Okay.

Hi, everyone.

I'm calling to order the special Berkeley City Council meeting.

Today is Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

It is 502.

And are you going to take the roll from the front?

Okay.

Clerk, please take the roll.

Okay.

Councilmember Casarwani is currently absent.

Councilmember Taplan.

Present.

Councilmember Bartlett is currently absent.

Councilmember Trekub.

Present.

O'Keefe.

I'm here.

Councilmember Blackwell is currently absent.

Councilmember Lunapara.

Here.

Humbert.

Present.

And Mayor Ishi.

Quorum is present.

Wendy, will you turn down the room volume?

So 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 re-weighted 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.

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 uh 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.

I'll just use RRV for the rest of the presentation.

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.

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 uh in the item in attachment one exhibit A is the final rankings based on the algorithm.

In this case, uh we had a little unusual situation where we had three referrals, uh 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 RRB algorithm is intended to work.

Um, 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, so which wouldn't have sort of accurately reflected the 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 uh for this year.

Umgratulations to the public works department.

They not only have half of the top 20 referrals, but they have 19 of the 39 total referrals.

Uh you can see how it shakes out amongst the remaining departments uh here on this slide, with which uh sort of leads us into you know the the obvious question of how the staff addresses the referrals and uh of course you see that certain departments are um overrepresented uh 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 to uh that they have in assigning which referrals and how many of the referrals uh given department can start working on first.

But uh 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 prioritize list.

So again, just to recap the action for this meeting, which is to review the list.

Uh council could still determine if they want to remove any additional referrals based on how the rankings um played out.

Um if you if the council did want to remove any, we would have a motion and a vote to do that.

Um, but the primary uh objective today is to simply adopt the list of the 39 prioritized referrals for 2026, um, 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?

Uh seeing no questions.

Um in that case, I will see if there's any public comment on this item.

Uh good afternoon.

Jeff Lomax with our within our means Berkeley's.

Um, 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 dollar deficit.

Uh 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 four, three, two, three, three, two, three, two, are not the solution.

They're the problem.

Thank you.

Did you have a public comment on this item?

Well, I might be at the wrong one.

That's okay that we have another regular meeting later.

This is a special meeting.

Uh you can come to the next meeting for that one.

Yes.

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.

Um I just want to make a brief comment regarding the rezoning of uh the Gilman Street from San Pablo to I 80 in regards to manufacturing research and development.

Um listed as priority number four on um this list of potential items that green light as lump.

Um 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.

Um is true to the spirit of character.

Um I just wanted to bring that to y'all's attention and um 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 uh on the zoom, and that is Paul Matthew.

Paul, you should be able to unmute.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, council member.

I hope you can hear me.

Uh rather, whole council.

I hope you can hear me.

Um I've been a Berkeley resident for about 19 years.

Uh I appreciate that the council and staff have this structured process for prioritizing and ranking referral.

So just want to commend you for that actually.

First, um, I want to comment on the fourth item on fiscal policies and bond issuance.

Um, in general, I 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.

Um, I have two concerns, uh, which are really what I see is more as omissions, and we I think it would be uh the the whole item would be strengthened by addressing those.

But I think any analysis on bond issuance should explicitly be in carefully analyze impacts on property taxes and the financial strain on homeowners.

Uh, just an example for my own personal case.

You know, I'm a UC retiree uh on a pension, and uh I got an annual 2% increase on that pension.

Last year, my property taxes, the fixed assessments went up by 27%.

So, you know, it's it's just it those kinds of strains are not just on me, but many other people like me.

Um, so I think it re any analysis must look at impacts on uh financial strain on homeowners with property taxes.

Uh and the second item is that we need to look at lifecycle operating costs for because these bonds are for capital cost items.

I get that, and that makes sense that capital costs are covered by bonds.

Um, but you know, once the building is built, uh, there are obviously life cycle costs, maintenance costs, and I think any analysis should uh cover that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other public comment online, no other hands raised.

Okay, very well.

Um are there any comments from council?

Our motion.

Yeah.

I do.

Yes, Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um 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, Councilmember 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 among 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 will 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, Councilmember Lunapara.

Thank you.

Um 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.

Uh Councilmember Taplin?

Yes.

Councilmember Tregub, aye.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert?

Yes.

And Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

Um, this is the last item on our special agenda meeting packet, so uh our calendar.

Uh is there a motion to adjourn?

So second.

Okay.

Can you take the roll for that, please, Clerk?

Okay.

Councilmember Taplan.

Yes.

O'Keefe?

Yes.

Lunapara.

Yes.

Humbert?

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

We are adjourned.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Our regular meeting will start at 6 p.m.