Transcription Metadata

Whisper API Version 1
Generated 2026-02-11 23:37:41 UTC
Archive URI berkeley_ccaf99c8-1725-42ee-8bd7-cbdf567310aa.ogg

Segment 1

Okay.
Hi everyone.
I'm calling to order the special Berkeley City Council meeting.
Today is Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.
It is 5.02 and are you going to take the roll from the front? Okay.
Clerk, please take the roll.
Okay.
Council member Kesarwani is currently absent.
Council member Taplin? Present.
Council member Bartlett is currently absent.
Council member Tregub? Present.
O'Keefe? I'm here.
Council member Blackabay is currently absent.
Council member Lunaparra? Here.
Humbert? Present.
And Mayor Ishii? Quorum is present.
Wendy, will you turn down the room volume? It's a little hot.
So that maybe that that sounds a lot better.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
Moving on to item number one, 2026 City Council referral prior prioritization results using reweighted range voting, RRV.
And I will pass it over to you, Mr.
City Clerk.
Thank you, Mayor.
Good evening, Mayor and Council members.
My name is Mark Newmanville, I'm the City Clerk for the City of Berkeley and I'm reporting to you on part two of the City Council referral prioritization process.
I will just take a moment here, bring up the PowerPoint.
It's very short.
Okay.
So today is part two of the process.
On January 27th we did part one where we looked at the raw scores that were assigned to all the referrals by the Mayor and Council members and we also voted to remove 14 referrals from the list.
For the remaining 39 referrals we used the ranked choice, I'm sorry, not ranked choice voting, reweighted range voting algorithm to rank those referrals based on the scores.
And we are presenting the final ranked list to the Council today for adoption.
So that's the action that's requested today.
So just a quick recap for reweighted range.
So there's a list of referrals that the Council has adopted and have been referred to the City Manager, City Attorney.
For each referral, Council member rates every referral from zero to five.
There's no limit to repeat scores.
The scores are tallied.
The referral with the highest score becomes the first priority.
Then for the remaining referrals, the scores are reweighted and then the referrals are ranked using a weighted formula based on how much influence each Council member has used up to that point by the scores they have assigned.
So in the report, in the item, in Attachment 1, Exhibit A is the final rankings based on the algorithm.
In this case, we had a little unusual situation where we had three referrals, all of which are for Public Works, that tied for the number one priority.
So all three of these were assigned the number one top position and then the algorithm was applied starting with the next highest referral.
And we kept the tie in place because it more closely aligns with how the RRV algorithm is intended to work.
If we had run the algorithm, then a lower ranked referral, you know, could have jumped one of the three that tied for first place, which wouldn't have sort of accurately reflected the intent of how the RRV is supposed to work.
So we have three that are tied for the top position and then the rest are scored and ranked using the algorithm and the weighted voting values.
So these are the results for this year.
Congratulations to the Public Works Department.
They not only have half of the top 20 referrals, but they have 19 of the 39 total referrals.
You can see how it shakes out amongst the remaining departments here on this slide, which sort of leads us into, you know, the obvious question of how the staff addresses the referrals.
And of course, you see that certain departments are overrepresented on the list and even high up on the list.
So there's obviously a capacity and workload issue there.
So there is some discretion for the city manager and the department heads that they have in assigning which referrals and how many of the referrals a given department can start working on first.
But there is a general understanding that every department will at least determine what resources are needed to start work on their top referral on the list, no matter where it falls on the prioritized list.
So again, just to recap the action for this meeting, which is to review the list, council could still determine if they want to remove any additional referrals based on how the rankings played out.
If the council did want to remove any, we would have a motion and a vote to do that.
But the primary objective today is to simply adopt the list of the 39 prioritized referrals for 2026.
And then the council will have this information, the city manager, city attorney, charter offices, and the budget and finance committee.
And it can factor into our planning purposes for this upcoming year.
So that's all I have for you with regards to the presentation and happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you very much, Mr.
City Clerk.
Are there any questions from council? Seeing no questions in that case, I will see if there's any public comment on this item.
Jeff Lomax, within our means, Berkeley.
After asking residents to absorb a 10 to 25 percent increase in property taxes through measures you championed and parcel tax inflators you approved on consent, you've made no meaningful structural changes to reduce the city's $30 million deficit.
Your response has not been strategic reform.
It's been blunt instruments of more taxes and more borrowing.
Endorsing a theater tax that selectively picks winners and losers.
Taking money from one business to subsidize another.
Raising the sales tax.
And now you're seeking in the fourth item, second on the list, more permanent borrowing authority to put deficit financing on autopilot.
This is not fiscal stewardship.
It's death by a thousand cuts.
It's a crushing middle and fixed income residents and small businesses that can't absorb endless new assessments to subsidize special interests.
So the next time you speak about the missing middle or affordability, I urge you to look in the mirror.
Policies like item 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2 are not the solution.
They're the problem.
Thank you.
Did you have a public comment on this item? That's okay.
We have another regular meeting later.
This is a special meeting.
You can come to the next meeting for that one.
Yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you.
At six o'clock.
Yeah.
At six o'clock.
Feel free to hang out.
Is there another comment, public comment on this item? Hi.
I just wanted to make a brief comment regarding the rezoning of the Gilman Street from San Pablo to I-80 in regard to manufacturing research and development.
Listed as priority number four on this list of potential items that green light as a lump.
But I do think that would have a significant effect on the culture of that district that ought to be taken into consideration because I mean a lot of the technological proliferation in the city of Berkeley is due to the UC and it doesn't need to kill out the culture that grows on the streets of Berkeley for which Berkeley is so famous and is true to the spirit of its character.
So I just wanted to bring that to y'all's attention and make sure you take the proper precautions in regard to that potential rezoning.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other public comment maybe online? There's one hand raised on the Zoom and that is Paul Matthew.
Paul, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member.
I hope you can hear me or rather whole council.
I hope you can hear me.
I've been a Berkeley resident for about 19 years.
I appreciate that the council and staff have this structured process for prioritizing and ranking referrals.
So just want to commend you for that actually.
First, I want to comment on the fourth item on fiscal policies and bond issuance.
In general, I definitely support the idea of a structured process backed up by good analysis and I especially like the idea of benchmarking against best practices in other cities.
So I was really glad to see that.
I have two concerns which are really what I see as more as omissions and I think the whole item would be strengthened by addressing those.
I think any analysis on bond issuance should explicitly and carefully analyze impacts on property taxes and financial strain on homeowners.
Just an example from my own personal case, I'm a UC retiree on a pension and I get an annual 2% increase on that pension.
Last year, my property taxes, the fixed assessments went up by 27%.
So those kinds of strains are not just on me but many other people like me.
So I think any analysis must look at impacts on financial strain on homeowners with property taxes.
The second item is that we need to look at life cycle operating costs because these bonds are for capital cost items.
I get that and that makes sense that capital costs are covered by bonds but once the building is built, there are obviously life cycle costs, maintenance costs and I think any analysis should cover that as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other public comment online? No other hands raised.
Okay, very well.
Are there any comments from council? I do.
Yes, Council Member Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I want to thank the city clerk and the city manager's office for their work on this effort.
I also want to thank my illustrious predecessor, Council Member Lori Droste for bringing this process to council some number of years ago.
I know that our budget situation, our ability to work on even the most high priority items is going to be limited but I nonetheless think this is a great exercise for us to do in order to contemplate and compare our priorities and on council and try to get on the same page about what we'd like to see done given limited resources.
I'll add that the main theme I'm seeing here is an emphasis on infrastructure, shared streets and pedestrian and bicycle safety and I'm very gratified that we have a strong consensus around these public realm efforts that are so important for you know safety and quality of life.
I'm prepared to approve this list and we'll hold out hope that with various public funds grants and maybe future revenue increases we'll be able to tackle all the high priority items on the list.
Thanks.
Thank you Council Member Lunapara.
Thank you Vice Mayor.
I'll move to approve the staff recommendation.
Second.
Okay clerk can you please take the roll? Okay to adopt the prioritized list of referrals.
Council Member Taplin.
Yes.
Council Member Tradeb.
Aye.
Oki.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary Ishii.
Yes.
Okay motion carries.
Very good.
Thank you very much.
This is the last item on our special agenda meeting packet so our calendar.
Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.
Second.
Okay can you take the roll for that please clerk? Okay Council Member Taplin.
Yes.
Tradeb.
Aye.
Oki.
Yes.
Lunapara.
Yes.
Humbert.
Yes.
And Mary Ishii.
Yes.
Okay we are adjourned.
Thank you very much.
All right our regular meeting will start at 6 p.m.