Berkeley City Council Special Meeting: February 10, 2026 - Referral Prioritization Adoption

The Berkeley City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 5:02 PM to receive and adopt the prioritized list of City Council referrals for 2026, generated using reweighted range voting (RRV). The meeting included a presentation from the City Clerk, public comment from three speakers, discussion among councilmembers, and a unanimous vote to adopt the list.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jeff Lomax (Our Within Our Means Berkeley) criticized the council for tax increases and borrowing, stating that residents have absorbed 10–25% increases in property taxes through measures championed by the council, and that the city has made no meaningful structural changes to reduce the $30 million deficit. He opposed fiscal policies including permanent borrowing authority, calling them a "death by a thousand cuts" for middle- and fixed-income residents and small businesses. (He later noted he might be speaking on the wrong item and was directed to the regular meeting at 6 PM.)
• An unscheduled speaker commented on priority #4 regarding rezoning of Gilman Street from San Pablo to I-80 for manufacturing and research and development, urging caution about the effect on the cultural character of that district tied to UC Berkeley.
• Paul Matthew (19-year Berkeley resident, UC retiree) commended the structured prioritization process but raised two concerns about item 4 (fiscal policies and bond issuance): (1) any analysis on bond issuance should carefully examine impacts on property taxes and financial strain on homeowners—he noted his property taxes (fixed assessments) rose 27% while his pension increased only 2%; (2) lifecycle operating and maintenance costs for capital projects funded by bonds should be included in the analysis.

Discussion Items

• Presentation on RRV Results: City Clerk Mark Newmanville presented the results of the second part of the referral prioritization process. On January 27, the council removed 14 referrals, leaving 39. These 39 were ranked using the reweighted range voting algorithm based on councilmember scores (0–5). Three referrals (all public works) tied for the top priority; the tie was kept to accurately reflect the algorithm’s intent. The final ranked list (Exhibit A) shows public works has 19 of 39 referrals and half of the top 20. The city manager and department heads have discretion to assign workload, but each department is expected to at least determine resource needs for its top-ranked referral.
• Council Discussion: Councilmember Humbert thanked the city clerk and manager’s office, and acknowledged former Councilmember Lori Droste for initiating the process. She noted the budget situation will limit work even on high-priority items but called the exercise valuable for setting priorities. She observed a consensus around infrastructure, shared streets, and pedestrian/bicycle safety, and expressed hope that grants and future revenue increases will help tackle all high-priority items.

Key Outcomes

• Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lunapara moved to adopt the staff recommendation (approve the prioritized list of referrals), seconded by another member. The roll call vote was: Councilmembers Taplin (yes), Tregub (yes), O’Keefe (yes), Lunapara (yes), Humbert (yes), and Mayor Ishii (yes). Councilmembers Casarwani and Bartlett were absent. The motion carried unanimously.
• Adjournment: The special meeting adjourned at approximately 5:25 PM. The regular council meeting began at 6 PM.