Berkeley City Council Special Meeting - March 27, 2025

Note: The agenda listed the meeting date as March 25, 2025, but the provided timestamp indicates the meeting occurred on March 27, 2025 at 20:00 UTC. This summary uses the timestamp date as instructed.

The Berkeley City Council held a special meeting on March 27, 2025, primarily to receive a detailed presentation on pavement management and infrastructure planning in light of the newly passed Measure FF parcel tax, and to adopt the prioritized list of outstanding city council referrals using Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV). The meeting was conducted in a hybrid format. All eight council members were present except Councilmember Bartlett, who was absent. The consent calendar was approved unanimously, and the RRV resolution was adopted unanimously.

Consent Calendar

• Item 1: Amend Memorandums of Understanding for Represented Employee Groups to Include Cesar Chavez Day as a Paid City Holiday – The council unanimously approved a resolution adding Cesar Chavez Day (observed the last Monday of March) as a paid city holiday beginning in 2025. The City Manager noted the item codifies an agreement reached in closed session.

Public Comments & Testimony

• On Pavement Management Presentation (Item 2):
  • Margot Schuler (former Public Works Commissioner) highlighted that the StreetSaver software is geared for asphalt, making it difficult to integrate innovative materials. She noted that asphalt is damaging to salmon and urged reconsideration of materials. She also raised concerns about coordinating with other departments (e.g., Parks for street trees) and the complexity of bundling utility work across multiple jurisdictions.
  • Ray Yep (former Public Works Commissioner, former Transportation Infrastructure Commission member) congratulated staff and credited the former Public Works Commission, city auditors, former Mayor Jesse Arreguín, and current council members for advancing infrastructure funding.
  • Gordon Wozniak (former councilmember) argued that a flat PCI after 14 years is unacceptable and urged reducing overhead, earning higher interest on idle funds, and considering permeable pavers for heavy-traffic streets.
  • Nancy Rader (District 6, Berkeley’s for Accessible Rights of Way) urged a holistic approach that prioritizes ADA compliance and accessibility for disabled and senior populations, noting that the presentation lacked focus on these issues.
  • Blair Beekman (San Jose resident) commented on meeting procedure and urged the council to adopt tech accountability best practices.
  • Helen Walsh (Berkeley’s for Accessible Rights of Way, Commission on Disability) expressed concern that ADA transition plan updates were not positively integrated, and that ADA requirements were described only as an unfunded 40% cost on paving dollars.
  • Meryl Siegel (District 1) requested that businesses be included in planning and public engagement.
  • A fourth online speaker (Shana Rush) declined to comment after clarifying the agenda item.
• On RRV Referral Prioritization (Item 3):
  • Blair Beekman offered procedural good wishes.

Discussion Items

• Pavement Management & Infrastructure Planning Presentation (Item 2):
  • Staff Presentation: Director Terrance Davis, along with consultants Joe Ryrie (PEI) and Wahid Amiri (Deputy Director), presented a comprehensive overview. Key statistics: city maintains 212.8 center-line miles of roadway (39 million sq ft), average PCI of 56 (regional average is 67). To maintain the current condition requires $26.2M/year; to increase PCI by 5 points would need $41.7M/year. The city’s deferred roadway-related infrastructure needs total approximately $420M (roads $250M, sidewalks $62M, bicycle safety $62M, pedestrian plan $61M, ADA $47M, green infrastructure costs variable).
  • Measure FF Funding: Year one revenue estimated at $15.6M (60% streets, 30% safety, 10% environmental). The assessment can be escalated annually by CPI or Personal Income Growth. The council will have a choice each May. The first FF revenues are expected in December 2025, with the first round of projects potentially ready for summer 2026 construction.
  • Policy Discussion: Staff presented a list of potential policy considerations for future council action, including: evaluating additional impact fees (e.g., for heavy vehicles/EVs), negotiating broader utility trench repairs, bundling projects geographically for cost savings, and establishing a dedicated green infrastructure funding stream. Staff emphasized that the current paving plan goal of achieving a 70 PCI is likely unattainable due to cost escalations.
  • Council Questions and Comments:
    • Councilmember Kesarwani raised concerns about the accuracy of the “current budget” slide ($9.9M general fund for pavement) and the inclusion of non-local funds (e.g., gas tax, Measure BB) to meet the 15.3M maintenance-of-effort requirement. She requested a clear breakdown showing how all funding sources combine to project PCI improvements. She also expressed concern about lengthy, expensive public processes that delay safety improvements.
    • Councilmember Humbert asked about integrating FF projects into the capital program, staffing up to reduce consultant reliance, and ensuring the transportation division is more involved in paving decisions. He noted that Claremont and Oxford corridors are due for paving and corridor studies, and that the fire department has plans for Claremont. He also asked about the existing “dig once” policy and what the council can do to support staff.
    • Councilmember Blackaby asked about the distinction between sidewalk repair and new sidewalk construction, the use of critical point management in pavement selection, and the need to consider liability from poor streets. He requested future data on traffic usage by road classification and expressed interest in adding evacuation routes and historical repaving frequency to prioritization criteria. He also asked about the timeline for a new prioritization framework (target: May–June 2025) and about coordinating oversight bodies (SOC vs. TIC).
    • Councilmember Taplin asked about the timeline for a unified planning strategy (target: October 2025), staffing updates (vacancy rate reduced to ~12%), and the front-loaded revenue from Measure FF (150% of rate in year one). He asked about leveraging a road user charge for EVs, economic uncertainty in 10-year projections, community notification improvements (a dedicated engagement position is planned), and regional coordination with neighbors.
    • Councilmember Tregub asked about the timeline for a unified strategy, staffing, leveraging front-loaded FF revenue, grant opportunities (noting no grant writer currently), road user charges, economic uncertainty, community notification, and regional coordination. He also requested a clear line showing what PCI improvement is achievable under FF.
    • Councilmember Lunaparra asked about the risk of increased speeds after repaving and whether post-project analysis is built in. Staff confirmed that a task force is developing pre- and post-analysis to assess traffic metrics and that additional features (e.g., traffic calming) will be incorporated if data support it.
    • Councilmember Bartlett asked about drivers of cost escalation—staff cited traffic control (300% increase), labor (prevailing wage), and regulatory changes (independent trucker prevailing wage).
    • Councilmember O’Keefe asked about the formal approval process for the new prioritization criteria. Staff indicated that the criteria will be presented to council for discussion and will ultimately be embedded in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adoption process, which requires council approval.
• 2025 City Council Referral Prioritization Results Using Re-Weighted Range Voting (RRV) (Item 3):
  • City Clerk Presentation: Mark Numainville explained the RRV process: each council member scored outstanding referrals (0–5), and the algorithm produced a ranked list of 43 priorities. Public Works had the most referrals (four of the top six). The city manager has discretion to adjust assignments based on departmental capacity.
  • Council Action: Councilmember Taplin moved adoption of the resolution approving the prioritized list, seconded by Councilmember Tregub. The resolution passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously.
• Pavement Management Presentation: No formal vote; the presentation was received as a workshop. Staff will incorporate council feedback into the planning process, including developing a new prioritization framework, improving community engagement, and refining funding projections.
• RRV Referral Prioritization: Resolution adopting the prioritized list of 43 council referrals approved unanimously.
• Next Steps: Staff will recruit for the Measure FF Citizens Oversight Committee (applications due April 15, 2025); begin integrated planning and design work in May 2025; continue public engagement; and aim for first FF-funded projects in summer 2026. The council will receive ongoing updates and policy recommendations for approval.