet to review research provided by the Zero Waste Commissioners and UC Berkeley student researchers. As outlined in the table below, the anticipated cost will be $5,802.23 in staff time. Staff costs will be reimbursed by CalRecycle Local Assistance Grant Funds-Fund 336-One-Time Grant Fund.

Companion Report: Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
2 Estimated Personnel Costs
Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance Position Hourly
Personnel Costs Hours FY 2027
Estimated Costs
Building and Safety Manager $192.37 6 $1,154.23 Assistant Building and Safety
Manager $173.59 6 $1,041.52 Program Manager II (2) $155.84 12 $1,870.06 Community Services
Specialist III $129.07 6 $774.40 Recycling Program Manager $132.80 6 $796.77 Intern $27.54 6 $165.24 TOTAL 42 $5,802.23
Staff plan to substantially complete this work in calendar year 2026 and bring a recommendation to City Council no later than Spring 2027.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Zero Waste Commission Secretary reported on progress at each meeting beginning in 2024 and the first half of 2025 regarding implementing zero waste processes and procedures related to increasing CalGreen compliance. The Zero Waste Commission voted to move a referral to Council on June 19, 2025, requesting that staff submit a proposal to the City Council to adopt updated ordinance language to clarify a formal enforcement mechanism for the City to use to improve compliance with state mandated construction and demolition materials recycling rates. City staff support the Commission’s action.

Companion Report: Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
3 June 19, 2025 Zero Waste Commission Meeting
Item 3: Review Green Building Ordinance
Action Taken: M/S (de Tourney/Singh) to approve the Green Building Ordinance.

Ayes: Steven Sherman, Dennis Uyat, Philip Monrad, Sandra Curtis and Swasti Johri; Nays: None; Abstentions: None; Absent: Layla Dargahi Motion carried 7-0-0-1
The City originally adopted the Berkeley Green Code Chapter 19.37 on November 29, 2016, and the code went into effect on January 1, 2017. This adoption mandated 65- percent diversion of construction and demolition materials and 100-percent diversion of excavated soil, concrete, and asphalt. However, the Berkeley Municipal Code does not include a clear pathway to enforcing the waste diversion requirements. As a result, staff must rely on contractor self-reporting, which has led to noncompliance, including improper source separation, fraudulent, missing or late weight ticket uploads, and repeated violations by the same contractors.

Currently, the City requires all construction, demolition, and remodeling projects to submit a Construction Waste Management Plan and upload construction and demolition debris weight tickets to Green Halo, a cloud-based software platform. This platform is used by staff for waste tracking and approval or denial of submitted weight tickets that document compliance with the statewide 65-percent construction and demolition recycling requirement and the City’s 100-percent recycling requirements for asphalt, cement and concrete. Public Works staff also provide technical assistance through office hours, educational outreach, site inspections, and early project reviews.

In 2025, 17-percent of contractors remained out of compliance with the Berkeley Green Code’s construction and demolition debris diversion requirements. There is no current enforcement procedure within the Berkeley Green Code; this limits staff’s ability to hold violators accountable. Actionable enforcement is essential for reducing landfill waste, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, protecting frontline communities, and advancing the City’s climate and equity goals.

Mixed and improperly bagged debris, miscoded tickets, and unverifiable data further undermine diversion outcomes and staff oversight. Staff have identified forty (40) repeat offenders who have been out of compliance for over a decade.

Repeat offenders pose the greatest challenge, particularly on high-value projects that generate large volumes of waste. Establishing a clear enforcement mechanism is a necessary next step to ensure compliance with state and local requirements, reduce the administrative burden on City staff who request information from non-responsive or uncooperative permittees, and to ensure that

Companion Report: Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
4 permits are not finalized until the City receives all of the requested compliance documentation.

Staff cannot enforce mandated construction and demolition debris diversion requirements because there is currently no enforcement mechanism in the Berkeley Municipal Code. This gap in the municipal code creates ongoing challenges with compliance. Amending the code to allow for enforcement of CALGreen requirements will not materially slow development or reduce project feasibility. The 65-percent diversion requirement is already embedded in the Berkeley Green Code and applies to most permitted construction and demolition projects in Berkeley.

Developing a recommendation for the City Council to adopt enforcement mechanisms to strengthen compliance with California Green Building Standards Code advances the Strategic Plan goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment. To wit, construction and demolition waste diversion is critical to reducing landfill use, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental degradation.

BACKGROUND
CALGreen 4.408.2 and 5.408.1.1 are part of the California Green Building Standards Code’s construction waste management provisions, specifically for Universal Waste.

4.408.2 – Universal Waste Management
 Applies to certain projects where Universal Waste is generated during construction or demolition.
 Requires verification that Universal Waste is managed correctly in accordance with applicable state and local regulations.
 A list of prohibited Universal Waste materials must be included in the project’s construction documents.
 This is a mandatory compliance method for those projects that produce Universal Waste, ensuring it is not disposed of in a way that violates environmental regulations.

5.408.1.1 – Construction Waste Management Plan
 Applies when the project meets the C&D waste diversion threshold (≥ 65- percent diversion or ≤2 lbs./ft² disposal for nonresidential; lower limits for residential) but must submit a Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP).

Companion Report: Enforceable Mechanism for Berkeley Green Code Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
5 The CWMP must:
 Outline the waste diversion and recycling strategy.
 Identify the methods and facilities used for diversion/recycling.  Include a schedule for waste handling and disposal.
 Be updated as necessary during construction and accessible to the enforcing agency for inspection
Berkeley Green Code diversion requirements were adopted in the Berkeley Municipal Code as Chapter 19.37, requiring 65-percent of construction and demolition material be diverted from landfill, and 100-percent of excavated soil, concrete, and asphalt.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Effective enforcement of construction and demolition debris diversion is critical to reducing landfill use, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, protecting air and water quality, and preventing disproportionate health and environmental harms to low-income and minority communities, while supporting Berkeley’s climate and environmental sustainability goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Compliance challenges with construction and demolition debris diversion requirements primarily result from the absence of a clear path for the City to enforce the requirements. This limits staff’s ability to hold contractors, particularly repeat and bad- faith offenders, accountable and underscores the need for a clear enforcement framework to support effective compliance.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The alternative action to the proposed recommendation would be taking no action.

CONTACT PERSON
Leticia Jauregui, Division Manager, Public Works Department, 510-981-6362 Julia A. Heath, Recycling Program Manager, Public Works Department, 510-981-6357

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Zero Waste Commission
Submitted by: Steven Sherman, Zero Waste Commission Chair Subject: Research on Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance with Source Separated Refuse Collection Procedures

RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that Council refer the matter to the City Manager with direction to:

1. Instruct the Zero Waste Division, in collaboration with the Planning Department and Fire Department, to study, research, and recommend policies that standardize requirements for:
a. Tenant-facing materials collection rooms for refuse, dual-stream recycling, and composting
b. Central collection rooms or enclosures
c. Curbside collection staging areas for all new construction

2. Develop minimum per-unit service requirements, design parameters, and enforcement mechanisms; pursuant to Chapter 12.32.030 and 12.35 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.

SUMMARY
While the Berkeley Municipal Code mandates accessible waste storage, it fails to outline efficient refuse, dual-stream recycling and compost collection areas for tenants and employees, central collection locations or safe curbside staging areas for collection and enforce proper space allocation for said collection processes in the design phase of project lifecycles. Improper space allocation for refuse, dual-stream recycling and compost carts and bins in new commercial construction blueprints increases construction costs while compromising Zero Waste collection services and the safety of City workers.

There is an opportunity to codify refuse collection procedures and facilitate compliance by enforcing proper space allocation across all new commercial developments. In this effort, areas for focused research include, but are not limited to, the development of:

Research on Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026

1. Minimum service requirements. Minimum service requirements create a baseline expectancy for refuse volume across all new commercial construction, allowing for the development of baseline design guidelines and a standardization of space allocation in refuse collection procedures.

2. Design parameters. In order to streamline refuse, dual-stream recycling and compost collection in new construction projects, design guidelines that allocate sufficient space to accommodate required collection services in every stage of the collection process are necessary.

3. Enforcement mechanisms. Ensuring adherence to a standardized refuse collection procedure ensures the safety, health, and cleanliness of the city.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff in the Zero Waste Division of the Public Works Department, in conjunction with the Planning Department, will research the fiscal impacts of the implementation of proposed policies, including the potential for cost-recovery through bill back for staff time and enforcement mechanisms. Assessment of these fiscal impacts will require minimal staff time.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Under Chapter 12.32.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, the City of Berkeley requires “[every] person owning any premises, where garbage or rubbish is produced or accumulated [is to] provide and maintain…in a suitable place readily accessible to personnel of the solid waste and environmental health divisions, containers of sufficient capacity and number to store the accumulations of garbage or rubbish during the intervals between collections or disposal”. Under Chapter 12.35.010 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, the City of Berkeley adopted and codified the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Organic Waste Reduction Strategy “The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with certain state laws requiring cities, counties, and special districts providing solid waste collection services to adopt ordinances and take other measures to reduce the amount of organic and recyclable materials deposited in landfills from commercial and residential generators, more specifically the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Organic Waste Reduction regulations adopted pursuant to Senate Bill 1383 (Statutes of 2016) set forth in the California Code of Regulations (the "SB 1383 Regulations"). Notably, the requirements not only emphasize the importance of establishing sufficient space for waste collection, but also mandate that containers of collected refuse are “readily accessible to personnel”.

The City of Berkeley operates municipal refuse collection in two ways:

1. Curbside Service. Building owners are responsible for placing refuse, dual stream recycling, and compost carts or bins at the appropriate staging locations along the street prior to collection day, and returning them to their enclosures within 24 hours.

Research on Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026

2. Push-and-Pull Service: Building owners pay the City an additional fee to transport carts and bins from a central collection area to a curbside collection area and back.

The mandated collection process consists of the following three stages:

1. Occupant Refuse, Dual-Stream Recycling and Compost Collection. The first stage covers occupant access to material collection containers, at either a central collection location or in the case of large multi-family buildings, material collection rooms on each floor. In accordance with the BMC, equal access to all waste streams must be ensured across all building levels.

2. Staging. This stage covers the process of transporting collected materials to their proper staging area for collection. Important technicalities in this stage include, but are not limited to: doorway dimensions, alley widths, and slope gradients.

3. Municipal Refuse Collection. The final stage covers the municipal collection of the material from curbside staging areas for transportation to the Transfer Station. Important technicalities in this stage include, but are not limited to: curb cuts, red or yellow zones for ease of collection truck parking, considerations to avoid bike lanes and staging areas on busy thoroughfares, driveway, approach, and slope gradient.

Although the Zero Waste Division has published New Construction: Adequate Space Guidelines for Waste Containers and provides developers with a copy of these guidelines, the City’s refuse, dual-stream recycling and compost collection process, as well as the aforementioned space guidelines, are not codified in the Berkeley Municipal Code, rendering enforcement impossible for City staff.

Unfortunately, the consequence of a lack of formalized specifications for new construction design and no enforceable mechanisms for ensuring space is properly allocated for tenant facing trash rooms, central collection rooms or enclosures and proper staging areas that take into account driver and pedestrian safety, staff encounter completed new construction that has failed to accommodate at least one stage of refuse collection, including but not limited to:
o Doors to refuse enclosures with insufficient clearance to accommodate bin collection services requested by the property, necessitating design modifications o Dumpsters are placed in narrow alleyways. Enclosures and storage areas must have enough space for dumpsters. If moving a dumpster, ensure a curb cut is installed for push-pull service.
o Steeply sloped driveways from enclosures to the street, resulting in staff injuries during push-and-pull service provision;

Research on Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
o Alleyways with insufficient vertical clearance for refuse truck entrance; o Trash chutes with no collocated chutes for recycling or compost; o Staging locations that impede biker and pedestrian right-of-way; o Negligent staging that leads to increased street litter from upended bins.

These issues not only compromise proper waste separation but can result in costly post-construction design modifications. Furthermore, inefficiencies place unnecessary administrative burden on staff, while endangering Zero Waste materials collection workers. In order to streamline refuse collection procedures and prevent aforementioned issues, important design elements that will be considered, categorized under each stage, include but will not be limited to:

1. Occupant Refuse Collection: equal access to all waste streams across all building levels, in accordance with BMC 12.35.

2. Staging: Maintain a minimum 18-inch clearance between dumpsters staged side by side. This required clearance would greatly reduce pinch hazards and prevent hand injuries during handling.

3. Doorway Dimensions: Entrances must provide enough width for containers plus 6 inches on either side to pass through freely without hitting frames. This prevents property damage and ensures smooth transitions between spaces.

4. Alley Widths: Driveways and alleys must be wide enough to allow for safe maneuvering of both containers and collection vehicles. Adequate space is essential to avoid scraping walls or damaging property.

5. Gradients: Gradients of staging areas will be considered and addressed to ensure reduce runaway dumpster hazard does not occur. Steep inclines are prohibited as they significantly increase the risk of injuries and property damage.

6. Surface & Obstructions: Containers must be kept on a smooth, level surface free of any debris or obstacles to reduce physical strain to our staff and reduce tipping accidents or injuries.

7. Public Right-of-Way: Containers and equipment must be positioned so they do not obstruct the public right-of-way or traffic lanes to increase safety of both the collection crew and the general public.

Proper space allocation for refuse collection, which includes instituting minimum service requirements and creating pre-construction design guidelines, is a crucial next step for streamlining compliance with materials collection and waste disposal requirements.

Research on Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
Staff expect that codifying the space allocation requirement will not materially slow development or reduce project feasibility. The guidelines are already informally required and codifying them will offer the opportunity to include an enforcement mechanism and increase compliance with BMC 12.35.

BACKGROUND
All commercial and multi-family (5+ units) properties within the City of Berkeley are subject to State Law SB 1383 and corresponding local Alameda County Organics Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (2021-02). In order to be in compliance with SB 1383, the City of Berkeley must accommodate four waste streams through materials collection procedures:

1. Landfill,

2. Recycling for Glass, Metals, and Plastics,

3. Recycling for Cardboard, Mixed Paper, and

4. Organics collection for Food Waste, Compostable Paper, and Plant Debris.

From 2019 to 2023, the Telegraph Business Improvement District and Downtown Berkeley Association piloted trash corrals— structures designed to contain businesses’ waste bins on the street— in order to “make trash collection easier, and provide a more pleasing streetscape1.” Part of an early effort to introduce trash enclosures by commercial districts, this pilot project exemplifies the need for allocating space for waste receptacles, given the implications of uncorralled receptacles in the public right of way.

At its meeting September 18, 2025, the Zero Waste Commission authorized its Green Building Subcommittee to write and submit this referral to the City Council to authorize the City Manager to refer the Public Works Zero Waste Division, to work in conjunction with the Planning Department to study, research and recommend procedures and enforcement mechanisms to increase proper waste sorting compliance by ensuring all new commercial construction includes the proper allocation of space to accommodate state and city-mandated waste collection requirements.

September 18, 2025 Zero Waste Commission Meeting- Item 7: Voting on Moving the Space Allocation Referral to Council
Action Taken: M/S (Dargahi/Singh) to move Space Allocation Ordinance Referral to Council.

Aye: Dennis Uyat, Philip Monrad, Barun Singh, Sandra Curtis, Swasti Johri, Steven Sherman, Layla Dargahi, Claire Wilson; Nays: none; Abstentions: none;

Absent: none;
Motion carried 8-0-0-0

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Compromised refuse collection processes frequently expose waste to the environment and its natural processes, adversely impacting environmental health. Improperly staged

Research on Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
refuse bins are subject to being knocked over or left uncovered, and rainwater runoff from unenclosed waste creates leachate containing microplastics such as polyethylene, polystyrene, and polypropylene2. As leachate enters Berkeley’s stormwater drainage systems, these microplastics inevitably contaminate the Bay. Clogged drainpipes are a consequential causative factor of water logging in urban areas3, thus unenclosed waste and litter that result in clogged storm drains increase flood risks amidst already intensifying storms. Furthermore, 80% of global marine litter originates from land4. The City of Berkeley’s contribution to this number could be significantly reduced by establishing effective refuse collection policies and processes. Beyond these impacts, inadequate materials collection infrastructure in multifamily developments significantly limits resident and business participation in proper refuse, recycling, and composting. When collection areas are inconvenient or poorly designed, participation declines, contamination increases, and diversion goals are undermined. Improving access and usability of tenant-facing collection spaces is therefore critical to increasing participation and achieving environmental outcomes.

Successful allocation of waste receptacles can benefit all local communities. Proper management is projected to conserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save energy, and decrease pollutants5. Studies have shown that proper programs for waste management not only reduce environmental harm but improve the physical and mental health of citizens6.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The absence of code requirements on space allocation for efficient material collection and enforcement of minimum service requirements in the City of Berkeley, has restricted staff’s ability to enforce compliance with our recommendations for proper space allocation in the pre-design and construction phases of the project lifecycle. This has led to development of properties that complicate the material collection process, elevating health and environmental risks. Problems at all levels of the refuse collection process occur without explicit standards for appropriate space allocation, and a lack of enforcement allows for these conditions to persist.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The alternative action to the proposed recommendation would be taking no action.

CITY MANAGER
See companion report.

CONTACT PERSON
Julia A. Heath, Zero Waste Commission Secretary, Recycling Program Manager, (510) 981-6357

Research on Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance CONSENT CALENDAR October 27, 2026
1 As written in former Councilmembers Rigel Robinson and Kate Harrison’s letter to the Mayor and Berkeley City Council requesting fee waivers for the referenced trash corral pilot project in 2019. https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AZTt6TtX96UhgjoIdp0qAorvaUCTpo4 EUIf
%C3%8934BX%C3%81YDKAnTLsKgSiZ5K40mqKqaWXlfSWV0GIzxDleBQy6w%C3%89DNQ%3D/ 2 Kabir, M. S., Wang, H., Luster-Teasley, S., Zhang, L., & Zhao, R. (2023). Microplastics in landfill leachate: Sources, detection, occurrence, and removal. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 16, 100256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100256
3 Wang, X., Xia, J., Feng, J., & Dong, B. (2025). Numerical modelling of the impact of drainage system clogging on urban flood processes. Journal of Environmental Management, 388, 125969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125969
4 Rossi, A., Wu, M., Wolde, B. T., Zerbe, K. W., David Hsu, T.-T., Giudicelli, A., & Da Silva, R. (2023). Understanding the factors affecting the quantity and composition of street litter: Implication for management practices. Heliyon, 9(3), e14245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14245
5 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, May 14). Recycling Basics and Benefits. Www.epa.gov; EPA. https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics-and-benefits 6 Wilson, C. (2024). Down in the Dumps: Exploring San Francisco’s Approach to Illegal Dumping and Recommendations for Optimization. City and County of San Francisco’s Office of Refuse Rate Administration. https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Illegal_Dumping_Final_Report.pdf

Office of the City Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jamie Parks, Director, Public Works
Subject: Companion Report: Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance with Source Separated Refuse Collection Procedures

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 12.32 – Storage, Collection and Disposal of Waste.

SUMMARY
New commercial developments in Berkeley must have adequate space for refuse, recycling, and compost collection. The Public Works, Planning and Fire departments developed proposed amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code to set safe and commonsense requirements for source separated refuse collection. The Zero Waste Commission’s report reinforces work that staff are currently undertaking. The intentions of these requirements are to improve and increase waste sorting and, thus, reduce spills, contamination, greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, and other environmental, health and safety harms.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Public Works’ Zero Waste Division, the Planning Department’s Building and Safety Division and Energy, Sustainability and Green Building Program Management groups, and the Fire Department have already implemented a workflow that addresses the requirements put forth in the Zero Waste Commission’s proposed ordinance language.

Therefore, no additional staffing time or associated costs are anticipated.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Public Works staff recommend Council adopt the first reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 12.32 of the Berkeley Municipal Code to add Section 12.32.035 (“Adequate Space for Collection Containers”), which will clarify requirements for commercial developments to provide for the convenient sorting of refuse into landfill, recycling and compost streams and to require the construction of central collection locations or trash enclosures that are safe and easily accessible for Public Works staff to collect. Staff expect that codifying the space allocation requirement will not materially slow development or reduce project feasibility.
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/

Companion Report: Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance with CONSENT CALENDAR Source Separated Refuse Collection Procedures October 27, 2026 2 Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 12.32.030 requires property owners to provide adequate and accessible refuse materials collection space. This section of the code does not describe what design standards should be considered. Additionally, there are no clear minimum service guidelines used to estimate the amount of space needed for “adequate collection space”. As a result, Public Works staff have worked closely with Planning staff to ensure that new construction projects receive the necessary feedback so that their construction plans comply with State, County and Local zero waste requirements.

Public Works staff have encountered very few applicants who refuse to collaborate and, therefore, do not anticipate a need to institute post-construction penalization. This collaborative process has increased worker safety, environmental health and landfill diversion. Additional design considerations in the municipal code will provide the missing clarification that will provide additional support to continue the current success and improve diversion efforts.

Amending Chapter 12.32 of the Berkeley Municipal Code to require adequate space for collection containers advances the Strategic Plan goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

BACKGROUND
The State of California's Senate Bill 1383 on Short-Lived Climate Pollutants requires that all refuse generators, residents and businesses, subscribe to landfill, recycling and organics collection services, provide equally accessible and convenient access to all of the required streams and to provide proper signage to increase participation in proper sorting and landfill diversion. These requirements are in line with the City’s zero waste and climate action goals and were adopted into the municipal code under chapter 12.35 Organics Reduction and Recycling.

Public Works and Planning staff have built a strong relationship over the last three years to implement an improved workflow where safety and compliance concerns are discussed and addressed directly with new construction designers. Public Works staff recognized that new buildings were being permitted without adequate space to accommodate the City’s required four stream collection services. This led to reduced participation in proper sorting and therefore, reduced opportunities to increase diversion from landfill. It was also leading to Public Works collection drivers being exposed to safety hazards related to refuse collection sites being placed in areas with pinch hazards, steep slopes, access issues or public right of ways with heavy traffic.

The Zero Waste Commission Secretary reported on progress addressing this issue at multiple Zero Waste Commission meetings beginning in September of 2023 to present, the Zero Waste Commission voted to move a referral to Council on September 18,

Companion Report: Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance with CONSENT CALENDAR Source Separated Refuse Collection Procedures October 27, 2026 3 2025, requesting that Council adopt an ordinance that would codify the informal process staff had built to address its space allocation issue.

September 18, 2025 Zero Waste Commission Meeting
Item 7: Voting on Moving the Space Allocation Referral to Council Action Taken: M/S (Dargahi/Singh) to move Space Allocation Ordinance Referral to Council

Aye: Dennis Uyat, Philip Monrad, Barun Singh, Sandra Curtis, Swasti Johri, Steven Sherman, Layla Dargahi, Claire Wilson; Nays: none; Abstentions: none;

Absent: none
Motion carried 8-0-0-0
The amendments to Chapter 12.32 of the Municipal Code proposed by staff reflect a significant modification to the to the amendments proposed by the Zero Waste Commission with respect to residential development. The Zero Waste Commission's recommendations contemplated application of the new waste storage, collection, staging, and space-allocation requirements to multifamily residential development and mixed-use development. Following further review by City staff, the proposed ordinance has been revised to remove residential development, including the residential component of mixed-use development, from the new physical space-allocation and design requirements. Assembly Bill 130 (Stats. 2025, ch. 22) generally prohibits cities and counties, from October 1, 2025 through June 1, 2031, from adopting new or more restrictive building standards applicable to residential units unless a statutory exception applies. The City can revisit residential developments after June 1, 2031.

Right now, the new Zero Waste space-allocation and design requirements cannot be enforced against residential developments without conflicting with AB 130. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance does not apply new physical design requirements to residential development. Zero Waste requirements that do not establish new residential building standards, like curbside waste collection procedures, are not affected by this modification.

Certain proposed fire and life-safety amendments recommended by the Fire Department will continue to apply to residential development. Many of these provisions do not establish new building standards, but instead expressly require compliance with existing requirements of the California Building Code, California Fire Code, Berkeley Fire Code, and Berkeley Wildland-Urban Interface Code. These include requirements governing waste and recycling chutes and associated shafts and collection rooms; combustible waste storage and separation; fire apparatus and emergency access; unobstructed access to fire hydrants, fire department connections, and other fire protection equipment; means of egress; existing requirements governing battery collection and storage; and applicable Wildland-Urban Interface requirements.

Companion Report: Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance with CONSENT CALENDAR Source Separated Refuse Collection Procedures October 27, 2026 4 To the extent any Fire Department provision establishes a new or more restrictive residential building standard beyond existing code requirements, the City intends to seek approval under AB 130's health-and-safety exception. Health and Safety Code sections 17958, 17958.5, and 17958.7 permit a local residential building standard during the AB 130 moratorium where the California Building Standards Commission determines that the change or modification is necessary as an emergency standard to protect health and safety.

The Fire Department's proposed requirements most directly related to this exception are those intended to preserve required fire apparatus and emergency access; prevent obstruction of fire lanes, hydrants, fire department connections, means of egress, and other fire protection equipment; regulate combustible waste and battery storage that presents a fire hazard; and ensure that waste storage or staging facilities do not interfere with required fire and life-safety features. If the California Building Standards Commission does not approve a new residential standard under the applicable AB 130 exception, that standard would not be enforced against residential development during the AB 130 moratorium.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Improperly managed materials collection in Berkeley can reduce participation by business tenants and employees in commercial buildings, resulting in missed opportunities to divert recyclable and compostable materials from landfills. This increases greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane from decomposing organic waste. In addition, spillage from improperly contained waste can contribute to microplastic contamination of waterways, increase flood risks, and add to marine litter.

Proper allocation and management of waste receptacles help reduce pollution, conserve resources, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and improve community health and safety.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Making the City’s space allocation standards easier to understand and formally adding them to the Berkeley Municipal Code will give engineers, architects, and contractors clearer design requirements. It will also allow staff to point applicants to an official set of rules before they submit their construction plans to Public Works for review.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
City Council could decide not to adopt a first reading of the proposed additional chapter to the Berkeley Municipal Code. Taking no action would maintain the status quo, leaving codified requirements vague and enforcement options unclear.

CONTACT PERSON
Leticia Jauregui, Division Manager, Public Works Department, 510-981-6362 Julia A. Heath, Recycling Program Manager, Public Works Department, 510-981-6357

Companion Report: Proper Space Allocation for Standardizing Compliance with CONSENT CALENDAR Source Separated Refuse Collection Procedures October 27, 2026 5 Attachments:

1. Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 12.32

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.32 – STORAGE,

COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 12.32 is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 12.32
STORAGE, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE*
Sections:

12.32.010 Definitions.

12.32.020 Accumulation prohibited--Storage requirements--Removal of construction rubbish.

12.32.030 Garbage containers required--Specifications--Use restrictions- - Location.

12.32.035
Adequate Space for Collection Containers

12.32.040 Bulk wastes--Over one cubic yard--Over two cubic yards.

12.32.045 Definitions

12.32.050 Garbage collection--Service declared essential--Exclusive collection by City required--Notification by owner--Fees--Time-- Districts established--Rubbish collected with garbage.

12.32.055 Adequate Space
Requirement

12.32.060 Garbage fees--Payment requirements--Service charges.

12.32.065 Design Standards

12.32.070 Dumping at unauthorized disposal site prohibited.

12.32.075 Stormwater Requirements

12.32.080 Dumps--Use limitations.

12.32.085 Administrative Standards

12.32.090 Refuse burning prohibited--Exceptions.

12.32.095 Liability and Enforcement

12.32.100 Nuisances designated--Abatement authorized when.

12.32.110 Violation--Penalty.

12.32.120 Putrescible waste--Procedure for management--Vermin infestation control--Prima facie presumption of violation.

12.32.130 Collection and disposal--Private hauler requirements.

12.32.140 Collection and disposal--Rules and regulations--Public Works Department authority.
* For Zero Waste Commission, see Ch. 3.40 of this code.

12.32.010 Definitions.

A.  "Garbage" means putrescible animal or vegetable matter, and containers used for the storage thereof. "Garbage" does not include source-separated recyclables or yard waste.

B.  "Hazardous waste" means that waste defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25117.

C.  "Medical waste" means that waste defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25023.2
D.  "Rubbish" means all nonputrescible waste matter, whether combustible or noncombustible, except hazardous waste and medical waste.

E.  "Waste" means the useless, unused, unwanted or discarded material resulting from normal community activities, or materials which by their presence may injuriously affect the health, safety and comfort of persons and depreciate property values in the vicinity thereof. "Waste" shall include, but not be limited to garbage, putrescible organic material, rubbish, offal, swill, animal excreta, rubble, plaster or other waste resulting from the demolition, burning, alteration or construction of buildings or structures.

F.  "Source-separated recyclables" means non-putrescible materials that are separated by the generator from other waste material for the purpose of reuse or recycling, by placing the recyclables in separate containers, or by binding them separately; the recyclable material is then kept separate from general rubbish by the collector and processor, and is returned to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused or reconstituted products which meet the quality standards necessary to be

used in the marketplace. Source separated recyclables contain no more than 20% of material which is disposed of as refuse by the collector or their subcontractors.

G.  "Yard waste" means grass, weeds, leaves, tree trimmings, plants, shrubbery prunings, and such other similar materials which are generated in the maintenance of yards, gardens or landscaping, and which are separated by the generator from other solid waste materials for the purpose of recycling or composting, and which are taken by the hauler to a recycling or composting facility. (Ord. 6549-NS § 2, 2000; Ord. 6517- NS § 2, 1999; Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)
H. “Central consolidation location” means internal area generally located on the first floor or in the basement of a multi-story mixed use, commercial or multi-family building that is of adequate size to house waste receptacles that meet minimum service requirements including but not limited to landfill, dual-stream recycling and organics where materials from tenants can be centrally consolidate for collection.

I. “Minimum service requirements” mean all property owners or property managers are required to subscribe to landfill, dual-stream recycling and organics collection services at a minimum of 20 gallons per unit to ensure adequate service is provided to comply with state, county and local zero waste mandates. Waste enclosures or central consolidation locations shall be designed to accommodate the collection receptacles to meet minimum service requirements.

J. “Multi-family building” means property with five or more residential units.

K. “Mixed-use building” means multi-story property containing one or multiple businesses on the first story(s) with residential housing units on additional stories.

L. Tenant Facing Collection Room: rooms located on each story of a multi-story mixed use, commercial or multi-family building where tenants have convenient access to do dispose of landfill, dual-stream recycling and organics. If utilizing trash chutes, there must be enough chutes to accommodate all required material collection streams.

MJ. Staging Area: area where Public Works staff will collect landfill, dual-stream recycling and organic materials for disposal or processing, generally located in the public right of way, at the waste enclosure or at the central consolidation location and shall not be located more than 100 ft from where the collection vehicle will need to park to provide service. If located in the public right of way, curb cuts and red zones must be

provided to ensure safe transport and storage of the collection receptacles on the day(s) of service.

NK. Valet Waste Service: a third-party service that collects municipal solid waste from outside of tenant's units and properly sorts it for disposal eliminating the need for tenant facing trash rooms. If utilizing a valet waste service, ensure the service provider has been adequately trained and approved by Public Works Department staff.

OL. Waste Enclosure: A stand-alone covered area on a commercial or multi-family property designed to house receptacles for storing solid municipal waste including but not limited to landfill, dual-stream recyclables, and organics.

C. “Universal waste” means universal waste as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25123.8 and California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 23. Universal waste includes certain batteries, electronic waste, non-empty aerosols cans, and other special materials designated as universal waste under applicable state law and is subject to the applicable requirements governing its collection, storage, handing, recycling, and disposal.

12.32.020 Accumulation prohibited--Storage requirements--Removal of construction rubbish.

A.  No person owning any multiple-family dwelling or possessing any single-family dwelling, or industrial, commercial or business premises or structure shall allow or permit any garbage, rubbish or waste to collect and accumulate upon or in any such premises or structure except as otherwise provided by law. This provision shall not be construed as affecting any authorized waste disposal operation or properly conducted garden composting process carried on by a private individual in their own premises and for their own use and done in a manner consistent with this section.

B.  During intervals between collection or disposal, the storage, accumulation, collection, keeping, handling or maintaining of waste on premises where produced shall be performed in such a manner as to prevent the harboring and breeding of rodents, insects and other vermin and as to prevent ready access to the waste by dogs and other small animals; as to prevent objectionable odors in the ambient air; as not to constitute a fire hazard; and as not to result in such unsightliness as to result in the

depreciation of the value of adjacent property or the comfortable enjoyment of life thereon.

C. Construction and Demolition Rubbish and Waste. During construction, alteration, or demolition activities, combustible debris, rubbish, and waste materials shall be managed in accordance with California Fire Code Section 3304, as applicable.

Combustible debris, rubbish, and waste materials shall not be accumulated within buildings and shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work.

1. Temporary rubbish containers exceeding 5.33 cubic feet (40 gallons) used for combustible debris, rubbish, or waste shall be provided with tight-fitting or self- closing lids and shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or other materials complying with California Fire Code Section 3304.1.3.

2. Materials susceptible to spontaneous ignition, including oily rags, shall be stored in listed disposal containers in accordance with California Fire Code Section 3304.2.

3. Construction and demolition waste containers shall not be located or maintained so as to obstruct required fire apparatus access, means of egress, fire hydrants, fire department connections, or access to required fire protection equipment.

C.  Every person, contractor or builder engaged in the construction, repair or demolition of any building or structure shall at reasonable intervals dispose of or remove from such premises all rubbish resulting from the construction, repair or demolition and within a reasonable time of the final cessation of work on such building, structure or premises. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.030 Garbage containers required--Specifications--Use restrictions-- Location.

A.  Every person owning any premises, where garbage or rubbish is produced or accumulated shall provide and maintain on the premises in a suitable place readily accessible to personnel of the solid waste and environmental health divisions, containers of sufficient capacity and number to store the accumulations of garbage or

rubbish during the intervals between collections or disposal. With the written of the owner, nonresidential tenants may contract for garbage collection service independently, either on their own behalf or on the owner’s behalf, if the owner agrees in writing to guaranty payment of the garbage collection charge in the event the tenant does not pay it in a timely fashion.

B.  Every contractor or builder engaged in the erection or repair of a building shall provide sufficient containers at or near such building for the deposit and storage of any waste resulting from the erection or repair work.

C.  Garbage containers for other than bulk accumulation shall be constructed of metal or other impervious material approved by the managers of environmental health and solid waste with tight-fitting covers. The containers and covers shall be in good repair, leakproof, free from holes, flytight and rodentproof. Containers shall be equipped with handles adequate to lift the weight of a full container without breaking or bending. Such container shall be maintained in a sanitary condition by the owners thereof and covers shall not be removed except for the purpose of placing waste therein or removing waste therefrom.

D.  Rubbish except broken glass, rocks, concrete, bricks and similar solid material, plaster or dirt may be deposited in garbage containers. Hazardous waste, human waste and other potentially infectious material shall not be deposited or placed in garbage containers. Liquid garbage shall not be deposited or placed in such containers.

E.  No garbage containers or other containers for waste, other than those of the City, shall be placed, kept, stored or located within the right-of-way of a street or alley; provided, however, that the Public Works Department may authorize the location of such containers within the public right-of-way at specified places and times when such location is necessary for the expeditious collection and disposition of garbage by the City. (Ord. 6369-NS § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.04035 Findings and Purpose Findings and Purpose A. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, refuse collection is one of the most fatal civilian occupational activities. Furthermore, handling refuse is one of the greatest sources of occupational injury for building maintenance staff. When refuse collection

space is designated to an area that is difficult or unsafe to access by refuse collection workers or custodial staff, it could cause serious injury or even death.

B. When sufficient space is not allocated for appropriate refuse collection receptacles, including but not limited to landfill, dual-stream recycling and organics equally conveniently located with appropriate capacities to contain all materials generated onsite, the resulting building operational costs are often higher. If the space for refuse collection receptacles is not designed properly, it may require additional sorting time on the part of building staff or zero waste facilitators, require more frequent pickups by haulers or result in extra haulers charges for refuse collection workers to move bins for truck access, and may cause the building to incur charges, fines, or liens due to lack of compliance with Berkeley’s zero waste service requirements.

C. Good design makes it easy to keep discarded materials separated for dual- stream recycling, composting and landfill. When sufficient space is allocated for all required streams in an equally convenient manner, materials will be more likely to be sorted into the correct receptacle. When space for dual-stream recycling and organics is an afterthought and designated to a less accessible or inconvenient location, occupants and operators will be less likely to participate successfully in recycling and organics collection programs.

DA. The purpose of this section is to ensure that new commercial development and substantial renovations provide adequate space for the storage, collection, and processing of solid waste, dual- stream recyclable, and organic materials or construction and demolition materials in a manner that supports public health, operational efficiency, compliance with state and local law, and the City's Zero Waste and climate goals.

12.32.0540 Bulk wastes--Over one cubic yard--Over two cubic yards.

A.  In any premises where a volume of waste in excess of one cubic yard is allowed to accumulate between intervals of collection or disposal, such waste shall be managed in the manner specified by the manager of the environmental health division for the sanitary storage, collection or disposal of such waste on the premises.

B.  In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, dumpsters and containers used for the storage of combustible waste shall comply with California Fire Code Sections 304.3 through 304.3.7, as applicable, including requirements for container construction, lids, location, separation from buildings, and fire protection.

Waste storage locations shall not create a fire hazard and shall be subject to approval by the Fire Chief or designee where required by the California Fire Code. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, in any premises where a volume of waste in excess of two cubic yards is allowed to accumulate between intervals of collection or disposal, such waste shall be stored in fire-resistant containers and at locations approved by the Fire Chief. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.0650 Garbage collection--Service declared essential--Exclusive collection by City required--Notification by owner--Fees--Time--Districts established-- Rubbish collected with garbage.

A.  It is found and determined that the periodic collection of garbage from all premises and places in the City in or from which garbage is created, accumulated or produced is essential for the maintenance of the public health and welfare of the City and that the provision by the City of such garbage collection service is a direct benefit to all premises and places in or from which garbage is created, accumulated or produced to the owners thereof.

B.  Garbage collection service is provided by the City, and all owners of premises and places in the City in or from which garbage is created, accumulated or produced shall use or cause to be used, and pay the fees charged for, the City’s collection service. It is unlawful for any person, other than authorized agents or employees of the City, to collect, remove or dispose of garbage in the City; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall prevent the use of garbage disposal devices as provided in the City plumbing code.

C.  All owners of premises and places in or from which garbage is created, accumulated or produced shall notify the solid waste division of the services department of the City that collection of garbage from such premises or place is required and the frequency of the collection required.

D.  Fees for the collection of garbage shall be established by resolution of the City Council. All owners of premises and places in the City from which garbage is collected,

or the person with responsibility for those premises, shall pay the garbage collection fees established by the City Council. In the event of nonpayment of the garbage collection fees, the City, at its option, may discontinue furnishing garbage collection service as set forth in Section 12.32.060, such discontinuance of service to be in addition to any remedies that are available to the City to enforce payment of any unpaid garbage collection fees.

E.  Collection of garbage shall be made at least once a week from private residences and as many times per week as the Director of Public Works may order from all other places.

F.  The Director of Public Works may establish districts in the City for the purpose of collecting garbage and rubbish.

G.  The City will collect and dispose of all rubbish which is deposited in garbage containers as authorized in Section 12.32.030, and to the extent that equipment and personnel are available as determined by the Director of Public Works, the City may collect and dispose of rubbish other than that deposited in garbage containers, provided such rubbish is placed in separate containers approved by the Director of Public Works and provided further that such rubbish is of such size that it can be placed in such separate containers. (Ord. 6369-NS § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 6340-NS § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.0760 Garbage fees--Payment requirements--Service charges.

A.  Fees for garbage and rubbish collection shall be billed and paid periodically as determined by the City. Any fee which is not paid in full on the thirty first day after billing is delinquent, except that fees which are billed semiannually shall be deemed delinquent on December 11th and April 11th. A penalty of ten percent shall be assessed on any delinquent amount. Delinquent amounts greater than one year delinquent shall accrue interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month. Service on unpaid accounts may be reduced or discontinued thirty days after mailing notice of delinquency.

B.  The City may elect to bill for garbage and rubbish collection service as a special assessment on the property taxes and charges collected by the county with property

taxes. The City may also elect to bill individual persons or businesses for service provided directly to those persons or businesses; however, because the provision by the City of garbage collection service is necessary for the public health and a benefit to the public, and necessary to prevent the creation of public nuisances, any amounts billed to persons or businesses are an obligation of both the user of the property who generates the garbage and the owner of the property who benefits from its use by others, and therefore also payable by, and debts of, the owner of the property.

C.  The City may employ any method provided by state law for collection of service fees, delinquent amounts, penalties and interest, and all remedies shall be cumulative.

D.  No refunds will be made for decreases in service during the billing period in which the decrease occurred.

E.  The City may require payment of a deposit in the amount three times the monthly service charge for any City garbage collection service ordered in any case where the owner of the affected property is not ordering the service or the City is legally unable to impose a lien on the property in the event the service charges are not paid by the person or business ordering the service. Such deposits may be credited by the City against an account after one year for residential accounts and two years for non- residential accounts, if there have been no delinquencies during the applicable period.

In the event an account is closed while the City has custody of a deposit, the City shall credit the amount of the deposit against the closing bill and refund any amount remaining. (Ord. 6393-NS § 1, 1997; Ord. 6369-NS § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 6340-NS § 1 (part), 1996; Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.08055 Adequate Space Requirement
Effective January 1, 2027:

A. All new commercial, development shall conform to the Design Standards in Section 12.32.065.

B. Additions, alterations, or renovations to commercial development requiring discretionary approval or permits where the project affects waste storage areas, collection infrastructure, or collection services, shall conform to the Design Standards in Section 12.32.065.

12.32.09065 Design Standards
A. Waste storage and collection areas shall:

1. Provide adequate space for collection containers and related infrastructure sufficient to accommodate all required material streams and meet minimum service requirements including but not limited to:
a. Landfill disposal.
b. Recycling of paper and cardboard.
c. Recycling of glass, metal, and plastic containers.
d. Organic materials, including food scraps, compostable paper, and plant debris.

2. Be designed to accommodate the size, number, and configuration of containers required for collection service.

3. Provide convenient and equal access to all required material streams.

4. Have signage identifying the types of materials corresponding to each respective waste stream. Signage shall be permanently posted on or painted onto each receptacle. General instructions about how to recycle shall be posted on the walls inside the enclosure. The name and phone number of the person responsible for maintenance of the enclosure shall be included on the sign with general instructions.

5. Provide adequate access for commercial tenants, property owners and managers, facilities staff, third party valet waste service providers or Zero Waste collection staff.

6. Provide sufficient maneuvering area to safely move containers between storage and collection locations.

7. Include pathways, ramps, and access routes that meet applicable accessibility and safety requirements.

8. Reduce incidents of significant slopes

8. Maintain adequate vertical clearance for opening lids and servicing containers.

9. Include sufficient staging space to support collection operations.

10.“Waste storage, collection and staging areas shall be located or constructed in a manner not to obstruct or reduce required fire apparatus access roads, fire lanes, emergency access, means of egress, fire hydrants, fire department connections, or access to other required fire protection equipment.” Be located and designed to minimize conflicts with vehicle circulation, pedestrian access, and emergency access requirements.

11.Be maintained in a manner that supports cleanliness, safety, and proper collection operations.

B. Fire Protection and Life Safety Requirements.

Waste storage areas, rooms, enclosures, and associated waste containers shall comply with the following Fire and Life Safety Requirements:

1. Fire Protection. Waste storage areas, rooms, enclosures, and associated waste containers shall comply with California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 304.3.1 through 304.3.7, including applicable requirements for location, construction, and separation. Where automatic sprinkler protection is utilized or other an approved method of compliance, such protection shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the CFC and applicable National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard.

2. Battery Collection and Storage. Where waste storage areas, collection rooms, enclosures, or other collection facilities are used for the collection or storage of lithium-ion, lithium-metal, or other batteries, such collection and storage shall comply with CFC Section 320. Damaged, defective, recalled, leaking, swollen, or other compromised batteries shall be handled and stored in accordance with the CFC and hazardous material requirements.

3. Battery-Powered Equipment and Charging. Waste storage areas, collection rooms, and waste enclosures shall not be used for the charging of powered micromobility devices or other battery-powered equipment unless specifically approved and permitted by the CFC, including Section 322.

4. Emerging and Special Fire Hazards. The collection, storage, handling, or processing of materials presenting special or emerging fire hazards, including lithium-ion, lithium-metal, or other battery technology shall comply with the

applicable provisions of the CFC and BFC. Where required by the CFC, such operations shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief or designee.

5. Use of Waste Storage Areas and Enclosures. Waste storage areas, rooms, enclosures, and associated containers shall be used and maintained for their approved purpose. Containers shall not be filled beyond their designated capacity and, where lids are required, shall be maintained so that lids can fully close. Waste or other combustible materials shall not be allowed to accumulate outside designated containers or in a manner that creates a fire hazard, obstructs required means of egress, or obstructs or impairs required Fire Department access or access to fire protection equipment.
a. Combustible storage, hazardous and universal waste or hazardous materials shall not be stored within exit passageways, interior exit enclosures or stairways, under unenclosed exterior exit or exit access stairways.

6. Fire Department Access. Waste storage, collection, and staging areas shall be located and maintained so as not to obstruct, reduce, or otherwise interfere with required fire apparatus access roads, fire lanes, emergency access to building exterior doors, openings and roofs required by the California Building Code, California Residential Code and California Fire Code, means of egress, fire hydrants, fire sprinkler system risers, fire department connections, or access to required fire protection system equipment in accordance with applicable provisions of the CFC Sections 503, 504, 507, 509, and 912. a. To ensure and maintain compliance, all developments requiring centralized waste, recycling, and/or organic collection shall construct dedicated concrete staging enclaves or recessed storage cutouts. These staging infrastructure elements must be situated entirely outside of the minimum required unobstructed width and vertical clearance of any designated fire apparatus access road, preventing any temporary or permanent container encroachment during stating or servicing.

7. Wildland-Urban Interface and Fire Hazard Areas. Where a project is located within an area subject to applicable Berkeley wildland-urban interface, fire hazard severity zone, defensible space, or vegetation management requirements, exterior waste storage areas and enclosures shall be designed, located and constructed of noncombustible materials in accordance with the applicable Berkeley Fire Code (BFC) and other adopted fire-safety requirements. [Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 19.49]

8. Maintenance of Fire and Life Safety Features. Waste containers, storage areas, collection rooms, enclosures, and staging areas shall be maintained so as not to obstruct or reduce required fire apparatus access, emergency access, means of egress, fire hydrants, fire department connections, fire protection

system equipment, or other required fire and life safety features in accordance with the CFC.

9. Fire Protection System Installations and Modifications. Where compliance with this chapter requires the installation, extension, relocation, or modification of an automatic sprinkler system, fire detection system, or other required fire protection system, such work shall comply with the applicable CFC, BFC, associated NFPA standards, and shall be completed under a Fire Department Construction Permit in accordance with CFC §105.6.2 and §105.6.7 prior to installation.

12.32.100070 Dumping at unauthorized disposal site prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided by law, no person shall deposit or discharge or cause to be deposited or discharged any garbage, rubbish or other waste in any place other than a disposal site or dump which has been approved by the City. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.110075 Stormwater Requirements
Waste Enclosure requirements. The following requirements apply to all waste enclosures:

Waste enclosure structures shall be covered and designed to prevent stormwater runoff from contacting waste materials. The roof canopy should extend sufficiently outward in all directions so that windblown rain will not enter the interior of the storage area. A horizontal or sloped canopy measuring approximately one-half the height of the canopy to the ground is recommended. The waste enclosure shall include walls or other barriers designed to prevent rainfall, stormwater run-on, and stormwater runoff from entering or leaving the enclosure, and to minimize the wind dispersal of litter. Berms, curbs, or other approved containment or diversion measures shall be incorporated, as necessary, to prevent pollutant discharges to the municipal storm drain.

1. Stormwater runoff from the enclosure roof must also drain away from the enclosure towards landscaping and/or stormwater treatment areas.

2. Waste enclosure floors shall be constructed of concrete and designed to prevent the discharge of runoff, wash water, or other liquids to the municipal storm drain.

Discharges to the municipal storm drain system are prohibited. Floor drains, where permitted, shall discharge to the sanitary sewer, subject to approval by the applicable sanitary sewer agency.

3. Waste enclosures shall be removed from public right-of-way and block view of waste receptacles from public right-of-way.

4. No storm drains shall be located within the enclosure or in a location where stormwater could flow into or through the enclosure. The surrounding area shall be graded to prevent stormwater run-on. Grease interceptors, grease receptacles, and used cooking oil storage containers shall not be located within the trash enclosure unless specifically designed and permitted for such use. Any grease storage shall be covered, leak-proof, protected from stormwater run-on, and designed to prevent spills or discharges to the municipal storm drain.

12.32.120085 Administrative Standards
A. The Director of Public Works or designee may adopt and periodically update administrative guidelines, technical standards, landfill, dual-stream recycling and organics service levels, design criteria, and implementation procedures necessary to administer and enforce this chapter. Where such guidelines, standards, criteria, or procedures affect fire apparatus access, emergency access, means of egress, fire protection equipment or systems, combustible waste storage, fire-resistance-rated construction, waste or recycling chutes, or other matters regulated by the California Fire Code or California Building Code, they shall be developed in consultation with the Fire Department and Building and Safety Division. The Director of Public Works or designee may adopt and periodically update administrative guidelines, technical standards, landfill, dual-stream recycling, and organics service levels, design criteria, and implementation procedures necessary to administer and enforce this chapter.

Such standards may address, but are not limited to:

1. Container sizing and capacity requirements.

2. Waste enclosure and collection room dimensions.

3. Service access and collection vehicle requirements.

4. Staging area requirements.

5. Access pathway and maneuvering requirements.

6. Co-location of material streams.

7. Operational and safety considerations.

8. Stormwater requirements
Public Works Review Authority
The Director of Public Works or designee may require reasonable modifications to waste storage areas, collection access, collection infrastructure, and related facilities necessary to ensure safe, efficient, and compliant collection services.

B. Interdepartmental Coordination. Where administrative guidelines, technical standards, design criteria, or implementation procedures adopted pursuant to this section affect fire apparatus access, emergency access, means of egress, fire protection equipment or systems, combustible or hazardous waste storage, battery collection or storage, fire-resistance-rated construction, waste or recycling chutes, or other matters regulated by the California Fire Code or California Building Code, such standards shall be developed in consultation with the Fire Department and Building and Safety Division.

12.32.130095 Liability and Enforcement

1. No building permit shall be issued for a covered project unless the Director of Public Works or designee determines that the project complies with the requirements of this chapter.

2. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for a covered project unless the Director of Public Works or designee determines that all required waste, recycling, and organics collection infrastructure has been installed in substantial conformance with approved plans.

3. Any modification to approved waste storage or collection facilities that materially affects compliance with this chapter shall require review and approval by the Director of Public Works or designee prior to implementation.

4. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative and do not preclude enforcement through any other remedies authorized by the Berkeley Municipal Code.

12.32.140080 Dumps--Use limitations.

It is unlawful for any person to deposit at the garbage and rubbish dumps maintained by the City any garbage or rubbish originating in any area outside the City limits; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to dumping permitted under any written agreement authorized by the City Council. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.085 Administrative Standards
A. The Director of Public Works or designee may adopt and periodically update administrative guidelines, technical standards, service assumptions, design criteria, and implementation procedures necessary to administer and enforce this chapter.

12.32.150090 Refuse burning prohibited--Exceptions.

It is unlawful for any person to burn any refuse except as may be permitted pursuant to the provisions of the fire prevention code of the City and Regulation No. 2 of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.095 Liability and Enforcement

A. No building permit shall be issued for a covered project unless the Director of Public Works or designee determines that the project complies with the requirements of this chapter.

B. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for a covered project unless the Director of Public Works or designee determines that all required waste, recycling, and organics collection infrastructure has been installed in substantial conformance with approved plans.

C. Any modification to approved waste storage or collection facilities that materially affects compliance with this chapter shall require review and approval by the Director of Public Works or designee prior to implementation.

D. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative and do not preclude enforcement through any other remedies authorized by the Berkeley Municipal Code.

12.32.160100 Nuisances designated--Abatement authorized when.

The keeping of garbage in containers other than containers prescribed by this ordinance or the keeping upon premises of garbage or rubbish which is allowed to become offensive and noisome, shall constitute a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner provided by law for the abatement of nuisances. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.170110 Violation--Penalty.

Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of this code. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.180120 Putrescible waste--Procedure for management--Vermin infestation control--Prima facie presumption of violation.

A.  Any person possessing any premises wherein putrescible waste is produced, handled, stored or allowed to accumulate shall manage such putrescible waste in such a manner as to preclude the breeding of flies or other vermin therein.

B.  No person in control of putrescible waste shall knowingly allow or permit the same to serve as a breeding medium for flies or other vermin. Upon knowledge of such infestation, or after receiving written notice from the manager of environmental health, said person shall at once proceed and continue in good faith to destroy the flies, larvae or pupae thereof by poisoning, trapping, removal of the material to a disposal site which has been approved by the City, or by any other effective means.

C.  In any prosecution charging violation of this chapter, a prima facie presumption of the violation of the provisions of this section shall exist upon proof by the chief of environmental health that an analysis of putrescible organic material controlled by any person charged shows that such material contains living larvae or pupae of domestic flies. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.190130 Collection and disposal--Private hauler requirements.

Waste which is not deposited in garbage containers or separate containers and collected by the City may be collected and disposed of by private haulers who have secured a business license as provided by Section 9.04.176 of this code. All vehicles used to transport rubbish shall be provided with equipment to prevent rubbish from blowing out of, falling from or otherwise escaping from such vehicle. Such rubbish haulers shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations established by the Public Works Department. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

12.32.200140 Collection and disposal--Rules and regulations--Public Works Department authority.

The Public Works Department, subject to the approval of the City Manager, shall have the power to establish rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this title, governing the keeping, collection, removal and disposal of garbage, rubbish and waste, and the use by the public of the garbage, rubbish and waste dumps of the City. (Ord. 6319-NS § 2 (part), 1996)

Section 2. 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.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author), Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor), and Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Co-Sponsor)
SUBJECT: Amendment to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter

7.18 to Explicitly Require Competitive Procurement for Services to Promote Accountability and Transparency and Refer
Development of Regulations to City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 7.18, Expenditure Limitations, to require procurement through competitive solicitation for all city contracts for professional services and other services greater than $100,000.

Further, for the City Attorney’s Office (CAO), require development of an Outside Council Selection Protocol whereby the CAO develops an annual report to Council for its pre-qualified list of outside attorneys and law firms based on respondents to the office’s ongoing Request for Qualifications process. When outside counsel is required, senior staff in the CAO would choose from pre-qualified attorneys/firms and identify the best candidate based on expertise, quality of work, and cost. This recommendation would allow for a competitive process using the pre-qualified list, thus accommodating the CAO’s need to quickly engage outside counsel while preserving best procurement practices. Additionally, request the CAO report to Council on legal services contracts and amendments to City Council quarterly to increase transparency of spending on legal services contracts.

Refer to the City Manager to promulgate any further regulations that may be needed related to the requirement for competitive solicitation except for emergencies and when market research justifies the business case for a sole-source procurement, in alignment with the existing purchasing manual. Further, refer to the CAO to develop legal services regulations to implement the competitive solicitation process for outside counsel contracts and define circumstances where a sole-source procurement is justified by emergencies, market research, conflicts of interest, or other considerations.

2 POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On October 5, 2026, the Budget & Finance Committee adopted the following action:

M/S/C (Kesarwani/Blackaby) to send the item to Council with a Qualified Positive Recommendation as written and amended during discussion, with additional direction to further consider:
 Specifying the 5-7 year contract rebidding timeframe in the ordinance as well as the purchasing manual
 Authorizing the City Attorney’s Office to promulgate legal services procurement regulations and guidelines
 Establishing annual reporting to Council on legal services contracts and amendments  B.M.C. Section 7.18.010(A) Expenditures pursuant to Charter Article XI, Sections 67 and 67.5 is amended to read as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this Title, expenditures pursuant to Article XI, Sections 67 and

67.5 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, for which exceed the initial amount exceeds of $1050,000, inclusive only of professional services, other services, supplies, equipment, or materials (excluding leases and real estate agreements), shall require Council approval and shall be procured through competitive solicitation except in the case of emergencies pursuant to Article XI, Section 67.4. The requirement specified in Article XI, Section 67 of the Charter to select the “lowest responsible bidder” only for supplies, equipment, or materials contracts remains. Professional services and other services contracts shall be based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the types of services to be performed, at fair and reasonable prices to the City. This requirement for professional and other services contracts to be selected via competitive procurement applies to all Charter Officers. Pursuant to Article XVI Section 113, the City Attorney retains the authority to enter into contracts without Council approval after competitive procurement of professional services, other services, supplies, equipment or materials (excluding leases and real estate agreements). The City Attorney is authorized to promulgate regulations to implement this section with respect to City Attorney’s Office contracts. All departments, excluding the City Attorney’s Office, shall follow the City of Berkeley Purchasing Manual guidelines, Section 3, for extensions of contracts and re-bid all contracts under the timeframes specified. The City Attorney’s Office shall follow regulations specific to City Attorney’s Office contracts.

Vote: Ayes

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
City Auditor Recommends Competitive Procurement for Service Contracts. The City Auditor’s report, City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts (released Feb. 19, 2026) found that in fiscal year 2021-22, Berkeley executed two large recycling contracts with the Ecology Center and Community Conservation Centers for nearly $85 million over ten years without using a competitive procurement process.1 The Auditor’s report also found that the City Council authorized noncompetitive contracts for community-based organizations and amended service contracts that started below the threshold for Council approval of $50,000 that increased by an average of $218,026 per contract without competition.

Recommendation 1.2 in the City Auditor’s report recommends that Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18 be amended to explicitly require competition for service contracts.

City Charter Only Requires Competitive Procurement for the Purchase of Supplies, Equipment or Materials, Not Services. Pursuing competitive procurement is considered a best practice in contracting to ensure openness, fairness, 1 City Auditor Jenny Wong: City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts, February 19, 2026: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/City_Contracts_- _Outdated_Process_Led_to_Non-Competitive_Contracts.pdf p. 8.

3 transparency, and competition in the award and use of public funds. However, neither the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) nor the City Charter explicitly requires competitive procurement for professional services and other service contracts, such as recycling services. City Charter Section 67 only explicitly requires competitive solicitation for the purchase of supplies, equipment or materials to the “lowest responsible bidder.” Updating the BMC to require competitive procurement for all service contracts that exceed $100,000 would ensure that large service contracts would be subject to competitive procurement, as those for construction, equipment, supplies and materials.

In the Case of Services (Including Professional Services), Competitive Procurement Should Yield A Balanced Consideration of Quality, Experience, and Cost. Competitive procurement is the process of acquiring goods, services, or public works by soliciting bids, proposals, or quotes from multiple competing vendors.

The primary goal is to ensure that public funds are spent efficiently and transparently, obtaining the “best value”—which is a balance of quality, experience, and cost—while preventing favoritism or corruption. Characteristics of a competitive procurement include the following:
 Openness: The opportunity is publicly advertised (often via a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids) so that any qualified vendor can participate.  Fairness: All bidders are treated equally, receiving the same information and being evaluated against the same predetermined criteria.  Transparency: The selection process is documented and subject to audit, ensuring the public can see why a specific vendor was chosen.  Competition: By forcing vendors to compete, the procurement process can drive down costs and encourage innovation or higher-quality service delivery.

Common methods for conducting a competitive procurement include the following:
 Invitation for Bids: Used when requirements are very specific (e.g., office supplies). The contract is typically awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
 Request for Proposals: Used for complex projects (e.g., policy analysis or IT systems) where the “how” is as important as the price. Evaluation includes technical expertise, methodology, and cost.
 Request for Qualifications: Focuses strictly on the vendor's experience and "bench strength" before negotiating costs, often used for architectural or engineering services.

Recommended Amendment to BMC Section 7.18.010 Requires Competitive Procurement for Service Contracts Exceeding $100,000. The amended language below raises the threshold for Council approval to $100,000 to better reflect costs for services and to explicitly require competitive procurement for service contracts that exceed $100,000:

Except as otherwise provided in this Title, expenditures pursuant to Article XI, Sections 67 and 67.5 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, for which exceed the initial amount exceeds of $1050,000, inclusive only of professional services, other services, supplies, equipment, or materials (excluding leases and real estate agreements), shall require Council approval and shall be procured through competitive solicitation except in

4 the case of emergencies pursuant to Article XI, Section 67.4. The requirement specified in Article XI, Section 67 of the Charter to select the “lowest responsible bidder” only for supplies, equipment, or materials contracts remains. Professional services and other services contracts shall be based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the types of services to be performed, at fair and reasonable prices to the City.

This requirement for professional and other services contracts to be selected via competitive procurement applies to all Charter Officers.

Pursuant to Article XVI Section 113, the City Attorney retains the authority to enter into contracts without Council approval after competitive procurement of professional services, other services, supplies, equipment or materials (excluding leases and real estate agreements). The City Attorney is authorized to promulgate regulations to implement this section with respect to City Attorney’s Office contracts. All departments, excluding the City Attorney’s Office, shall follow the City of Berkeley Purchasing Manual guidelines, Section 3, for extensions of contracts and re-bid all contracts under the timeframes specified. The City Attorney’s Office shall follow regulations specific to City Attorney’s Office contracts.

BACKGROUND
Other Cities Require Competitive Procurement for Services. The proposed amendment to BMC Chapter 7.18 brings the City of Berkeley in line with neighboring jurisdictions that already require competition for service contracts. San Francisco’s Municipal Code Section 21.1 states: “All City contracts for Commodities and/or Services shall be procured through competitive solicitation, except as otherwise authorized in this Code.” 2 Similarly, the Oakland Municipal Code notes: “The City Administrator or the City Administrator's designee shall conduct a request for proposal ("RFP") or request for qualifications ("RFQ") process for the award of contracts that exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) and are exempt from bidding under Subsection 2.04.050.1.1. …The RFP or RFQ requirement applies, but is not limited to, contracts for professional, technical or specialized services.”3

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
As the City Auditor notes in her recent report, “competition among contractors helps ensure that the City is accountable for public funds spent on contracts and can get the best value and best fit for Berkeley residents. Open and fair competition for contracts promotes ethical and inclusive purchasing practices.” 4 While no evidence of misconduct was found during the audit, contracting corruption cases do exist and promote a lack of trust in local government. A competitive process can guard against waste and fraud and discourage favoritism for specific contractors. Competitive 2 San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 21.1:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-13403 3 Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.04.051:
https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_CH2.04PUS Y_ARTIBICOPU_2.04.040COPR
4 City Auditor Jenny Wong: City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts, February 19, 2026: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/City_Contracts_- _Outdated_Process_Led_to_Non-Competitive_Contracts.pdf p.2

5 processes is a good government best practice that highlights transparency and inclusivity while saving taxpayers’ money.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff time to amend BMC Chapter 7.18.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Competition among contractors can help the city procure services for the best fit at the most reasonable price for recycling services and other environmentally sustainable services rendered to the city.

CONTACT PERSON
Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember District 1 (510) 981-7110 Attachments
1) BMC Chapter 7.18 tracked changes
2) City Auditor February 19, 2026 Report “City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts”
3) City of Berkeley Purchasing Manual

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

EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS; AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 7.18
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18 is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 7.18

EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS
Sections:

7.18.010 Expenditures pursuant to Charter Article XI, Sections 67 and 67.5.

7.18.020 Expenditures pursuant to Charter Article XI, Section 67.4--Emergencies.

7.18.010 Expenditures pursuant to Charter Article XI, Sections 67 and 67.5.

A.  Except as otherwise provided in this Title, expenditures pursuant to Article XI, Sections 67 and 67.5 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, for which exceed the initial amount exceedsof the amount of $50,000$100,000, inclusive of professional services, other services, supplies, equipment, or materials (excluding leases and real estate agreements),shall require Council approval and shall be procured through competitive solicitation except in the case of emergencies pursuant to Article XI, Section 67.4. The requirement specified in Article XI, Section 67 of the Charter to select the “lowest responsible bidder” only for supplies, equipment, or materials contracts remains.

Professional services and other services contracts shall be based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the types of services to be performed, at fair and reasonable prices to the City. This requirement for professional and other services contracts to be selected via competitive procurement applies to all Charter Officers.

Pursuant to Article XVI Section 113, the City Attorney retains the authority to enter into contracts without Council approval after competitive procurement of professional services, other services, supplies, equipment or materials (excluding leases and real estate agreements). The City Attorney is authorized to promulgate regulations to implement this section with respect to City Attorney’s Office contracts. All departments, excluding the City Attorney’s Office, shall follow the City of Berkeley Purchasing Manual guidelines, Section 3, for extensions of contracts and re-bid all contracts under the timeframes specified. The City Attorney’s Office shall follow regulations specific to City Attorney’s Office contracts.

B.  Expenditures for specific improvements (public projects), including play area improvements and equipment in public parks which exceed the amount of $200,000 shall require Council approval pursuant to Article XI, Section 67 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley.

C.  Expenditures for Community Development Block Grant funded Community Facility Improvement Projects which exceed the amount of $200,000 shall require Council approval pursuant to Article XI, Section 67 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley.

D.  Expenditures for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and materials which exceed the amount of $100,000 shall require Council approval.

E.  Expenditures for the acquisition and renovation of small multifamily rental properties through the Small Sites Program shall not require Council approval, but shall be approved by the City Manager. Expenditures will comply with the Small Sites Program guidelines, adopted by Resolution.

7.18.020 Expenditures pursuant to Charter Article XI, Section 67.4-- Emergencies.

A.  Expenditures pursuant to Article XI, Section 67.4 of the Charter of the City which exceed the amount of $100,000 shall require Council approval; and expenditures for public construction projects and playground improvements and equipment which exceed the amount of $200,000 shall require Council approval.

B.  Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, in the event of a declared emergency under Chapter 2.88, the expenditure limitation under Article XI, Section 67.4 of the Charter of the City shall be an amount not exceeding the amount appropriated by the Council in the most recent appropriation ordinance for the fund from which an expenditure is made and for the purpose authorized for such fund.

C.  Whenever purchases are made pursuant to this section, the City Manager shall promptly inform the Council as to the nature and amount.

Section 2. 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.

Audit Report
Audit Report
February 19, 2026
City Contracts:

Outdated Process Led
to Non-Competitive
Contracts
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Caitlin Palmer, Audit Manager
Katie Wysong, Auditor I
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government

City C

ontracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive
Contracts
Report Highlights February 19, 2026
Findings

1. In fiscal year 2022, the City authorized nearly $85 million in recycling contracts over 10 years without competition.

Inconsistent rules made it difficult for staff to know when to waive competition. Our analysis of fiscal year 2024 waivers found that 38 percent did not clearly meet the Purchasing Manual criteria. City Council authorized additional non- competitive contracts for community-based organizations.

Additionally, amended service contracts that started below the threshold for Council approval increased by an average of $218,026 per contract without competition.

2. Berkeley used paper contracts hand-delivered between departments and lacked a centralized digital system, creating delays and misplaced contracts. Additionally, the Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance, and training for staff was limited. Short staffing and turnover also made it difficult for the City to address these concerns and improve the
contracting process.

Moving paper contracts throughout City Hall created
opportunities for delays.

Source: Auditor analysis of contract review sheet for new expenditure contracts
Objectives

1. How does Berkeley use non-
competitive contracts?

2. Why does Berkeley use non-
competitive contracts when
competition is possible?
Recommendations
We recommend the City add explicit
competition requirements to the
Berkeley Municipal Code for service
contracts. We also recommend the City
update the Purchasing Manual and
contract forms for consistency and
clarity, as well as expand training for
staff. We recommend the City continue
pursuing a comprehensive, integrated
digital contracting system, as budget
allows.

Why This Audit Is Important
Competition among contractors helps
ensure that the City is accountable for
public funds spent on contracts and can
get the best value and best fit for
Berkeley residents. Open and fair
competition for contracts promotes
ethical and inclusive purchasing
practices. However, in fiscal year 2024,
Berkeley executed 94 contracts without
documented competition for a total
value of $43 million. While it is not
practical or possible for every contract
to go through competition, it is
important that the City uses
competition when feasible.

For the full report, visit the
City Auditor’s website.

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government

Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................... 2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 3 Berkeley spent millions of dollars on non-competitive contracts when competition was likely possible. ............................................................................................................................... 8 The City authorized nearly $85 million in recycling contracts over 10 years without competition. ...................................................................................................................... 8 City management approved some waivers that did not meet the Purchasing Manual criteria. ............................................................................................................................ 10

City Council authorized additional non-competitive contracts for community-based organizations. .................................................................................................................. 13 Contracts starting below the formal competition threshold were amended by an average of $218,026 per contract without additional competition. ................................................. 14

Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 16 Paper contracts, unclear guidance, and short staffing led to delays and overuse of non- competitive contracts. ......................................................................................................... 17 Berkeley used paper contracts that need to be hand-delivered between departments. .. 17 The Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance and training for staff was limited. ...... 20 Short staffing and turnover made it more difficult to improve the contract process. ......... 22 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 23 Management Response ....................................................................................................... 25 Methodology and Compliance ............................................................................................ 30 Appendix 1: Timelines of the City’s Recycling Contracts .................................................... 33 Appendix 2: Contracts with Waivers Executed in Fiscal Year 2024 ..................................... 35 Appendix 3: Largest Active Non-Competitive Contracts ..................................................... 36 Appendix 4: Active Service Contracts Amended Over the Threshold for Competition ........ 38

Introduction
Competition among contractors helps ensure that the City is accountable for public funds spent on contracts and can get the best value for Berkeley residents. Best value may include not only lowest price, but also the quality of the good or service and fit with Berkeley’s specific needs.

However, Berkeley spends millions of dollars on contracts that are not competitive. While it is appropriate, even necessary, for some contracts to be non-competitive, it is important that the City pursues competition when possible. Although we found no evidence of misconduct in Berkeley during our audit, contract corruption cases in neighboring jurisdictions emphasize the importance of having open, competitive contracting processes. A competitive process can discourage favoritism and guard against waste and fraud.

Competition has additional benefits for equity and fairness. According to a consultant report commissioned by the Berkeley City Council, “minority and women-owned business enterprises” lost out on an estimated $21.7 million in contract dollars with the City of Berkeley between 2016-2019. In general, a fair and open competitive process can encourage additional contractors to seek City contracts, including from historically excluded groups.

This audit focuses on contracts that were not competitive and were subject to the requirements of the Berkeley Municipal Code and the City's Purchasing Manual. We did not evaluate the City’s competitive selection processes or staff’s compliance with them, nor the management of contracts after execution.

Objectives
The objectives of this audit are to address the following questions:

1. How does Berkeley use non-competitive contracts?

2. Why does Berkeley use non-competitive contracts when competition is possible? Scope and Methodology
We reviewed expenditure contracts executed between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024 (fiscal year 2024). We also analyzed subsets of all expenditure contracts active in the City’s financial system as of March 6, 2025, including the largest dollar value contracts and service contracts approved at or below the threshold for City Council approval, then later amended to exceed it.

Additionally, we reviewed Berkeley’s laws, policies and procedures related to contracts, researched best practices and other jurisdictions’ policies, and interviewed relevant staff and

le
adership. This audit focused on the City’s contracting processes, and we did not audit indi
vidual contracts or contractors.

Background
Berkeley uses formal and informal competition to select contractors depending on the cost and type of purchase.

Depending on the expected cost and type of purchase, the City uses different formal and informal competition to select a contractor (Table 1).
• Formal competition involves a structured public process. For supplies, equipment and materials, the City Charter requires the City to select the vendor with the lowest bid that meets the City’s criteria after publicly issuing an Invitation for Bids (IFB).

For more complex purchases, such as professional services, the City selects the contractor with the best value based on the criteria set in the posted Request for Proposals (RFP).
• For informal competition, departments are required to reach out directly to at least three contractors for written quotes and then select the contractor with the lowest cost or best value. Informal competition allows for more flexible timelines and does not require City Council approval.

The General Services Division in the Finance Department reviews and processes all purchases of goods and services for the entire City, but staff in each department have a responsibility in purchasing goods and services for their department. The City uses contracts for most services that are not done by City staff, like public artwork and towing, and for specialized goods like fire trucks. The City typically uses simpler purchase orders rather than contracts to buy goods like office furniture and equipment for parks maintenance.

Table 1: City Purchasing Requirements by Price and Type1 Purchase Value Competitive Purchasing Process
Services
Under $5,000 Purchase Order with 3 verbal quotes
$5,000 - $25,000 Purchase Order with informal competition (3 written quotes) $25,000 - $50,000 Contract with informal competition (3 written quotes) Over $50,000 Contract with formal competition (Request for Proposal or Request for Qualifications)
Goods
Under $5,000 Purchase Order with 3 verbal quotes
$5,000 - $100,000 Purchase Order with informal competition (3 written quotes) Over $100,000 Purchase Order or contract with formal competition (Invitation for Bid) Construction
Under $5,000 Purchase Order with 3 verbal quotes
$5,000 - $25,000 Purchase Order with informal competition (3 written quotes) $25,000 - $200,000 Contract with informal competition (3 written quotes) Over $200,000 Contract with formal competition (Invitation for Bid) Source: Auditor analysis of Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual as of end of fiscal year 2024 The benefits of competitive contracts are well-established. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, competitive contracts can save taxpayers money, improve contractor performance, curb fraud, and promote accountability for results. Competition is a critical tool for achieving the best return on the government’s investment. Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual requires all purchases to be made through a competitive process unless they meet specific criteria described in the next section.

In some cases, the City can select a contractor without competition.

Competition is not always possible or appropriate, so City policies allow for non-competitive contracts in specific circumstances, such as when emergency maintenance is needed. In these cases, non-competitive contracts give the City flexibility to respond quickly to emergencies or meet a need where competition is not feasible or practical.

During the audit period, the Purchasing Manual allowed the City Manager to waive the competition requirement for contracts under the cost threshold for formal competition in specific circumstances (Figure 1). Departments could request waivers of competition if there was only one contractor that provided a good or service, or competition was otherwise found to be inadequate. Waivers were also allowed in emergencies when competition was not feasible or practical. The Purchasing Manual also required departments to conduct market research to 1 Solicitation is the process of reaching out to contractors, which ideally results in competition among contractors. We use the term competition to refer to competitive solicitation for simplicity.

ju
stify the business case for the waiver, and whenever possible, avoid requesting items that could on
ly be obtained from a sole or single source.

Figure 1: Purchasing Manual Criteria for Non-Competitive Contracts

Source: Auditor analysis of Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual as of end of fiscal year 2024 City Council can also waive competition for specific contracts or broader categories of purchases. Once a contract is in place, the City can use amendments to increase the dollar amount and extensions to extend the duration of a contract without new competition. Even if the contractor offered the best value when selected, years later, a different contractor may be more affordable or better suited for the City’s needs.

Though non-competitive contracts are sometimes the most appropriate or practical option, if the City over-relies on non-competitive contracts, it runs the risk of:
• Overpaying for services,
• Not getting the best quality service,
• Having fewer opportunities for new and small businesses, including historically marginalized contractors, and
• Creating more opportunities for bribery or corruption between staff, officials, and contractors.

Over 40% of the contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 did not clearly go through competition.

Ninety-four of the 218 contracts executed, or formally approved, in fiscal year 2024 did not have documented competition (Figure 2). The total value of these contracts was approximately $43 million compared to $102 million in competitive contracts. Competitive contracts include both those with formal and informal competition, as well as contracts that piggybacked on other jurisdictions’ contracts.

Figure 2: Berkeley executed 94 contracts in fiscal year (FY) 2024 without documented competition for a total value of $43 million.

Source: Auditor analysis of expenditure contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 from Records Online and Berkeley’s financial system
Berkeley awarded 30 percent of contract dollars without competition in fiscal year 2024.

According to a recent benchmarking survey of public procurement entities from NIGP: The Institute of Public Procurement (NIGP), Berkeley was similar to the median responding jurisdiction, which awarded 30 percent of contract dollars without competition.

City Council authorized 26 non-competitive contracts through Council Resolutions, which made up the majority of the cost associated with non-competitive contracts (Figure 3). The group of non-competitive contracts with the second highest total cost were 15 “other or unclear” contracts. These included contacts that were missing in Records Online, the City’s electronic document repository, or where competition was marked as “not required” on the contract review

fo
rm, such as leases or the City Attorney’s contracts for legal services.2 Most of the non- competitive contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 had a waiver of competition, but that group had the lowest total cost.

Figure 3: Breakdown of non-competitive contracts
Source: Auditor analysis of expenditure contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 from Records Online and Berkeley’s financial system
Note: “Other or unclear” include contracts missing from Records Online, leases, license agreements, contracts with no evidence of competition, or where marked as not required. The dollar amounts for the contracts missing from Records Online are based on data in the City’s financial system.

2 The City Charter (Section 113) and Berkeley Municipal Code (2.56.040) give the City Attorney independent contracting authority for legal services contracts. The Berkeley Municipal Code does not address competition for service contracts, including legal services. Other jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Monica, as well as California state agencies, explicitly exempt legal services from competitive process requirements.

Berkeley spent millions of dollars on non-
competitive contracts when competition was
likely possible.

We found that most of the City’s largest active expenditure contracts had evidence of competition or of meeting the Purchasing Manual criteria for exceptions, but two non- competitive recycling contracts totaling nearly $85 million did not. Additionally, inconsistent rules may have made it difficult for staff to know when it was appropriate to waive competition.

As a result, 38 percent of waivers in fiscal year 2024 did not clearly meet the criteria set in the Purchasing Manual. City Council authorized additional non-competitive contracts with community-based organizations. Furthermore, service contracts that started at or below the $50,000 formal competition threshold and were later amended increased by an average of $218,026 per contract. We did not audit individual contracts or contractors.

The City authorized nearly $85 million in recycling contracts over 10 years without competition.

In fiscal year 2022, Berkeley executed recycling contracts with the Ecology Center, Inc. and Community Conservation Centers, Inc. for nearly $85 million over ten years without seeking bids from other contractors. Together, the contracts have a not-to-exceed amount of $41,392,377 for fiscal years 2022 through 2026, with optional five-year extensions which would bring to total not-to-exceed amount to $84,599,544 (Figure 4). We found that most of the City’s 100 largest contracts had documented evidence of competition or of meeting the Purchasing Manual criteria for exceptions, but these two recycling contracts did not.3 Berkeley has contracted with the Ecology Center and Community Conservation Centers for recycling services since the 1980s (Appendix 1). A review of public City records since the 1980s found no documented evidence of competition. We reviewed the authorizing Council Resolutions to understand the City’s process for awarding and amending these contracts, but did not audit these individual contracts or contractors. While these contracts may offer the best value or best fit for Berkeley, it is difficult for the City to determine that without open competition among all potential contractors.
3 We reviewed the 100 largest expenditure contracts in the City’s financial system. We found that 2 2 were likely expired because they had an expiration date before June 30, 2025 in the City’s financial system. The remaining 78 contracts also included one legal services contract, one lease, and one settlement agreement that fell outside the City’s standard expenditure contract process.

Fi
gure 4: The recycling contracts will have a total not-to-exceed (NTE) of nearly $85 million dollars if the City takes the optional five-year extensions.

Source: Auditor analysis of current recycling contracts Note: NTE stands for “not-to-exceed.” City Council authorizes the City to spend up to that amount on the contract. We did not assess how much the City has spent on each contract.

Prior to authorizing these non-competitive contracts, there were proposals to pursue competition for the City’s recycling services. In 2011, an outside consultant recommended that the City issue an RFP for the recycling materials processing operations performed by Community Conservation Centers, and end the contract with the Ecology Center to have the City take over recycling pick-up. The Zero Waste Commission disagreed with the report’s recommendations citing incomplete and missing information and cost-benefit analyses, and a lack of an adequate and inclusive process. In 2020, Public Works staff requested that City Council authorize an RFP for the recycling processing operations done by Community Conservation Centers, but City Council voted to remove it from the list of proposed RFPs.

According to Public Works staff reports to Council in 2021, third-party reviews found both contractors’ costs reasonable when compared to surrounding communities. The report also stated that both contractors received mostly “satisfied” or “very satisfied” responses to a third- party customer satisfaction survey. Ultimately in 2021, City Council voted to authorize new sole source contracts with both contractors without issuing RFPs.

Although pursuing competition is an established best practice, neither the City Charter nor the Berkeley Municipal Code explicitly required service contracts like these recycling contracts to be competitive (Table 2). The City Charter required purchases of supplies, equipment, and materials above a dollar amount set by the Municipal Code to be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. It also required City Council to authorize these purchases. The language in the corresponding Municipal Code section only discusses the thresholds for Council approval. $14,090,684
$27,301,693
$15,990,109
$27,217,058
Total NTE: $30,080,793
Total NTE: $54,518,751
Community Conservation Centers, Inc. Ecology Center, Inc.

NTE for fiscal years
2027-2031 (if extended)
NTE for fiscal years
2022-2026

Th
e Purchasing Manual states service contracts above $50,000 must go through formal competition. However, this policy was not included in the City Charter and Berkeley Municipal Code. In other jurisdictions like Oakland and San Francisco, city codes explicitly require competition for service contracts with some exceptions. During the audit, Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual also said only City Council can waive competition for contracts over the Council approval threshold. However, there was no guidance on how City Council should decide and document these decisions.

Table 2: Neither the City Charter nor the Berkeley Municipal Code explicitly requires service contracts to be competitive.

City Charter Berkeley Municipal Code
Discusses purchases of supplies,
equipment or materials above
BMC threshold but does not
specifically require competition for
service contracts.

Sets thresholds for Council Approval, but does not
discuss competition:
• Public Projects and Facility Improvements -
$200,000
• Supplies, Equipment and Materials - $100,000
• Other Expenditures, which includes services -
$50,000
Source: Berkeley City Charter, Article XI and Berkeley Municipal Code 7.18 It may be reasonable for City Council to waive competition in unique circumstances, but the lack of clear standards allows large contracts to be awarded without competition when they could have been opened to competition. Overusing non-competitive contracts may make it difficult to assess if the City is getting the best value or best fit for goods and services. Berkeley may also be perceived as operating on favoritism.

City management approved some waivers that did not meet the Purchasing Manual criteria.

Thirty-eight percent of waivers City management approved in fiscal year 2024 did not clearly meet the criteria set in the Purchasing Manual at the time, meaning the City could likely have pursued competition under the current policy. For example, Human Resources used six waivers in a month and half, including three for classification and compensation studies. There may have been an urgent need for these services, but the form did not document that this was an emergency. By requesting three waivers for the same service from three different contractors, this indicated that it would have been feasible to request quotes from at least three contractors (Table 3).

In another example, a waiver for drug and alcohol testing cited immediate need because the previous contract had already been expired over two years. However, the long timeframe

in
dicates that it was not an emergency. The waiver form even states that the lack of advanced planning
does not constitute an immediate need.

Fina
lly, a department requested a waiver for legislative services because the contractor previously worked effectively with the City and had knowledge of the region and the City’s lobbying. However, the rationale did not explain why another firm would be unable to provide the same or better services. The General Services Manager at the time noted on the waiver that the department should consider competing soon.

There were also many cases when the rationale for waivers did meet the Purchasing Manual’s criteria, according to our assessment. For example, the City’s labor contracts require the City to provide staff memberships to the YMCA, therefore the City must contract with the YMCA specifically.

We also found cases when departments unnecessarily completed and attached the waiver of competitive solicitation. In several cases, contract packets included both waivers of competition and City Council approval of the sole-source negotiations of contracts. In another example, a department had already done informal competition. In this case, General Services staff explained that the department already had the necessary documentation and did not need to complete a waiver, creating additional work and confusion.

Ta
ble 3: Many waivers met the Purchasing Manual criteria, but 38 percent did not.

Examples that Likely Met the Purchasing Manual Criteria Purchase Department Rationale Why Likely Eligible
Hazardous
Vegetation
Treatments &
Removal
The previous RFP only resulted in
one response. The City needed three
vendors, so awarded two additional
single source contracts while
preparing a new RFP.

Competition inadequate: The
RFP did not attract sufficient
interest. The City needed to
continue the work while taking
steps to attract more responses.

Transfer Station
Rain/Stream
Gauge
The City needs equipment in place at
the transfer station within three
months to comply with a legal
mandate.

Emergency: The City had a
limited time to make the
purchase before facing legal
consequences.

Employee Fitness
Memberships
Labor contracts require the City to
provide staff memberships to the
YMCA.

One viable source: There was
only one source the City could
provide the fitness memberships
that complied with the labor
contracts.

Examples that Likely Did NOT Meet the Purchasing Manual Criteria Purchase Department Rationale Why Likely Ineligible
Classification &
Compensation
Studies
Human Resources had six waivers in a
month and half, including three for
classification and compensation
studies.

All cited a “dire situation” and the fact
that “an informal or formal RFP
process would be further detrimental”
to addressing the situation.

There may have been an urgent
need for these services, but
there was no documented
evidence that it was an
emergency. By requesting three
waivers for the same service
from three vendors, they indicate
that it would have been feasible
to request quotes from at least
three vendors.

Drug
& Alcohol
Testing Services

The previous contract expired over two
years earlier. Publicly competing these
services would create a gap in
services and negatively impact multiple
operational processes.

Since the contract had already
been expired for two years, the
long timeframe indicates it was
not an emergency.

Tailored
Legislative
Funding &
Advocacy
Strategy
The vendor has previously worked
effectively with the City and has
knowledge of the region and the City’s
lobbying.

This does not explain why
another firm would not be able to
provide these services.

Familiarity is not a sufficient
reason for a sole source contract
and can be seen as favoritism.

Additionally, the General
Services Manager noted on the
waiver, "Consider competing in
near future.”
Source: Auditor analysis of contracts with waivers of competitive solicitation in fiscal year 2024 from Records Online

A po
tential cause of the inconsistent use of waivers is the fact that, during the audit period, the City’s Purchasing Manual and waiver of competition form had different criteria for when waivers are justified (Table 4). For example, the waiver form had categories for “specialized service” and “immediate need,” which were different than the categories specified in the Purchasing Manual. As a result, inconsistent criteria may have made it difficult for staff to understand when it is appropriate to use a waiver of competitive solicitation. According to the Procurement Excellence Network, document consistency can reduce review time.

Table 4: The categories on the form staff use to request approval for a waiver did not match the criteria in the Purchasing Manual.

Purchasing Manual Waiver of Competition Form
Sole or single source procurement, or
non-competitive solicitation, may only be
used following informal or formal
solicitation when:
• Only one viable source is found for
the needed product or service;
• Competition is found to be
inadequate; or
• There is an emergency and it is
impractical for the City to seek
competitive bids.

Explanation must clearly state why this
exception meets the required criteria.
• Service is very specialized;
• This product or service can only be
provided by this contractor (sole
source);
• This service and/or product must
be provided immediately; or
• Other category. Note: The lack of
advanced planning does not
constitute an immediate need.

Source: Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual and Waiver of Competitive Solicitation form as of the end of fiscal year 2024
City Council authorized additional non-competitive contracts for community-based organizations.

Beyond waivers of competition approved by the City Manager, City Council also authorized non- competitive contracts for community-based organizations through a separate process. In fiscal year 2024, we found three instances where City Council awarded new contracts totaling $417,400 to community-based organizations through budget referrals without any competition.

According to an April 2025 Council item for Resolution 71,719, community-based organizations seeking one-time financial assistance have historically appealed directly to councilmembers to sponsor a budget referral outside of the City's established procurement process. While it is appropriate for the City to contract with community-based organizations, it is important that the process is open and transparent for all community-based organizations and does not privilege certain organizations above others who may be equally or more deserving of financial support. To help address this issue, City Council passed a resolution to establish a more open

and t
ransparent application process for community-based organizations to apply for emergency funding.

To promote fair and transparent procurement, it is important that decisions about contracts meet ethical standards to prevent conflicts of interest, but Berkeley's process to do that was lim
ited. Berkeley requires certain employees and officials to complete the Form 700 financial interest disclosure form to comply with California state law, which includes disclosure of involvement in non-profit organizations. However, the Form 700 does not collect information about other relationships that may exist, such as friendships, that may bias a decision. In Berkeley, the only contractors required to complete a Form 700 were consultants that make government decisions or act in a staff capacity that would require a Form 700 if that role was held by a City employee. Berkeley’s RFP and RFQ boilerplates also required interested contractors to disclose potential conflicts of interest, but these do not apply to non-competitive contracts.

In comparison, a best practice analysis from Atlanta’s Ethics Office found that requiring potential contractors, in addition to City officials and employees, to continuously disclose relationships, serves as a checks and balance system between the two groups. It also helps maintain compliance and transparency in the government procurement process. In addition to the Form 700, San Francisco requires City officers and employees to publicly disclose any personal, professional, or business relationships with anyone involved in a government decision they make.

Contracts starting below the formal competition threshold were amended by an average of $218,026 per contract without
additional competition.

As of March 2025, the City had 95 active service contracts that began at or below the formal competition threshold of $50,000 but were later amended above the threshold. On average, these amendments added $218,026 in total to each contract. Since these service contracts started below $50,000, they did not require City Council approval or formal competition. The contracts then increased without meeting the requirements for competition that apply to larger dollar values. We found some contracts which originally had waivers of competitive solicitation and were later amended by large amounts. For example, one contract that started at $50,000 was amended to $737,092 over 6 years, nearly 15 times the original cost. All of the service

co
ntract amendments over $50,000 in our sample received City Council or Board approval,4 as required by the Finance Department. According to Finance staff, there are circumstances when contract amendments are reasonable. To comply with this, staff need clear guidance to understand when amendments are appropriate or when the contract should be re-competed.

While Berkeley’s policy sets dollar thresholds for when a new contract must go through a formal competitive process, there was no documented citywide guidance for when existing contracts should be re-competed rather than amended. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, competitive contracts can help save taxpayers money. When Berkeley relies on existing contractors without competition, the City may lose out on the potential financial benefits of competition. In a sample of 23 amended contracts, 16 contracts (or 70 percent) lasted for over five years. According to the Director of Finance, the general rule is for most contracts to go back out to bid every five to seven years. However, this guidance was not written in the City’s purchasing policy. In fact, Berkeley did not have any published guidance for staff on contract amendments. Standard guidance on when amendments are appropriate and when contracts need to be re-competed could help address confusion about the amendment process that staff shared. Clear expectations may help reduce use of amendments instead of competition.

We also identified three City Attorney contracts for legal services which grew by over 20 times their original amount, including one which started at $50,000 in 2018 and grew to $4,167,000 as of August 2025. Because the City Charter and Berkeley Municipal Code give the City Attorney the authority to enter into legal services contracts,
5 the amendments do not require City Council
approval unlike other City contracts above the Council approval threshold. This different process for the City Attorney's Office does not provide the same level of public oversight and transparency compared to new contracts and contract amendments that are reviewed by City Council at public meetings.
4 In our sample, contracts from the Library and the Rent Board received authorization from their boards rather than City Council.
5 The City Charter (Section 113) and Berkeley Municipal Code (2.56.040) give the City Attorney independent contracting authority for legal services contracts. The Berkeley Municipal Code does not address competition for service contracts, including legal services. Other jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Monica, as well as California state agencies, explicitly exempt legal services from competitive process requirements. We did not evaluate best practices for competition of legal services contracts.

Recommendations

1.1. To ensure Berkeley is getting the best value for recycling services, we recommend that Public Works pursue open competition on the City’s recycling contracts.

1.2. To ensure large contracts have adequate competition, we recommend City Council work with City management and the City Attorney to propose updates to the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18 to require competition for service contracts that City Council approves.

1.3. To ensure clear standards for waiving competition, we recommend that the Finance Department update the waiver of competitive solicitation form to be consistent with the Purchasing Manual.

1.4. To ensure transparency, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department, Human Resources, and the City Attorney’s office to strengthen the City’s existing ethical standards, including guidance for City officials, staff, and contractors regarding disclosing personal, professional, and business relationships.

1.5. To ensure City staff have guidance on how to appropriately use amendments, we recommend that the Finance Department develop and distribute written policies and procedures on contract amendments, including when contracts are required to go back out for competition.

1.6. To increase transparency of spending on legal services contracts, we recommend that the City Attorney’s Office regularly report legal services contracts and amendments to City Council.

Paper contracts, unclear guidance, and short
staffing led to delays and overuse of non-
competitive contracts.

During our audit period, Berkeley used paper contracts that needed to be hand-delivered between departments, creating some delays and misplaced contracts. Lack of electronic tracking of waivers or the type of competition used for contracts made it difficult for management to analyze or monitor the use of waivers or analyze competition citywide. Additionally, the Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance, and training for staff was limited. Short staffing and turnover also made it difficult for the City to address these concerns and improve the contract process. Together, these conditions caused delays, errors, and greater reliance on non- competitive contracting to keep City services running.

Berkeley used paper contracts that need to be hand-delivered between departments.

In fiscal year 2024, most of Berkeley’s contracts were still reviewed and signed on paper, meaning staff hand-delivered them to different departments for approvals (Figure 5). During the scope of our audit, Berkeley did not have a comprehensive digital contract management system. In fiscal year 2024, it took an average of 37 days between when the contract was dropped off to General Services and when it was given to the City Clerk's office, according to an internal tracking spreadsheet. Departments conducted additional levels of review prior to it arriving at General Services, meaning the entire process took even longer. 6 6 This does not include the City Attorney review, which is only required when not using a pre-approved contract boilerplate, according to the Purchasing Manual and review form. However, the City Attorney has said they should review all contracts.

Fi
gure 5: Moving paper contracts throughout City Hall created opportunities for dela
ys.

Source: Auditor analysis of contract review sheet for new expenditure contracts Some department staff said this outdated process created delays, so they had to use the shorter non-competitive contract process to maintain City services. Some staff stated that they needed to amend a contract or use a waiver of competition for a contract that could have been competed because they needed additional time to complete the full RFP and contract review processes, especially if they were short staffed. One General Services staff member also said that many of the waivers of competition they reviewed came from a lack of planning for future contracts.

However, the waiver form specifically notes that the lack of advanced planning does not constitute an immediate need. If the City continuously amends contracts instead of going out to competition, it could potentially miss out on new contractors and savings. According to the Procurement Excellence Network, streamlining the procurement process is essential to freeing up staff time to focus on improving the performance of programs and services and, in turn, results for residents.

Staff also explained that it was hard to track where a contract was in the review process. Figure 6 shows some locations where staff dropped off paper contracts throughout the routing process.

Contracts awaiting signatures could sit unsigned at staff members’ desks for days while they were out of the office, or could even be misplaced or lost. During our audit, General Services staff found four unsigned contract amendments for $500,000 each sitting in a box under a desk.

The contracts were approved, and the department could spend the money. However, the contracts were not formally amended, so the liability terms of the contract were not finalized.

Fi
gure 6: Staff had to deliver paper contracts between departments.

Source: Auditor photos of Finance Department and the City Clerk contract locations Since the City’s financial system did not track the contract review process, General Services staff created a separate spreadsheet to give departments some insight into where the contract was in the approval process. However, at the start of the audit period, any Berkeley staff member could edit the sheet, leading to the potential for intentional or accidental changes to the information.

This has since been addressed.

While waivers of competition were available in the individual contract file, the City did not centrally track waivers overall in an electronic format nor the type of competition used for contracts, making it difficult for management to understand the use of waivers across all city departments or identify trends over time. Berkeley’s current system makes it very time- consuming to conduct this analysis, especially determining how much money is spent competitively versus non-competitively. For this report, we manually reviewed hundreds of contract PDFs to assess if they were competitive or not. Regular analysis of the City’s spending on purchases is important for supporting management decisions and better oversight of contractor relationships.

The City has begun to explore options for digitizing the contracts process. During our audit, Berkeley adopted DocuSign, a more efficient and trackable digital signature software for some parts of the City’s contracting process, such as approving waivers of competition and extension letters. However, various General Services staff members explained that the software is not set up to effectively manage the full contract review process. Additionally, a cross-departmental team led by the City Manager’s Office is looking into purchasing a digital contract management system to improve the contracting process. However, given the City’s current budget limitations, they want to make sure it provides significant value to the City.

The Purchasing Manual was missing key guidance and training for staff was limited.

Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual was missing sixteen of the minimum necessary parts of a procurement policy manual defined as industry best practices during the audit (Table 5). For example, Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual did not have a definitions section to help ensure that all staff understand the terms referenced in the manual and how they are used in the City of Berkeley. It also did not include a process for suspending or debarring contractors who violate City law or fail to meet contract obligations.

The Purchasing Manual also had limited or conflicting guidance on key purchasing topics.

Information on sole or single-source contracts was separated across three different sections and did not align with the information on the required waiver form itself, making it difficult for staff to know how to use them correctly. There was also no written guidance on amendments or extensions, in the Purchasing Manual or elsewhere, including when they should go back out to competition. There was also very limited guidance on piggybacking or cooperative agreements, which allow staff to use a competitively bid contract from another jurisdiction. Piggybacking could be a way to save staff time while ensuring the best price, but only if staff have appropriate guidance. In our analysis of fiscal year 2024 contracts, departments used different procedures for piggybacked contracts from waivers of competition to authorizing Council Resolutions to no contract at all.

Ta
ble 5: Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual was missing key elements, as defined by indu
stry best practices.

Element
Element Aspects
that are Missing
or Incomplete
Element Aspects
that are Included
Definitions - Defines key terms 1 0
Organizational Structure - Establishes roles and
responsibilities
2 1
Vendor Selection – Provides guidance for
evaluating vendor proposals and developing a
contract
1 5
Specifications – Provides guidance for drafting
specifications to ensure maximum competition
1 0
Ethics – Includes guidelines to ensure the
procurement process is fair and resolve violations
to stated policy
5 2
Personnel – Outlines required qualifications and
training for procurement staff
3 0
Other Initiatives – Provides guidance for
procurement-related initiatives, such as prioritizing
minority and women-owned businesses or local
businesses
3 3
TOTAL 16 11
Source: Auditor analysis of NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement’s Principles and Practices of Public Procurement and the City of Berkeley’s Purchasing Manual as of the end of fiscal year 2024.

Staff in each City department have responsibilities related to purchasing goods and services for their department, but the City did not have clear policies and procedures so that staff could easily navigate the purchasing process. In a listening session hosted by the City Manager in February 2025, some staff members representing most City departments shared that they did not understand the rules of purchasing. This confusion can end up requiring more General Services staff time to either individually walk staff through the process or correct errors once submitted. According to best practices, the Purchasing Manual should simplify, clarify, and reflect the laws governing purchasing in way that is useable for staff across the City. To fill in the gaps from the citywide Purchasing Manual, some departments have created their own manuals to support their staff.

Staff also shared that there were few training opportunities or resources for department staff to learn about the contract process. In addition to a clear Purchasing Manual, it is important that all staff with a role in procurement have a clear and consistent understanding of the rules. Prior to May 2025, contract training was inconsistent. However, between May and July 2025, the Finance Department conducted five contract trainings. The Procurement Excellence Network recommends continuous training and coaching of staff on procurement best practices. Having

cl
ear, documented policies and procedures also increases consistent application of purchasing rules d
uring times of transition or understaffing.

Short staffing and turnover made it more difficult to improve the contract process.

The General Services Division has had repeated vacancies in key positions in the past five years making it difficult to improve the contract process. The General Services Manager position leading the division has been vacant since November 2024 (Figure 7). The Director of Finance is primarily acting in that role after the previous General Services Manager left the City after less than three months. Previously, the Finance Department used a waiver of competition to contract a consultant to cover the position while they hired a full-time staff member. Another key position, the Contract Administrator, was vacant for almost a year until April 2025, and for substantial time prior to 2021. Government finance departments across the country have also struggled to fill purchasing positions. According to a 2022 report from the Government Finance Officers Association, procurement clerks, buyers and purchasing agents are in high demand and have a high ratio of job postings per filled positions. Positions with a relatively higher ratio will take longer to fill since competition for candidates is higher.

Figure 7: Key General Services positions have been repeatedly vacant, especially in the last two years.

Source: Finance Department and auditor review of employee data These Finance Department vacancies strained General Services staff capacity, and they reported taking on the work of these vacant positions in addition to their own responsibilities. The turnover and understaffing made it difficult for General Services staff to review and provide substantive feedback on contract documents, and delayed contracts during our audit period,

ac
cording to staff. Overworked staff may also not be able to appropriately prioritize proc
urements and focus resources on the highest risk purchases, including non-competitive contracts. Short staffing and turnover made it difficult for the division to make changes to improve the contracting process that could limit non-competitive contracts, such as implementing additional training and updating manuals.

Limi
ted General Services staff capacity also means that while the City has started to collect contractor demographic information, they have not had the capacity to complete a formal analysis of this data. City leadership has not determined responsibility for managing demographic data from potential contractors to facilitate data analytics. The analysis could inform changes to the City’s policy to promote fairness and increased competition.

Recommendations

2.1. To increase efficiency and accountability in the contract process, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department to adopt a comprehensive and integrated electronic contract management system, as funds are available.

2.2. To more easily assess the use of non-competitive contracts, we recommend that the Finance Department track what type of competition is used for each contract and maintain documentation in an accessible format as part of the new contract management system.

2.3. To ensure consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department update the Purchasing Manual and any additional guidance documents for staff to include complete sections on key topics such as amendments, piggybacking, ethics, and suspension or debarment of contractors who engage in misconduct.

2.4. To ensure clarity in the primary guidance on purchasing for all City staff and consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department work with the City Attorney and City management to update the Purchasing Manual with a table of contents, clear definitions, and consistent language and standards across the Purchasing Manual and related forms, boilerplates, templates, and other additional guidance documents.

2.5. To ensure that City staff know how to use the contracting process correctly and efficiently, we recommend that the Finance Department offer and publicize a regular procurement training program for staff from other departments.

2. 6. To ensure adequate resource support for City contracts, we recommend that City man
agement assess Finance Department staff positions needed to provide oversight and prioritize filling these positions when possible.

2.7. To ensure the City makes progress towards promoting fairness in contracts, we recommend that City management formally assign responsibility for managing the demographic data from potential contractors to facilitate data analytics and implementing prior recommendations related to contractor outreach and the contracting process.

Management Response
We provided a draft of this report to the City Manager, the Finance Department, and the City Attorney for review and comment. City management agreed or partially agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. We generally expect the City to implement audit recommendations within two years of report issuance. City management provided the implementation dates and corrective action plan below. We will be conducting our standard recommendation follow-up process after the audit is issued. We have not yet confirmed to what extent any recommendations may have been implemented prior to the audit release date.

Recommendation 1.1: To ensure Berkeley is getting the best value for recycling services, we recommend that Public Works pursue open competition on the City’s recycling contracts.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: To be determined
Corrective Action Plan: Will assess and develop timeframe for 2026 Recommendation 1.2: To ensure large contracts have adequate competition, we recommend City Council work with City management and the City Attorney to propose updates to the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 7.18 to require competition for service contracts that City Council approves.

Management Response: To be determined
Implementation Date: To be determined
Corrective Action Plan: To be determined
Recommendation 1.3: To ensure clear standards for waiving competition, we recommend that the Finance Department update the waiver of competitive solicitation form to be consistent with the Purchasing Manual.

Management Response: Agree, this was completed in November 2025 Implementation Date: November 2025
Corrective Action Plan: The language in both the Competitive Solicitation Waiver form and the Purchasing Manual has been updated to be consistent.

Re
commendation 1.4: To ens ure transparency, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department, Human Resources, and the City Attorney’s office to strengthen the City’s existing ethical standards, including guidance for City officials, staff, and contractors regarding disclosing personal, professional, and business relationships.

Management Response: Partially agree
Imple
mentation Date: To be determined
Corrective Action Plan: Will incorporate into guidance for staff. Will work on solutions for contractor disclosures but need to determine how best to incorporate given potential enforcement challenges.

Recommendation 1.5: To ensure City staff have guidance on how to appropriately use amendments, we recommend that the Finance Department develop and distribute written policies and procedures on contract amendments, including when contracts are required to go back out for competition.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: November 2025
Corrective Action Plan: This information is in the updated purchasing manual and the contract training class.

Recommendation 1.6: To increase transparency of spending on legal services contracts, we recommend that the City Attorney’s Office regularly report legal services contracts and amendments to City Council.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: April 30, 2026
Corrective Action Plan: The City Attorney’s Office will report new legal services contracts and amendments to the City Council on an annual basis beginning with contracts entered into Q1 2026. The reports will not include any confidential or attorney- client privileged information.

Re
commendation 2.1: To in crease efficiency and accountability in the contract process, we recommend that City management work with the Finance Department to adopt a comprehensive and integrated electronic contract management system, as funds are available.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: Part
ially implemented July 2025
Corrective Action Plan: Several departments have implemented Docusign for the full contract routing process (about 65% of city contracts). Citywide, Docusign has been adopted for all extension letters and waivers. There are budget and resource constraints to purchasing software that would integrate with the City’s current financial system.

However, a multi departmental work group has been working for several months on bringing electronic contracts management system recommendations to the City Manager for a new system.

Recommendation 2.2: To more easily assess the use of non-competitive contracts, we recommend that the Finance Department track what type of competition is used for each contract and maintain documentation in an accessible format as part of the new contract management system.

Management Response: Partially Agree
Implementation Date: July 2025
Corrective Action Plan: By implementing Docusign for all waivers, the process itself has all the necessary information to track quantity, date, and all approvals. This solution will not add additional steps, time or expense which is helpful given limited resources and financial constraints. We continue to assess for use in potential new systems.

Recommendation 2.3: To ensure consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department update the Purchasing Manual and any additional guidance documents for staff to include complete sections on key topics such as amendments, piggybacking, ethics, and suspension or debarment of contractors who engage in misconduct.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: November 2025
Corrective Action Plan: The updates have been made.

Re
commendation 2.4: To e nsure clarity in the primary guidance on purchasing for all City staff and consistent application of standards, we recommend the Finance Department work with the City Attorney and City management to update the Purchasing Manual with a table of contents, clear definitions, and consistent language and standards across the Purch asing
Manual and related forms, boilerplates, templates, and other additional guidance documents.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: Partially implemented
Corrective Action Plan: Ongoing process to improve guidelines and process flows.

Recommendation 2.5: To ensure that City staff know how to use the contracting process correctly and efficiently, we recommend that the Finance Department offer and publicize a regular procurement training program for staff from other departments.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: May 2025
Corrective Action Plan: We have already had several sessions of Contract Training classes and will continue them in 2026.

Recommendation 2.6: To ensure adequate resource support for City contracts, we recommend that City management assess Finance Department staff positions needed to provide oversight and prioritize filling these positions when possible.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: In process
Corrective Action Plan: All vacancies in the Finance Department are in the process of being filled including the General Services Manager and Buyer.

Re
commendation 2.7: To e nsure the City makes progress towards promoting fairness in contracts, we recommend that City management formally assign responsibility for managing the demographic data from potential contractors to facilitate data analytics and implementing prior recommendations related to contractor outreach and the contracting process.

Management Response: Agree
Implementation Date: Septem
ber 24, 2025
Corrective Action Plan: This was assigned to the DEI Officer.

Methodology and Compliance
To gain an understanding of General Services operations and internal controls, and to achieve our audit objectives, we used the following methodology:
• We reviewed the City Charter, Berkeley Municipal Code, Purchasing Manual, other internal policies and procedures, review forms, and past reports and audits. We also attended one of the contract training sessions offered by the Finance Department. • We compared Berkeley’s practices against published best practices and guidance from organizations such as NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement, the Procurement Excellence Network, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. We also reviewed related audits from other jurisdictions and spoke with the auditors. • We interviewed a range of stakeholders to understand how the contract process works both within General Services and from the perspective of other departments. This included General Services staff and staff from six other city departments regularly involved in the contracts process
Our scope focused on two datasets from the City’s financial system: (1) all expenditure contracts marked as posted in the City’s financial system as of March 6, 2025 and (2) expenditure contracts executed in fiscal year 2024. Since the City’s largest contracts often last years, they likely would not have been captured in our dataset of contracts executed in fiscal year 2024, even though these contracts were active in this year. Therefore, we also reviewed 100 of the City’s largest expenditure contracts in the City’s financial system. We found that 22 were likely expired because they had an expiration date in the City’s financial system before June 30, 2025.

We did not verify if there were cases when the contracts were extended, but the expiration date in the City’s financial system had not been updated. We included only the remaining 78 active contracts in our analysis. Additionally, we identified the largest contracts based on the revised total in the City’s financial system. It is possible the not-to-exceed written in some contracts was greater than what was listed in the financial system depending on variations in how the amount is entered, such as entering only one year’s worth of funds at a time for a multi-year contract.

We did not include purchase orders in our definition of contracts.

We performed a risk assessment of the City’s contract practices and procedures to identify potential internal control weaknesses, including fraud risks, within the context of our audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, as well as interviews with internal staff.

Th
e City’s financial system does not indicate the type of competition the City used for each cont
ract. Therefore, we used the publicly available contract information in Records Online to determine the competition for all expenditure contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 and the 100
largest active contracts. We reviewed the contract packet for each contract to assess if it was competitive or not, as well as to ensure consistency in contract information between the City’s financial system and the contract itself. We validated the determination of the non-competitive contracts with the responsible department. We did not assess the effectiveness of the competition – i.e., if they received multiple bids – only if the department reported using competition.

We did additional testing of a subset of the contracts identified above. For example, among the contracts from fiscal year 2024 that used waivers of competitive solicitation, we also assessed if they met the Purchasing Manual criteria for waivers. We also analyzed the active service contracts that began at or below $50,000 and were later amended above that threshold. We tested a sample of 25 contracts amended under the City Manager, as well as five additional amended City Attorney contracts, for competition and compliance with policy requirements for review and approval. We also reviewed the Contracts Log spreadsheet managed by the General Services team. For specific contracts, we also reviewed additional documentation from Council Resolutions, Council Items and other documentation.

Data Reliability
We assessed the reliability of the City’s financial system and Records Online data by reviewing it for reasonableness and completeness. We also interviewed staff responsible for managing the systems and inputting the data. We were also able to validate the information across the two systems to ensure the data matched. We identified a few instances of incomplete data, however, we determined that the data is sufficiently reliable to address the audit objectives.

Independence
According to Article XI of the Berkeley Charter, the City Auditor is responsible for countersigning, numbering and registering all contracts for the City of Berkeley. Given updates in technology, in recent years, this responsibility involved no actual oversight as contracts were already executed by the time they reached the City Auditor’s office. The City Auditor’s Office assigned the executed contract a number and recorded it. The City Auditor’s Office did not have a role in reviewing or approving contracts, or ensuring that contracts followed City policy.

In N
ovember 2018, the City began using the ERMA financial system, which automatically numb
ered all contracts. To reduce redundant steps, the City Auditor officially designated responsibility to countersign contracts as registrant to the Finance Department. In 2024, the City updated the Berkeley Municipal Code (2.24.050.C) to reflect this change.

To reduce the threat to our independence, we limited our work by excluding areas overseen by our office.

Statement of Compliance
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix 1: Timelines of the City’s Recycling
Contracts
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the history of the City’s contracts with the Ecology Center and Community Conservation based on review of authorizing Council Resolutions and other related documents. We reviewed the authorizing Council Resolutions to understand the City’s process for awarding and amending these contracts, but we did not audit these individual contracts or contractors.

Figure 8: Berkeley has contracted with the Ecology Center since the 1980s.

Source: Auditor analysis of Council Resolutions and contract documents on Records Online *The resolutions authorizing the early contracts and amendments did not include dollar amounts, so we were unable to assess the not-to-exceed amount for these contracts.

Note: NTE stands for “not-to-exceed.” City Council authorizes the City to spend up to that amount on the contract. We did not assess whether the City spent the full amount on each contract.

Fi
gure 9: Berkeley has contracted with Community Conservation Centers (CCC) sin
ce the 1980s.

Source: Auditor analysis of Council Resolutions and contract documents on Records Online *The resolutions authorizing the early contracts and amendments did not include dollar amounts, so we were unable to assess the not-to-exceed (NTE) amount for these contracts. **We were unable to calculate the contract NTE prior to 2005 due to inconsistent reporting and documentation.
***This is an underestimate of the total cost of this contract, as the original not- to-exceed was the total gross receipts resulting from the sale of the City's recyclable materials minus 7.5 percent of those gross receipts which was to be paid to the City annually. Later amendments added additional one -time payments which account for the reported NTE. We did not analyze or calculate the total gross receipts for this report.

Note: City Council authorizes the City to spend up to that amount on the contract. We did not assess whether the City spent the full amount on each contract.

Appendix 2: Contracts with Waivers Executed
in Fiscal Year 2024
Figure 10 shows the total number of contracts executed in fiscal year 2024 that used a waiver of competition, broken down by department.

Figure 10: Number of non-competitive contracts executed via waiver in fiscal year 2024 by department.

Source: The City's financial system and auditor assessment of contracts in Records Online

12 11
7 5
4 3
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 City
Manager
HR
Public Works
Finance
Fire
HHCS
Library
Planning
Police
Rent Board
City Clerk
IT
Parks, Rec and Waterfront

Appendix 3: Largest Active Non-Competitive
Contracts
In Table 6, the term “active” refers to the contract’s status in the City’s financial system. The contractor and description also come from the City’s financial system. The contract length in years is based on the expiration date in the City’s financial system as of September 29, 2025. The total contract amount is based on the contract itself and any subsequent amendments as of September 29, 2025.

Table 6: List of non-competitive contracts among the City’s 100 largest active contracts, largest to smallest
Contractor Description
Total
Contract
Length (in
years)
Total Contract
Amount
Met PM
Criteria?

ECOLOGY

CENTER, INC

RESIDENTIAL

RECYCLING

COLLECTION

SERVICES
5 $54,518,752 NO

COMMUNITY

CONSERVATION

CENTER, INC

RESIDENTIAL &

COMMERCIAL

REYCYCLING

OPERATIONS
5 $30,080,783 NO

BAY AREA

COMMUNITY

SERVICES

PATHWAY STAIR
CENTER
8 $15,168,616 YES

EVICTION

DEFENSE
CENTER

HOUSING RETENTION

PROGRAM
5 $8,294,683 YES

BERKELEY

CONVENTION &

VISITOR

TOURISM BSNSS

IMPROV DIST MKTG
SVCS
8 $7,966,000 YES

TELEGRAPH

PROPERTY &

BUSINESS
TELEGRAPH BUS.

IMPROVE DIST.
10 $7,410,024 YES

INSIGHT

HOUSING

INTERM HOUSING AT
SUPER 8 MOTEL
5 $7,295,634 YES

DOWNTOWN

BERKELEY

ASSOCIATION

PROPERTY BASE BID

ASSESSMENT (DPBID)
5 $7,285,257 YES

EBMUD EBMUD PW SEWER

BILLING SERVICES /

COLLECTIONS
10 $6,100,000 YES

MOTOROLA

SOLUTIONS INC

MUNICIPAL LEASE -

RADIO & EQUIPMENT
LEASE
7 $5,818,116 YES

Contractor Description
Total
Contract
Length (in
years)
Total Contract
Amount
Met PM
Criteria?

RENNE PUBLIC

LAW GROUP

MISCELLANEOUS
SERVICES, NO. 1 - Legal
Services
7 $4,167,000 N/A*
SENTRY

CONTROL

SYSTEMS, INC

PARKING ACCESS &

REVENUE COLL
9 $2,915,355 YES
Source: The City’s financial system and auditor assessment of contracts in Records Online * N/A indicates that we did not assess whether this contract met the Purchasing Manual criteria for comp
etition because the City Charter (Section 113) and Berkeley Municipal Code (2.56.040) give the City Attorney independent contracting authority for legal serv ices contracts. The Berkeley Municipal Code
does not address competition for service contracts, including legal services.

Appendix 4: Active Service Contracts
Amended Over the Threshold for Competition
The contracts listed in Table 7 are the top 10 active service contracts by total dollar value that began at or below the formal competition threshold of $50,000 and were later amended to increase the cost of the contracts. The term “active” refers to the contract’s status in the City’s financial system.

The contractor, department, description, and revised total come from the City’s financial system.

The original total is based on the contract posted in Records Online. The revised total includes any amendments recorded in the financial system as of March 2025.

We did not review the contract file for every contract nor determine which ones were initially competitive. This list is intended to highlight that the amendment process can lead to increases for contracts with no guidance for when competition may be needed.

Table 7: List of ten largest service contracts which began at or below $50,000 and were amended above $50,000 as of March 2025, largest to smallest Contractor Department Description Original
Total
Revised
Total

RENNE PUBLIC

LAW GROUP
City Attorney MISCELLANEOUS
SERVICES, NO. 1 -
Legal Services
$50,000 $4,167,000

BURKE, WILLIAMS
& SORENSEN, LLP
City Attorney EXTERNAL LEGAL

COUNSEL
$10,000 $1,208,266
L.J. KRUSE CO Library BPL HVAC Building
Maintenance
$16,000 $843,020

YOUTH SPIRIT

ARTWORKS
Health, Housing,
and Community
Services

TAY CASE

MANAGEMENT &
LINKAGE SVCS.
$50,000 $737,092

BRISCOE IVESTER
& BAZEL LLP
City Attorney Outside Legal
Counsel re: Ruegg
& Ellsworth v. COB
$30,000 $725,000

CIVICMAKERS,
LLC
IT Coaching & Training
Svcs
$35,000 $529,025

SLOAN SAKAI

YEUNG & WONG
LLP

HR LEGAL SVCS-

LABOR NEGO

SUPPORT
$45,000 $484,587
MSR

MECHANICAL, LLC
Public Works ON-CALL HVAC
SVCS
$50,000 $448,515

ATTHOWE FINE

ART SERVICES
City Manager As-Needed Fine Art
Services
$49,950 $400,000

Contractor Department Description Original
Total
Revised
Total

ACCUTITE

ENVIROMENTAL

ENGINEER
Public Works STORAGE TANK

MAINT & TESTING
$50,000 $382,496
Source: Records Online and the City’s financial system

Mission Statement
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

Contributors
Erin Mullin, Audit Manager
Caitlin Palmer, Audit Manager
Kendle Kuechle, Auditor II
Pauline Miller, Auditor II
Manami Suenaga, Auditor I
Katie Wysong, Auditor I

City Auditor
Jenny Wong

Office of the City Auditor
Phone: (510) 981-6750
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

Copies of our audit reports are available on our website.

Cover photograph by the City Auditor’s Office.

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 10, 2026

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager rep ort back by Fall 2026, and annually thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the Finance Department and other relevant departments. The audit includes 13 recommendations to clarify for staff when non-competitive contracts and amendments are appropriate, as well as to improve transparency and efficiency in the contracts process overall.

The City management agreed or partially agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Reducing the use of non-competitive contracts could help the City ensure it is not overpaying for services. As the City faces a budget deficit, it is important that the City gets the best value for the goods and services it purchases. Updating the Purchasing Manual and related training and procedures will likely take an upfront investment of staff time but could reduce the workload for General Services and staff in the long run. Getting a comprehensive and integrated electronic contract management system, a s recommended by the audit, would require financial investment, but could address the challenges we identified related to current paper contract process, including delays and lost contracts.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In fiscal year 2024, 94 of the 218 contracts executed did not have documented evidence of competition. The total value of these contracts was approximately $43 million compared to $102 million in competitive contracts. The non-competitive contracts included 26 authorized by Council Resolution, 53 through waivers of competition approved by the City Manager , and 15 through other or unclear means.

Most of the City’s largest active contracts had documented evidence of going through competition or meeting the Purchasing Manual criteria for exceptions, but two recycling contracts did not. In fiscal year 2022, Berkeley executed contracts for recycling services for nearly $85 million over ten years without seeking bids from other contractors. Although pursuing competition is an established best practice and the City’s Purchasing Manual states that service contracts above $50,000 must go through formal competition, neither the City Charter nor the Berkeley Municipal Code explicitly required service contracts like these recycling contracts to be competitive.

Of the 53 approved waivers of competition, 38 percent did not clearly meet the criteria in the Purchasing Manual, meaning the City could likely have pursued competition. For example, while waivers for classification and compensation studies were used, there was no documentation that this was an emergency. By requesting waivers for the same service from different contractors in a similar time period , this indicated that it would have been feasible to request quotes instead.

Once a contract is in place, the City can use amendments to increase the dollar amount. Our audit found the City had 95 active service contracts that began at or below the formal competition threshold of $50,000 but were later amended above the threshold. On average, these amendments added $218,026 in total to each contract. According to Finance, there are circumstances when contract amendments are reasonable. To comply with this, staff need clear guidance to understand when amendments are appropriate or when the contract should be re- competed.

Paper contracts, unclear guidance, and short staffing led to delays and the overuse of non- competitive contracts. For example, in a sample of 23 amended service contracts, 16 contracts (or 70 percent) lasted for over five years. A ccording to the Director of Finance, the general rule is for most contracts to go back out to bid every five to seven years. However, this guidance was not written in the City’s purchasing policy. In fact, Berkeley did not have any published guidance for staff on contract amendments. Additionally, in fiscal year 2024, most of Berkeley’s contracts were still reviewed and signed on paper, meaning staff hand-delivered them to different departments for approvals. During our audit, the City adopted DocuSign for some parts of the contracting process and an interdepartmental team was looking into purchasing a digital contracting system. However, short staffing and turnover in General Services and across the City made it more difficult to improve the contract process.

BACKGROUND
The City uses contracts for most services that are not done by city staff, like public artwork and towing, and for specialized goods like fire trucks. The City typically uses simpler purchase orders rather than contracts to buy goods, like office furniture and equipment for parks maintenance.

The General Services Division in the Finance Department reviews and processes all purchases of goods and services for the entire City, but staff in each department have a responsibility in purchasing goods and services for their department.

Competition among contractors helps ensure that the City is accountable for public funds spent on cont
racts and can get the best value for Berkeley residents. However, competition is not always possible or appropriate, so City policies allow for non-competitive contracts in specific circumstances, such as when emergency maintenance is needed. This primarily occurs through
either Council authorization or a waiver of competition approved by the City Manager.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will decrease reliance on non-competitive contracts.

Additionally, they will improve the contracting process overall through clearer , more consistent guidance and improved systems.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510 -981-6750 Attachments:
1: Audit
Report: City Contracts: Outdated Process Led to Non-Competitive Contracts

City of Berkeley Purchasing Manual
Section I – General Policy, Responsibilities, and Requirements

1. General Purchasing Policy
All City of Berkeley (the “City”) purchases, unless they qualify for petty cash exceptions (Section II.1) or sole/single-source contracts (Section III.7.E) must be made through a competitive process. Regardless of the value of the purchase, more than one (1) quotation, bid, or proposal is encouraged. The City Council establishes the limits for City Manager authority to approve contracts, the level of expenditure requiring Council approval, and parameters for the documented competitive processes. See Section II for current competitive thresholds, and Council approval requirements.

For goods, the City seeks to obtain either:

1. Lowest price or lowest total cost – through quotes or an Invitation for Bid (IFB)

2. Best value – through quotes or IFB with multiple factors

For services (non-trades), the City seeks to obtain:

1. Best value – through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process

For trades, the City seeks to obtain:

1. Lowest quote for the scope – through multiple quotes or IFB From a firm:
o with a valid CSLB
o registered with CA DIR
o bonded/insured as required

2. Responsibility for City Purchases
The City maintains a centralized General Services Division in the Department of Finance through which all purchases of goods and services are reviewed and processed. Each department originates Purchase Requisitions (PR) or specification requests to pursue formal bidding procedures. The PRs and specification requests are sent to General Services, where they are reviewed to ensure adequate information is provided, and best practices are followed and PRs are developed, as appropriate, into Purchase Orders (PO). See City Purchasing Procedures (Section III.4) for instructions and information for developing PRs and detailed instructions for developing RFP and IFBs (Section VIII.9).

Departments are responsible for requesting the type and quality of product or service required. In situations where a department or division is submitting a PR for another Department or division (e.g., fleet orders for vehicles and heavy equipment) the department/division submitting the order must have a specification signed off by appropriate personnel from the end user department/division. The requisitioned products or services should be described as completely as possible, without regard to manufacturer (except when applicable), to ensure that as many vendors as possible may respond to the City’s needs. A manufacturer’s part number may be cited by the

requisitioner, to assist the Buyer in sourcing the correct product. Sole/single source contracts should be avoided. The City's financial system maintains lists of vendors, cross-referenced to commodities and services (Section VIII.4). General Services staff is available for advice in the choice and applicability of vendors.

General Services is ultimately responsible for determining the means of purchase and the appropriate vendor. All purchases specifically for supplies, equipment or materials are to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, but must be of a quality consistent with the ultimate use intended. The Council may reject any and all bids. If all bids are so rejected or if no bids are received, the Council may re-advertise for new bids, or authorize the City Manager to negotiate in the open market. (See Charter Section 67.) General Services may require up to one (1) week to process a routine PR that is under the formal threshold amount ($50k-service, $100k-goods, $200k-trades), and issue the PO. The time required to process the PR is directly related to the complexity of the item, and to the extent that the end user documents the quotes. Exceptions to the one-week (1) lead time will be at the discretion of the General Services Manager, Finance Director, or the City Manager.

Only the City Manager has authority to enter into a contract/agreement with a vendor.

The authority to enter into a PO has been delegated to the General Services Manager.

All contracts, agreements and purchase orders are subject to the limits outlined in Section II.

3. Non-Competitive Solicitation
Whenever possible, multiple quotes for goods and services must be obtained and documented using either a Formal or Informal Solicitation. Non-competitive solicitations may only be used in the following circumstances:

1. Sole Source
• Only one (1) viable source is found for the needed product (i.e. through copyright/trademark or single distributor )
• It is a specialized service that is provided by a single, responsible source. The Project Manager must search for providers beyond the City in order to claim this.

2. Emergency
• There is an emergency and it is impractical for the City to seek competitive bids (Section I.4, following).

3. Other
• The City is required by an outside agency to use a product or service (i.e. a specific software being required for reporting taxes to the County) • The product or service is deeply embedded in the City’s infrastructure and it is impractical to change every 5-7 years (i.e. The City’s Enterprise Resource Planning- ERP).

In these circumstances, either a Waiver of Competitive Solicitation must be signed by the General Services Manager and the City Manager or prior approval must be received

from the City Council. If there is only a single response after a Formal or Informal Solicitation, no waiver is required since the solicitation process was completed.

Another way to procure goods/services without a solicitation is by piggybacking off an existing, competitively bid contract from another public agency. This saves time and resources by leveraging the original contract’s scope of work, pricing and schedule as long as the original contract allows for it. The existing contract/agreement must be vetted to ensure it complies with City of Berkeley purchasing policies and procedures and the new contract must have an identical scope of work. Otherwise, the contract process proceeds like any other contract and requires all the same boilerplates, attestations, insurance and signatures.

Regardless of whether or not a contract qualifies for a waiver of solicitation, most contracts should be re-bid every 5-7 years.

4. Emergency Procedures
Special procedures must be followed to obtain goods or services in the event of any emergency. City Charter Section 67(a) governs emergency purchases:

The provisions of Section 67 of this Charter shall not apply to work done or purchases made for that which is deemed by the City Manager to be an actual emergency and of urgent necessity for the preservation of life, health or property; provided, that any such expenditure in excess of an amount set by ordinance, as provided for in Section 67.4(b), must be authorized by resolution of the Council.

The City Manager will determine whether a situation constitutes an emergency. The end user department will be responsible for preparing the Information or Consent Report to submit to the City Council at the next available opportunity. In all cases, General Services shall be given a copy of the Council Report on the reasons for the emergency procurement, which will be filed with the PO.

5. Public Assistance from Federal, State or County Funding Sources Including Grant Contracting and Emergency Contracting

When the City of Berkeley receives outside funding it must use its own procurement procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations. It must also, however, meet the minimum procurement standards for the funding agency where those standards are more onerous (Federal, State, and County). Failure to follow outside agency’s procurement standards could result in a contract being deemed in violation of the funding source’s procurement rules, and requests for reimbursement could be denied. All contractual provisions from outside funding sources must be incorporated by reference in contracts using outside public funds.

It is the responsibility of the department requesting outside funding to work with the outside agency and familiarize itself with the requirements before going out to bid, contracting and receiving outside funding.

6. Departmental Communication with Vendors
Whenever a department desires information regarding the use, description, or availability of a specific product or type of product, a written request should be addressed to the General Services Division. Such information should include price quotations, catalogs, samples and/or demonstrations. Whenever vendor catalogs are requested or received by General Services, the interested departments will be sent the information or given notice of their availability for inspection.

General Services should be informed before departments contact any suppliers or their representatives with regard to pricing, product availability or technical information. In addition, General Services must be informed before the contact is made. No commitment to purchase a product or service offered may be made by anyone other than General Services staff – except when following emergency procedures (Section I.4). No particular supplier will receive preference for the order under discussion. It should be made clear to all vendors contacted by departments that competition will be required. The end user must retain copies of all correspondence with outside vendors or contractors in case of audit.

City employees must keep themselves free of any obligation to vendors by refusing to accept entertainment or gifts offered by, or on behalf of, suppliers currently or potentially serving Berkeley. See Employee Ethical Standards (Section I.6, following) for details about City employee-vendor contact.

7. Employee Ethical Standards
City Charter Section 72 prohibits certain behavior detrimental to the fair, impartial, and cost-effective procurement of goods and services.

Any officer of the City, or of any department thereof, who shall aid or assist a bidder in securing a contract to furnish labor, material, or supplies at a higher price than that proposed by any other bidder, or who shall favor one bidder over another by giving or withholding information, or who shall willfully mislead any bidder in regard to the character of the material or supplies called for, or who shall knowingly accept materials or supplies of a quality inferior to those called for by the contract, or who shall knowingly certify to a greater amount of labor performed than has been actually performed, or to the receipt of a greater amount or different kind of material or supplies than has been actually received, shall be deemed guilty of malfeasance and shall be removed from office.

Inappropriate behavior can be grounds for immediate termination of an employee. It is every employee’s responsibility to act in an ethical manner.

7. Restrictions on use of Public Funds
The City does not allow the use of public funds for any items for personal consumption or use, including but not limited to the following:

A. Employee coffee, tea, hot chocolate or related items, such as cups, creamer, sugar,

etc. Only the CMO, as the official City host center, is permitted to purchase these items on a regular basis and charge a City account.

B. Any type of food/candy for department/division staff. See AR 3.27 for allowable food/beverage purchases.

C. Catered or other food (such as donuts, sandwiches, pizza, etc.) for employee events, including and not limited to birthdays, going-away parties, etc.

See AR 3.27 for allowable food/beverage purchases
D. Bottled water at any of these sites: Civic Center, 1947 Center Street, Public Safety Building, Permit Service Center, or Main Library. Bottled water may be purchased at outlying locations with the approval of the Director of Public Works, provided there is a finding that the tap water does not meet the same standards as the above-named facilities.

E. Pens, paper, or other office supplies NOT associated with work performed specifically for the City of Berkeley.

F. Any items that are not needed to perform duties specifically for the City of Berkeley.

In accordance with AR 3.17 if the item is not needed to perform work for the City of Berkeley, it should not be purchased with public funds.

8. Requirements on Contracting with Certain Entities
Prior to contracting for services or commodities, the following restrictions must be observed. See specific Berkeley Municipal Code and Ordinance sources and citations in Section VI.

A. Oppressive States Business Policy: Resolutions 60,382-N.S., and 59,853-N.S. – 59,857-N.S. (1999) prohibit City contracts or purchases with companies that do business, or produce commodities, in the listed areas. As of June 1, 2002, the affected areas are the Tibet autonomous region and Provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang. All contracts entered into by the City of Berkeley must stipulate that the contractor is subject to this policy.

B. Nuclear Free Policy: Ordinance 5,784-N.S. (1986) prohibits contracting with any person or business that engages in “work for nuclear weapons” – defined as “work the purpose of which is the development, testing, production, maintenance, or storage of nuclear weapons or the components of nuclear weapons; or any secret or classified research or evaluation of nuclear weapons; or any operation, management, or administration of such work.”

C. Living Wage Policy: Ordinance 6,548 N.S. (2000) requires specified employers to pay a “living wage” and benefits to qualifying employees, as follows: for-profit contractors that receive more than $25,000 in City funding in a year, or non-profits receiving more than $100,000; employers in the Marina Zone that have (6) six or more employees and generate $350,000 or more in annual gross receipts; and financial aid recipients receiving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period.

Compliance is required by employers with employees who spend 25% or more of their compensated time on the City for-profit contract or in the Marina Zone. For non- profit contractors, compliance is required by employees who spend 50% or more of their compensated time on the contract.

Living wage rates are adjusted annually and posted on the City of Berkeley website at: https://berkeleyca.gov/doing-business/operating-berkeley/workforce-standards- and-enforcement. Additional requirements are 22 days per year of sick leave, vacation, personal necessity (12 of the 22 days must be compensated time).

D. Prevailing Wage: Certain labor categories under this contract may be subject to prevailing wages as identified in the State of California Labor Code commencing with Sections 1720 et. seq. and 1770 et. seq., including decisional authority interpreting these code sections. These labor categories, when employed for any “work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work,” constitute a “Public Work” within the definition of Section 1720(a)(1) of the California Labor Code requiring payment of prevailing wages. In performing its obligations under this contract, for all contracted work (including design, construction, certain maintenance activities, or any other contracted services), Contrac tor is solely responsible to determine which, if any, of the work is governed by a labor category pursuant to California Labor Code sections 1720 et. seq. and 1770 et. seq. and pay the applicable prevailing wage. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City concerning any liability arising out of Labor Code section 1720 et. seq. and 1770 et. seq.

E. Equal Benefits: Ordinance 6,623-N.S. (2001) requires that public funds be expended in a manner to prohibit discrimination in the provision of employee benefits by City contractors between employees with spouses and employees with domestic partners, and/or between domestic partners and spouses of such employees. This policy applies to for-profit entities where the contract exceeds $25,000; non-profit entities where the contract exceeds $100,000; and entities that generate $350,000 or more in annual gross receipts and, by written agreement, have exclusive use or occupancy of City property for a term exceeding 29 days in any calendar year.

F. Non-Discrimination: Ordinance 5,876-N.S. (1988) prohibits City contractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment on any grounds specified in any State, Federal, or municipal law; and to require that any existing discrimination be remedied by appropriate methods including establishment of an approved affirmative action program that is consistent with State and Federal law.

G. Disclosure of Historical Commerce in Slavery: Ordinance 6,855-N.S. (2005) mandates that any contractor providing insurance or financial services (including any bank in which the City deposits public funds) to the City must disclose in writing whether they, directly or through its parent entities, subsidiaries or predecessors in interest, engaged in commerce in slavery, including: bought or sold slaves, used

slaves as collateral, provided loans to purchase slaves, insured such transactions or the slaves, or provided any other services to aid in such transactions.

H. Sweatshop-Free Procurement: Ordinance 7,099-N.S. (2009), and 7,378-N.S. (2014) mandates that vendor that provides apparel to the City of Berkeley must provide an affidavit which discloses the physical address and phone number of the production facility. The production facilities must also adhere to or exceed the practices and policies regarding workers as outlined in the Ordinance. It applies to any procurement of apparel of any dollar value.

I. Community Workforce Agreement: Resolution No. 65,157-N.S. (2011) requires that City construction projects whose value, as estimated by the city, exceeds $1 million is subject to the Community Workforce Agreement (CWA). All contractors, including subcontractors at any tier, shall sign an Agreement to be Bound.

Contractors working on covered projects must utilize and be bound by the registration facilities and referrals systems established or authorized by the Unions who are signatory to the CWA. The agreement contains provisions regarding local hire goals, apprenticeships, prevailing wages, hiring of core workers, monitoring of good faith efforts, implementation fees and certified payrolls.

9. Restrictions on Procurements
The City restricts purchases of the following commodities under the Environmentally Preferable Preference Policy (see specific Ordinance and Resolution sources and citations in Section VII):

A. CFC-Processed Food Packaging: Ordinance 5,867-N.S. (1988) prohibits both the purchase of all CFC-processed food packaging, and the use of such packaging at any City-sponsored event.

B. Non-Polystyrene Foam Food Packaging: Ordinance 5,888-N.S. (1990) prohibits the purchase of all polystyrene foam food packaging.

C. Tropical Hardwood: Resolution 58,291-N.S. (1995) prohibits the purchase or use of tropical hardwoods and products. RFP/IFB responses containing such products are deemed non-responsive.

D. Redwood Products: Resolution 58,704-N.S. (1996) prohibits the purchase of virgin redwood products, and allows the purchase of certified sustainable harvested redwood.

E. Arsenic, Pentachlorophenol, and Creosote Treated Wood: Resolution 61,724- N.S. (2002) prohibits the purchase of all wood treated with arsenic, pentachlorophenol, or creosote.

10. Preferences on Procurements
City procurement has preferences for the following (see specific Ordinance and Resolution sources and citations in Section VII):

A. Local Business Preference Program: Resolution 69,890-N.S. (2021) sets forth the City’s local business preference program, in which departments must include local Berkeley businesses when seeking vendors for purchases of up to $100,000 for goods, and up to $250,000 for non-professional services. The purpose of this program is to provide local businesses with the opportunity to sell goods and non- professional services to the City, and to stimulate the local economy in general. It establishes a 5% differential for local purchases that do not exceed $100,000 for goods, or $250,000 for non-professional services. For professional services, local firms may earn additional points in RFP evaluation depending upon the length of time they have been a local business. This program is not applicable to public facility improvement (construction), or purchases over $100,000 for goods, or for $250,000 for services.

B. Recycled Products: Resolution 55,286-N.S. (1990) established a preference to use recycled products. The City will cooperate to the greatest extent feasible with neighboring City and County governments in an effort to develop a comprehensive, consistent and effective procurement effort intended to stimulate the market for recycled products, reusable products, and products designed to be recycled.

C. Recycled Paper: Resolution 55,327-N.S. (1990) established a preference to use 100% recycled paper, and to utilize white paper whenever possible.

D. Certified Sustainable Wood and Wood Products: Resolution 59,595-N.S. (1998) established a preference for the City to purchase certified sustainable wood and wood products; to stimulate a market for certified sustainable wood and wood products; and to encourage members of the logging industry to have their practices certified.

E. Eliminate Anthropogenic Sources of Dioxin Pollution: Resolution 60,196-N.S. (1999) established a purchasing practice that promotes the use of less toxic, non- chlorinated, sustainable alternative products and processes, such as chlorine free paper and PVC free plastics.

F. Environmental Preferable Purchasing Policy: Resolution 62,693-N.S. (2004) established an environmental purchasing policy charging the City with protecting the public health and welfare of its residents and workers, as well as the health of the environment, including: minimizing health risks to City staff and residents; minimizing the City’s contribution to global climate change; improving air quality; protecting the quality of ground and surface water; and minimizing the City’s consumption of resources.

G. Fair Trade: Resolution 64,974 (2010) supports Fair Trade initiatives consistent with all of the City’s progressive purchasing policies and that when purchasing goods, the City it will commit to procuring Fair Trade products when those products are readily available, meet applicable City standards, are competitively priced, are of comparable quality, and procured in accordance with all of the City’s existing procurement policies and Berkeley City Charter requirements.

11. Administrative Regulations
All Administrative Regulations (AR) must be followed for procurement of goods and services. The following ARs specifically apply to all procurements: AR 3.17 Fraud, Abuse, and Misuse of City Resources; AR 3.3 Petty Cash and Change Accounts; AR

3.14 FN-024 Voucher Processing. AR 1.5 Printing Services applies to any requests for outside purchase of reprographic services, which should be brought to the General Services Manager before any action is taken with outside vendors. AR 3.26 for Credit Card Use. AR 3.27 for Food and Beverage Purchases. All ARs are online on the City’s intranet.

12. Evidence of Insurance
When determined to be required by the City Attorney, and prior to commencing any work, a vendor contracting with the City must furnish evidence of general liability, workers compensation, and, if applicable, professional liability insurance, with liability limits approved by the City Attorney. Insurance is required in most cases where the vendor is performing work on City of Berkeley property or for the City of Berkeley. When insurance is required, the policy must name “City of Berkeley, its Officers, Agents, Employees, and Volunteers” as additional insured.

13. Service Providers not City Employees
In order for the City of Berkeley to comply with Federal, State, and local rules and regulations concerning employment, contracts for services must not create an employer–employee relationship between the City and the service provider: all service providers must be independent contractors. An independent contractor is a service provider who controls where, when, and how he/she works. If the City controls where, when, and how services are provided, the service provider may be considered an employee of the City, and the City would be responsible for compliance with all Federal, State, and local rules and regulations concerning an employment relationship.

Therefore, in order to avoid the possible application of employment rules and regulations to service contracts in contracting for services, the City should generally determine only what the product of the services will be, and when the specific product components must be ready. The independent contractor controls where, when, and how he/she works. All service contracts must contain mandatory language establishing that the contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City of Berkeley.

If there is any question about determination in this section, Human Resources should be consulted.

14. Business License

All Contractors doing business with the City must obtain a City of Berkeley business license per B.M.C. sections 9.04.010 and 9.04.035.

If a Contactor is exempt from the provisions of B.M.C. sections 9.04.010 and 9.04.035, the specific B.M.C. section under which it is exempt must be stated.

II – Purchasing Requirements by Price1

1. Purchases Not Exceeding $100
Out of pocket, reimbursement, petty cash, departmental p-card, if available.

Items with a total value (per order) of $50.00 or less may be procured using petty cash procedures. Generally, minor office supply needs and transportation reimbursements may be initiated and paid within the Department structure using this provision. This is not to be used for reoccurring type purchases. See Administrative Regulation 3.3 Petty Cash and Change Funds (Section I.11).

2. Purchases from $100 to $5,000
Single vendor, local. PO. Possible blue-back requirement.

The purchase of goods or services costing more than $1,000 but not exceeding $5,000 must be initiated and processed by General Services using the Requisition tool on the City's financial system. The Department using the Requisition tool on the City's financial system must enter a PR for items required. If a service could cause the City of Berkeley liability, a blue-backed contract may be required. A written quote for goods or services is to be attached to the PR.

Local Berkeley-based vendors are to be contacted for informal quotes and their quotes must be discounted by five percent when comparing the bid with a bid from a non-local vendor per the requirements of the Local Business Preference policy (Section VII.6).

Quotes are to be documented on the on-line PR in the City's financial system (Section VIII.1).

3. Purchases from $5,000 to $50,000 (Services)
Multiple written proposals, local. PO to $25k, blue back above $25k.

The purchase of a service costing more than $5,000 but not exceeding $50,000 requires informal competition. Low-risk services (typically those under $25,000) will use a PO as contract. High-risk contracts (typically those over $25,000) require a blue back contract. General Services will advise. A PR will be entered by the Department on the City's financial system. Three (3) written proposals are to be documented on the on-line PR in the City's financial system (Section VIII.1). Proposal should be specifically referenced on the PR by the department and show vendor, contact person, date, and cost.

1 The value of a purchase is determined by adding the base amount of the purchase and any addition amount that will be paid on the purchase agreement. If together these totals exceed any threshold, then the policies and procedures for the determined amount shall be followed. Sales t ax and shipping charges ARE included in this total.

Local Berkeley-based vendors are to be contacted for informal quotes and their quotes must be discounted by five percent when comparing the bid with a bid from a non-local vendor for non-professional services per the requirements of the Local Business Preference policy (Section VII.6). Quotes must be documented on the on-line PR in the City's financial system (Section VIII.1).

Obtain informal proposal procedures, list of potential bidders, and a proposal template from General Services intranet.

4. Purchases from $5,000 to $100,000 (Goods)
Multiple written quotes, local.

The purchase of a good or goods costing more than $5,000 but not exceeding $100,000 must be initiated and processed by General Services using the PR tool on the City's financial system. The department using the Requisition tool on the City's financial system must enter a PR for items required. Three (3) written quotes are required and are to be documented on the on-line the City's financial system PR (Section VIII.1). The quotes should be in writing and must be specifically referenced on the PR showing vendor, contact person, date, and cost.

Local Berkeley-based vendors are to be contacted for informal quotes and their quotes must be discounted by five percent when comparing the bid with a bid from a non-local vendor per the requirements of the Local Business Preference policy (see Section VII.6). Quotes must be documented on the on-line PR in the City's financial system (Section VIII.1).

Obtain informal proposal procedures, list of potential bidders, and a quote template from General Services intranet.

5. Purchases from $5,000 to $200,000 (Trades, aka, licensed contractors) Multiple written quotes, local. PO up to $25k, blue back above $25k.

The purchase of trade services costing more than $5,000 but not exceeding $200,000 must be initiated and processed by General Services using the PR tool on the City's financial system. The department using the Requisition tool on the City's financial system must enter a PR for items required. Three (3) written quotes are required and are to be documented on the on-line the City's financial system PR (Section VIII.1). The quotes should be in writing and must be specifically referenced on the PR showing vendor, contact person, date, and cost.

Local Berkeley-based vendors are to be contacted for informal quotes and their quotes must be discounted by five percent when comparing the bid with a bid from a non-local vendor per the requirements of the Local Business Preference policy (see Section VII.6). Quotes must be documented on the on-line PR in the City's financial system (Section VIII.1).

Obtain informal proposal procedures, list of potential bidders, and a quote template from General Services intranet.

6. The following purchases require a Formal Request for Proposal (“RFP”), or Invitation for Bid (“IFB”) process:
• Services over $50,000
• Goods over $100,000
• Public Construction / Playground (design/build & equip) over $200,000 Allow at least 60 days for this process to be completed.

Breaching those thresholds requires approval by Council before the RFP/IFB can be released to vendors for bid, and requires Council to award the resultant contract.

Berkeley law (Ordinance 6,875-N.S.) requires City Council approval of all purchases exceeding the above limits. No waivers are available except by the Council or during an emergency as defined by Section I.4. Section 67(a) of the City Charter requires that:
“Each specific improvement and each purchase of supplies, equipment or materials the expenditure for which exceeds an amount set by ordinance, as provided for in Section 67(b) hereof, shall be done by contract authorized by resolution of the Council and said contract shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder after advertising for sealed proposals for five (5) consecutive days as required by this Charter. “ The Departmental Representative (Project Manager) requiring goods or services over the formal competitive threshold must first complete the designated form (see Section X). The project manager identifies funding within the Department’s budget and sends to the Budget Division. The Budget Division approves specification requests which prompts General Services to assign a Specification umber to the project. Once the number is assigned, the Project Manager develops the RFP or IFB from the boilerplate (See Section VIII) and forwards it to General Services for review. For specific instructions on boilerplates, conditions, and required attachments (See Section VIII.9).

Once completed and ready for release General Services will post the RFP/IFB on the City of Berkeley web site and coordinate its distribution to identified vendors. If advertisement in another medium is required the Project Manager will place the advertisement and give that information to the General Services Division to be documented in the file. General Services is designated as the only office authorized to receive all vendor responses to RFP/IFB released by the City.

Opening of bids and proposals occurs on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 2:00 p.m. Bids are opened at 2180 Milvia St., 3rd floor, Finance Department (or other designated room or location at 2180 Milvia), unless exigent circumstances arise. RFPs are opened online by the team. General Services will notify the Project Manager when bids are available after they are documented on a bid abstract and stored in a shared project folder.

It is up to the Department to determine the successful vendor proposal (see Section III.8) and enter a Requisition on the City's financial system (See Section VIII.1) and/or develop a blue-backed contract (using the procedures available on the City’s intranet – Contracts Online).

7. Federal Funds Requirement

It is a requirement that when any federal money has been awarded to the City of Berkeley, the City’s policy is not to procure goods or services or make contract purchases from an entity or individual included on the federal debarment list. Any purchase or contract greater than $50,000-services, $100,000-goods, $200,000-trades, shall not be made from or with an entity or individual included on the debarment list.

The project manager must verify vendor status by checking the debarment list before a purchase is made or entering into contract.

To check for debarment, go to the federal government’s current web page(s) for listing of debarred firms:

1. https://sam.gov/content/exclusions
Include the documentation of this review with your contract when required.

III – City Purchasing Procedures

1. Introduction

This section of the manual describes common City of Berkeley Purchasing procedures.

All employees who initiate or approve the procurement of goods and services for the City must be familiar with these procedures.

2. Responsibilities of the General Services Division

It is the responsibility of General Services to process PRs into POs. GS staff process PRs into POs using the City's financial system. The PO is then sent to the vendor to obtain the needed goods or service. If the order is under $50k-services, $100k-goods, $200k-trades, PRs will be processed from one (1) to five (5) days after approval, depending on the complexity of the order. Purchases exceeding those thresholds must go through the formal bid process. See Section II for Bid and Council requirements.

General Services is responsible to ensure all Council directed requirements and Administrative Regulations are followed during the procurement process. Buyers are responsible for following all requirements and are ultimately responsible for the procurements they process.

For blue-backed contracts General Services will require five (5) days for review of contracts.

3. Responsibilities of the Operating Departments

It is the responsibility of the operating departments to determine which goods and services are required for the proper operation of their respective departments. The department inputs a PR into the City's financial system after verifying funds are available in the appropriate budget code. Staff should provide a clear, concise, and complete description or specification to General Services on the PR. The operating departments must approve PRs, and ensure funds are being used correctly. The individual approving a PR should not be a relative or near relative as outlined in AR 2.12 of the person who entered the PR to ensure an appropriate segregation of duties.

All department staff have a fiduciary duty to spend the public’s money in a way that is consistent with the City Charter, Resolutions, Ordinances, and Administrative Regulations. Documentation of all purchases made with City funds are subject to the California Public Records Act.

4. Purchasing Requisitions

The procurement of all goods should be initiated through the City's financial system on- line PR preparation and submittal process. The department or division making the request must submit and approve the PR. (See Section VIII for instructions on entering and approving PRs on-line).

• Services less than $25,000
For the procurement of low risk services, e.g., a performer at a festival, the risk of the service is to be determined by the General Services Manager or Contract Administrator. If the low-risk service is under $25,000, it can be initiated through the on-line PR preparation and submittal process, and an authorized City PO will govern the transaction. The department or division making the request must submit and approve the PR.

• Services in excess of $25,000
The procurement of services over $25,000 is to be completed through the blue- backed contract (See the intranet for “Contracts Online”) process. A PR for services on a blue-backed contract is a payment mechanism.

Certain engagements under $25,000 may require a blue back based on risk level as determined by the City Attorney and/or General Services.

The path of procurement for a combination of goods and services is determined by whether the preponderance of what is being provided by the vendor is a good or a service.

When initiating an on-line requisition, staff must provide a specific description of what is needed. A manufacturer and a manufacturer part number when available should be provided on the PR. This allows General Services to ensure the end user gets the product they need. However, General Services may make suggestions for alternate products with the same specifications to an end user if appropriate. General Services staff is available to help in this process or provide additional ideas for finding a needed commodity, service, or potential vendors. As the price of the good or service rises (see Section II requirements), the requirements for the procurement become more restrictive and time consuming.

Applicable freight, shipping, and handling charges should be included on the PR. In general, freight and shipping costs are not taxable (although handling charges are taxable). Consult the General Services division for questions on taxes and shipping. In general, most purchases of goods are subject to current sales tax. However, some purchases (such as prescription drugs bought by the HHS Department) are not taxable.

All items requisitioned should be required to meet the current operating needs of the department.

The following information should be known before beginning a requisition:

1. A description of the good or service needed, or a thorough scope of work;

2. The quantity needed;

3. The business reason for the purchase;

4. Where, when, risk of loss and title transfer for goods;

5. A reasonable delivery period and/or project schedule;

6. The correct budget code; (Look up available in the City's financial system.

Funding must be currently available for each item on the requisition. If these requirements are not meet, the Purchase Requisition cannot be processed);

7. The commodity and sub commodity code for the item; (Look up available in the City's financial system);

8. Quotes or Proposals from vendors who can provide the required goods or services;
a. Quote(s)/Proposal(s) from local Berkeley-based vendors; b. Use of the central bidders list from General Services; c. Application of the 5% local preference to compare quotes; and

9. The preferred vendor; (may be changed by General Services if the Buyer deems the price is not fair and reasonable.)

Approval of Purchase Requisitions
All Requisitions must be approved within the department (authorized personnel are designated by the department Director) before processing by the General Services Division. The approving personnel cannot be the same person as the requisition’s originator, nor can the approver be a near relative as outlined in AR 2.12. For step-by- step instructions see the PR Entry and Requisition Approval Procedures in Section VIII.

In some cases, other departments must approve certain commodity groups before General Services will issue a PO, e.g., computers, software, and peripherals need to be approved by IT prior to being requisitioned.

Pre-encumbrance/Encumbrance
Immediately following the approval of a requisition, funds are pre-encumbered against the budget code for the amount of the PR. The amount of the pre-encumbrance does not include tax. Pre-encumbered funds render the budgeted funds unavailable for additional purchases. The pre-encumbered funds remain pre-encumbered until the PR is canceled, or the Buyer prepares the purchase order. If the PR is canceled the funds are released back into the budget code from which they were pre-encumbered. When the Buyer prepares the PO, the pre-encumbrance is liquidated, and the funds are then encumbered. The amount of the encumbrance includes tax. See the Outstanding Pre- Encumbrance Report Procedure in Section IX to track encumbered amounts.

Budget Codes
The correct budget code must be used on PRs. If you are purchasing office supplies, object code -641110 should be used. There is a look up feature in the City's financial

system to identify the correct budget code. Fixed Assets must use budget codes with object code -66xxxx. Fixed assets are items which have an individual total cost of $5,000 or more (including tax and shipping) and have a useful life greater than one year. There is an exception for fixed assets individual costs if items must be used together and each component is less than $5,000 but the total cost for the units will be over $5,000. For example, Herman Miller Office Furniture where each panel is less than $5,000, but to create a cubical, five (5) panels are required and the cost of five (5) panels is above $5,000. If you have any questions about what object code to use, please contact General Services.

5. Receipt and Invoice Processing

All invoices are to be emailed to:

Accounts Payable Dept. at [email protected].

For those that cannot be emailed, use P.O. Box 700, Berkeley, CA 94701.

Departments are responsible for the timely review and approval of invoices. Invoices that are accurate, complete, and thorough are to be approved and processed so that the City can and will pay within the agreed upon terms. Net 30 is standard, though other terms may be mutually agreed upon.

If an invoice is for a blue-backed contract the invoice should be sent to the address above referencing the name of the project manager. Following delivery of the requisitioned good or service, the originating department/division must formally “receive” it using the City's financial system. See the Receiving Procedures (See Section VIII.6).

When the department/division receives a final invoice from the vendor mark the invoice “FINAL INVOICE” in red pen and Accounts Payable will electronically close the PO.

6. Liquidation of Remaining Funds on a PO

To liquidate any remaining funds on a PO a “Change Order Request” form must be submitted to General Services. (See Section X). To avoid the need to submit a “Change Order Request,” final invoices should be marked in red ink “Final Invoice” and AP will liquidate any encumbered amount after payment of that invoice.

7. Purchases Requiring Special Handling

Certain types of requests for goods and services either are not made through the PR procedure at all or are made through a modified PR procedure.

• Petty Cash Procedures. Items with a total value (per order) of $100.00 or less may be procured using petty cash procedures. Generally, minor office supply needs and transportation reimbursements may be initiated and paid within the Department structure using this provision. An item that is purchased on a regular basis should not be procured using this procedure. See AR 3.3 (See Section I.11), “Petty Cash Revolving Accounts”.

• Blanket Orders (BPO). BPOs for goods are used to establish an overall spending limit for goods that will be needed in small amounts though the fiscal year. BPOs are established for one year. A standard PR process is required, and Section II Purchasing limits apply to the entire blanket order (i.e., BPO’s in excess of City Manager’s expenditure authority ($100,000) must go to City Council). It is the responsibility of the division to ensure authorized releasers on BPOs are kept current throughout the fiscal year. Additional PRs are required to add monies to BPOs and the BPO number should be noted on the new PR. If the BPO is going to exceed the City Manager’s authority, City Council must approve increase. The quote process is not required for BPOs as prices are as billed by the vendor. Discounts are documented by General Services. BPOs where specific prices have been negotiated will remain stable through the term of the BPO. No individual order should exceed $5,000 and Fixed Assets should not be ordered on a BPO, as the object code is not correct on a BPO and instead needs to be expensed from object code -66xxxx series.

• Emergencies. In extreme circumstances, a “Field PO” may be issued by the Purchasing Division with approval of the City Manager. This situation requires the establishment of an “actual emergency and of urgent necessity for the preservation of life, health or property” (City Charter Section 67.4). Emergency purchases may not exceed the City Manager’s authority limits as set by Council (Ordinance 6875- N.S., 2005). Whenever possible, the Purchasing Division will continue to seek as many quotes or bids as would otherwise be required if the emergency did not exist.

If a purchase order will be generated using the City's financial system, purchasing staff will notify the selected vendor of the PO number and provide a department contact or delivery address for the emergency item(s).

• Warehouse Items. Certain public works and electrical items are regularly maintained and warehoused by the City. The standard requisition format on the City's financial system is used.

• Sole/Single-Source Procurements. Any procurement established by a project manager and approved by the City Manager that is considered Sole/Single-source will be processed without
a competitive bid process. When feasible the department should conduct market research to ensure the prices proposed are fair and reasonable, or request as
sistance from General Services.
• Formal RFP or IFB. Purchases expected to exceed $50,000 for services, $100,000 for goods, and $200,000 for construction must follow a strict path to ensure a valid, fair and impartial selection process. Allow at least 60 days for this process to be completed and a vendor selected. Before initiating the standard PR process, an originating Department (through a Project M
anager) will send a request for a
specification number (on a “Formal
Bid Solicitation and RFP/IFB to be issued within
30 Days” form (See Section X)
via an email to the Budget Division, with a copy to
General Services (
[email protected]). The funds must be available in the budget code identified or
no number will be issued. If General Services staff has no questions, a Specification Number w
ill be provided to the Project Manager via
email. General Services
will then submit their report to City Council based on the City Clerk’s Council
Meeting Timeline. It takes approximately 35 days from the time the report is
submitted until City Council reviews it. The bid should not be released to vendors until after
City Council has reviewed the General Services report. The Project Manager will develop the elements of an RFP or an IFB. The following information is required before beginning this process:
• Thorough description of
the goods, services, or scope of work required;
• Approximate bid or proposal opening date (this must be at least 7 days after the item has be
en on the 30-day report to Council);
• Intended use of the goods or services;
• Estimated cost;
• Confirmation of AB 339 compliance from HR;
• Budget code (ensure
that funds are available); and
• Project Manager’s contact information (for questions or consultation).

When the purchase is sufficiently described and contract elemen ts are defined (See the “Contracts Online” Manual), the full RFP/IFB may then be developed using the City of Berkeley boilerplate based on individual departmental processes.

When completed, the completed RFP/IFB is forwarded to General Services for review (if necessary, the Cit
y Attorney may be consulted at this time) and when the item has been reviewed by City Council on the “Formal Bid Solicitations and RFP/IFB Scheduled for Possible Issuance within 30 Days” report, it will be released to begin the bid process. In cases where there are very tight time constraints and, through no f ault of the end user, a bid needs to be released before approval by Council, the opening date of the bid will be at least one (1) week after review by Council.

General Services staff releases the RFP/IFB to designated vendors, posts the RFP/IFB on the City website and in designated area(s), arranges a location to physically open

the sealed bids or proposals, and invites designated city employees (as needed). This process is to ensure that all vendors who wish to bid have the opportunity to bid in a fair and open environment.

As with all detailed procurements, General Services staff is available for consultation in identifying potential vendors.

Any and all questions posed to the Project Manager need to be submitted in writing.

The Project Manager t
hen gathers all the questions and answers and submits the information to General
Services. General Services then posts the Q&A to the city’s website as an addendum
to the IFB/RFP. This ensures all vendors receive the exact same information at the
same time and no vendor is given an advantage over another.

After receiving vendors’ proposals, General Services will open the sealed bids or proposals submitt
ed by vendors. Bids are only opened on Tuesdays and Thursday at 2:00 p.m.

Sealed bids are opened at 2180 Milvia Street. RFP responses ar e opened by General Services staff
(in person or online). All IFBs and RFPs must be received prior to 2:00 p.m.
or they will be rejected. There is no exception to this time. General Services will fill
out a bid abstract at the bid opening. This form documents the vendors who responded in a timely manner to the RFP/IFB. IFB openings are open to the public. RFP openings are not ope
n to the public.

Sealed bid proposals are scanned and stored in the shared project file. RFP responses are stored in the shar
ed project folder. If a contract is required for this type of procurement information to complete this process is provided on “Contracts Online” (on the City’s intranet).

8. Competitive Formal Bid Evaluation
The criteria for selection of a vendor are dependent on the type of solicitation issued. An IFB i
s awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder. RFP criteria selection needs to be outlined in
the RFP. Proposals are evaluated on selection criteria
established in the RFP. A selection committee makes the evaluation bas ed on the criteria set forth in the RFP. (For detailed information regarding IFB/RFP, see Section VIII.9). Evaluations can include product demonstrations, a vendor conference, and reference verification. All evaluation committee member should score vendor proposals independently. Committee m
embers then rank vendors according to all evaluation
criteria as outlined in the RFP. It is very important that all vendors receive the same information. N
o vendor c
an be given an unfair advantage in submitting bids to the City.

All vendors must be treated fairly.

Local, Berkeley-based
firms, are either provided pricing consideration or the ability to earn extra evaluation points as stat
ed above.

9. Contracts – Blue-Backed

Blue backed contracts are required for services where the expenditure exceeds $25,000. Unless a pre-approved boilerplate is used, all contracts must be provided to the City Attorney for review and approval. All contracts must go through the City Manager and City Clerk. Exceptions are outlined in Section III.4 (Low-dollar, low-risk types of services.) Instructions for initiating contracts are on the City’s intranet under “Contracts Online.” The Contracts Online Manual outlines the different types of City contracts and summarizes compliance procedures. Contracts are formal written legal agreements between two or more parties, which must be written in accordance with established City procedures. These procedures should be followed for all contracts, whether the contractor is selected through the formal bid process, the RFP process or informal solicitation. Purchases of goods or supplies are made through purchase orders.

The most frequently used standard City contract is the Personal Services expenditure contract. "Personal services" primarily refers to "direct services". "Direct services" means services, other than “professional services”, which cannot be provided through the Civil Service system, such as maintenance, gardening, linen and security services. "Professional services" means services which are of an advisory or artistic nature, require advanced knowledge and personal expertise in a field of science or learning or origi
nality and creativity in a recognized field or art, and require consistent exercise of personal discretion and independent judgment, including, but not limited to, accounting, legal, architectural, or engineering services, economic, market and systems analysis, program evaluation, operations research, development of unique computer programs, training, medical service, and legal advice or representation. Those engagements utilize a “Professional Services Contract”.

Certain engagements under $25,000 may require a blue back contract based on risk level as determined by the City Attorney and/or General Services.

Contracts General Services will require five (5) days for review.

10. Piggyback and Cooperative contracts

One way to procure goods/services without a solicitation is by piggybacking off an existing, competitively bid contract from another public agency. This saves time and resources by leveraging the original contract’s scope of work, pricing and schedule as long as the original contract allows for it. The existing contract/agreement must be vetted to ensure it complies with City of Berkeley purchasing policies and procedures and the new contract must have an identical scope of work. Otherwise, the contract process proceeds like any other contract and requires all the same boilerplates, attestations, insurance and signatures.

11. Sole Source and Single Source

Should a procurement be needed through use of a sole source (only one true provider), or single source (multiple providers, but not amenable for competition), departments should conduct market research to justify the business case for such an action. A waiver is required and should be based upon the market research and reasonable conclusion to only use one source.

12. Protest of Award

Anyone may protest a decision to award a bid. The protesting party must first submit a letter
to the Proj
ect Manager describing the basis of the protest. The Project Manager then reviews the basis of the protest, sends a copy to the apparent low bidder for comments/rebuttal and then reviews the protest with Legal and General Services before making a determination on the validity of the protest. If necessary and at the City’s sole discretion, the Project Manager and/or Department Director may hold an informal hearing with all interested bidders prior to making a decision. If the contract is a City Council approved contract, the matter is then brought before Council as part of the award process along with a recommendation for disposition of the protest.

General Services Division - Purchasing

Procurement Ethics Policy
The Purchasing Staff in the General Services Division subscribe to the following procurement ethics policy as administered by California Association of Public Procurement Officials (CAPPO):

To regard public service as a sacred trust, giving primary consideration to the interests of the public agency that employs us,
To purchase without prejudice, seeking to obtain the maximum value for each dollar expended, To avoid unfair practices, giving all qualified vendors equal opportunity, To honor our obligations and require that obligations to our public agency be honored, To accord vendor representatives courteous treatment, remembering that these representatives are important sources of information and assistance in solving our procurement needs,
To refuse to accept any form of commercial bribery, and prevent any appearance of so doing, To be receptive to counsel from our colleagues, and to cooperate with them to promote a spirit of teamwork and unity,
To conduct ourselves with fairness and dignity, and to demand honesty and truth in the procurement process,
To strive for greater knowledge of procurement methods and of the materials we purchase, To cooperate with all organizations and individuals involved in activities designed to enhance the development of the procurement profession, remembering that our actions reflect on the entire procurement profession.

Darryl Sweet, MSCM, CPSM
General Services Manager
City of Berkeley

Revised November 2025
Posted on intranet January 2026

Revisions in this version:
• Section 1.3 – Rewritten for clarity and consistency with waiver form. Added recommended re- bid schedule for contracts
• Section 3.10 – Rewritten for clarity

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: Berkeley Flea Market End-of-the-Season Fall Festival/Halloween Celebration Event:

Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $600 from Councilmember Ben Bartlett, for the End-of-the-Season Fall Festival / Halloween Celebration of the South Berkeley Flea Market at Ashby BART, organized by Community Services United, a 501(c)3, with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Bartlett and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

CURRENT SITUATION:

The South Berkeley Flea Market (BFM), organized by Community Services United, is celebrating the Harvest Day on October 24, 2026, as a Fall Festival and on October 31, 2026, as a Halloween Celebration.

Celebrating the season while shopping with local vendors and discovering unique finds. The two events also mark the End-of-Season celebration for the Flea Market, as the Flea Market will hold the event of the Season outdoors due to expected cold weather (The Flea Market expects to remain open every weekend year-round except days that have heavy rain and/or wind.) October 24th, the Fall Event is BFM's first annual food festival! The purpose of this event will be to highlight local growers and farmers' produce with live music and entertainment. Madam President will be serving $5 healthy meals of succotash and brown rice bowls, fresh-cut fruit bowls, and bottled water.

Participants will include Ecology Center’s Farmer’s Market, The Garden Project, and Soul Flower Farm as local growers. Entertainment will include Carah H, soft line dance instructor, Kazemde’s Jazz Band, and International DJ Al.

On October 31st, BFM will host its first annual Halloween Celebration! The purpose of this event will be to distribute candy and wellness snacks for South and West Berkeley community children and families.

Participants will include consumer traffic. Entertainment will include International DJ Al. Vendors will have costumes, fashion clothing, and trinkets for your shopping convenience and fun for all! BACKGROUND:

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 2 The Berkeley Flea Market emerged in the early 1970s in Berkeley, California, during a period marked by social activism, cultural expression, and economic experimentation. As the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system expanded, and the land surrounding the Ashby BART Station became an informal gathering place for artists, craftspeople, musicians, and small entrepreneurs. What began as a grassroots vending activity evolved into a recognized community market.

By the 1980s and 1990s, the Berkeley Flea Market had become a major weekend destination in the East Bay. It was known for its diversity of vendors offering handmade goods, vintage items, global foods, and art rooted in African, African American, Caribbean, and diasporic traditions. Live music, spoken words, and cultural exchange were integral to the market, establishing it as both a commercial and cultural institution. In this context, the Berkeley Flea Market became a community-based economic response, offering self-employment and cultural space near transit- adjacent land.

The purpose of the Harvest Day event is to introduce underserved communities to agricultural production. The Halloween Celebration will reward South Berkeley resident households with sweet treats and outdoor entertainment.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No negative impact.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact; $600 is available from Councilmember Ben Bartlett's discretionary office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett.

CONTACT PERSON:

Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]
ATTACHMENT:

1. Event Flyer

2. Resolution to authorize the expenditure of surplus funds added.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 3 Attachment 1:

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 4 Attachment 2:

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

AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE

ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO PROVIDE

PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Councilmember Bartlett has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation, Community Services United, will receive the funds; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose:

Community Services United promotes greater societal cohesiveness and well-being by educating and involving the community-at-large in historical, family, and cultural activities; and WHEREAS, Community Services United hosts various activities, including monthly celebrations and seasonal cultural events such as Art Walk, Music at the Market, Job Fair at the Market, and End-of- the-Season Fall Festival / Halloween Celebration; and
WHEREAS, cultural celebrations are critical to the social and spiritual unity of our community, and are integrated into Community Services United events; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their council office budget, of an amount to be determined by each Councilmember, shall be granted to Community Services United.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author)
Subject: Harriet Tubman Terrace residents' low-income housing Bay Cruise Lunch event on Thursday, November, 5, 2026 - Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $500 from the discretionary Council Office Budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett for the Harriet Tubman Terrace residents' low-income housing Bay Cruise Lunch event on Thursday, November, 5, 2026, to Nonprofit and 501(c)3: Lifesteps, to fund operational resources. 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.

BACKGROUND:

On November 5, 2026, Life Steps and Asset Living Management will host a Bay Cruise Lunch event for Harriet Tubman Terrace Residents, home to low-income senior and disabled residents, many of whom have never had the opportunity to ride a ferry, board a cruise ship, or travel beyond Berkeley. This recreational event provides an opportunity for social engagement, joy, and exposure to new experiences that enhance quality of life.

The event will run from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM at The Berkley Port. The event will strengthen community engagement and boost morale among seniors who travel infrequently. Harriet Tubman Terrace was built in 1970; it started off as a Safe Haven for musicians. It later became a beacon of low-income affordable housing for Seniors and people with disabilities. Harriet Tubman Terrace is named after a human rights activist who helped free salves. Harriet Tubman Terrace legacy lives on through the residents of Harriet Tubman Terrace and beyond. The program features monthly guest speakers, Jazzy Therapy, and interactive activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

No negative impact.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There is no General Fund impact; $500 is available from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett.

CONTACT PERSON:

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 2 Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected] James Chang [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution

2. Harriet Tubman Terrace Residents' Bay Cruise Lunch Flyer

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 3 Attachment 1:

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

AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE

ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR A DONATION TO

LIFESTEPS NONPROFIT FOR HARRIET TUBMAN TERRACE RESIDENTS' LOW-

INCOME HOUSING BAY CRUISE LUNCH EVENT
WHEREAS, Councilmember Ben Bartlett has funds in his office expenditure account; and WHEREAS, Lights of Tomorrow, a non-profit organization, will receive funds in the amount of $500 from Councilmember Ben Bartlett’s office expenditure account; and WHEREAS, the Lifesteps nonprofit and Harriet Tubman supports seniors through educational, community, and volunteer programs that connect them with positive experiences from the community; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of such services would fulfill the municipal public purpose of providing seniors with educational programs and activities to empower them to build a more fulfilling and prosperous future; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their office budgets, of an amount to be determined by each Councilmember, shall be granted to Lifesteps nonprofit for Asset Living Management for a Bay Cruise Lunch event for Harriet Tubman Terrace on November 5, 2026

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 4 Attachment 2:

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7150 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903

CONSENT CALENDAR
October 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe
Submitted by: Rebecca Alcalá-Veraflor, Director of Library Services SUBJECT: Appointment of Charles “Court” Jackson to the Board of Library Trustees

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution appointing Charles “Court” Jackson to the Board of Library Trustees (“BOLT”) for a term of four years beginning November 4, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No fiscal impacts.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
At the October 7,2026, regular meeting of the Board of Library Trustees, Trustees voted to recommend that the City Council appoint Charles “Court” Jackson for a 4-year term on the Board.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Section 30 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, “[f]ive Library Trustees shall be appointed and may be removed by a vote of five members of the Council.” BMC Section 3.04.010 further provides that “[t]he term of office of the members of the board shall be four (4) years.” In addition, it is traditional that BOLT formally recommends to the City Council a preferred candidate for appointment.

The process BOLT undertakes to identify and recommend a candidate is to broadly promote the Board vacancy to the general public, review questionnaire responses, interview all candidates at a public meeting or meetings, and vote to recommend an applicant to the City Council for appointment. The Board of Trustees Vacancies Policy most recently updated in December 2023 outlines the process for selecting a nominee for appointment.

Trustee Roth’s final term formally ended on January 3, 2026. President Beverly Greene appointed the ad hoc nominating subcommittee at the February 4, 2026, regular BOLT meeting. Recruitment opened from February 25 to March 31, and a total of twenty-one people applied.

After review of the applicant pool, committee members President Greene & Trustee Roth selected seven candidates to meet virtually and prescreen before making a recommendation to the Board of five candidates to interview, per the Board of Library Trustees Vacancies Policy.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Candidate interviews were held at the September 2, regular BOLT meeting. Five people were invited to participate in the public interview, but only 4 were interviewed.

On October 7, BOLT engaged in an informal discussion of the candidates, followed by a vote.

BOLT’s recommendation will be referred to City Council. A majority vote of all the members of the City Council is required to appoint a member to the board.

The new Trustee’s term is anticipated to begin November 4, 2026.

After thoughtful consideration, BOLT voted to approve Resolution No.: 26-55 (Attachment 2), recommending that the City Council appoint the preferred candidate, Charles “Court” Jackson, to the Board of Library Trustees.

Vote: Ayes: Trustees O’Keefe, Roth, Greene and Ami. Noes: None. Abstentions: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Council needs to appoint a new Trustee for a 4-year term to fill the current vacancy, fulfilling the Charter requirement that the Board consists of five members.

Charles “Court” Jackson has been recommended by the BOLT and exceeds the stated qualifications and experience desired in a Trustee, including (1) a demonstrated commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion, (2) executive leadership, business, financial and administrative skills, (3) leadership experience in community-based, non- profit, or government agencies, and (4) strong public library advocacy and a passion for lifelong learning and community engagement.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Rebecca Alcalá-Veraflor, Director of Library Services and Secretary to the Board of Library Trustees
510-981-6195
Attachments:

1. Resolution