Page One

Sharply divided along traditional faction lines, the council approved a spending plan for the $3.5 million – the “little fringe at the end” of the budget, as Councilmember Polly Armstrong described it – the council is authorized to disburse. 

The rest of the city’s $215 million budget is already allocated to fixed personnel and capital costs for the fiscal year that begins Jul. 1. 

At the well-attended Tuesday night meeting, the five liberal/progressive councilmembers – Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek and Councilmembers Linda Maio, Kriss Worthington, Dona Spring, and Margaret Breland – approved a list of some three dozen items, which addressed job creation, homelessness, the environment, business needs and city government needs. 

Led by the mayor, the four moderates called for the council to put off approving $1 million in spending and approve only the city manager’s $2 million list of recommended expenditures. 

The mayor argued that the remaining $1 million should not be spent until a more rational process for doling out the money has been put into place. 

“We have before us tonight a budget proposal...that continues the same flawed process that we have experienced in the past,” Dean said, reading from a prepared statement. 

“Each year council actions encourage more and more requests for new, undefined concepts and programs, some of which don’t even exist at the time funds are allocated. These requests create a frenzy of activity in which previous commitments and priorities are pushed aside, work plans are ignored, and staff is pushed to the point they cannot perform even basic duties adequately.” 

But Maio, who led the progressives’ allocation efforts, accused the mayor of ducking the hard questions. 

“Some choices had to be made,” Maio said. “We just don’t have enough money.” 

Armstrong countered Maio and backed the mayor’s stance. 

“I appreciate the mayor’s intelligent overview,” she said, acknowledging the realities of being aligned with the minority faction. “We have a disadvantage of not being on the majority. The (allocations) were worked out by the people who have five votes.” 

Armstrong went on, however, to applaud some of the content on the progressives’ list. “Much of it is wonderful,” she said. 

But a “major complaint” she offered was the absence of $150,000 for sidewalk repair and $250,000 for street repair, which the city manager had requested. 

Shirek agreed that it is important to fill up a pothole or repair a street. But she questioned the council minority’s priorities. 

“Which is more important, (street repairs or) education and caring for our youth?” she asked, rhetorically. 

Maio reminded the others that street and sidewalk repair is included as fixed costs elsewhere in the budget. The funds requested by the city manager would have accelerated the street and sidewalk repair process. 

The council majority included $150,000 in its budget for needs relating to the animal shelter and animal rescue. Woolley, however, contended that no funds should be spent on animal care issues – hiring a volunteer coordinator, upgrades to the shelter, advertising for pet adoption, funding low-cost spay and neuter programs and more – until a permanent animal shelter director is hired. That will be in about six weeks, staff said. 

“Directing the funds before we get the director in place, that’s backwards,” Woolley argued. 

During the public comment session at the beginning of the meeting, a number of citizens lined up to underscore the need for the $200,000 the council majority had proposed to improve health in the African-American community in South and West Berkeley. 

“We’re beginning to address the health disparity,” Worthington said, referring to the study that showed the chasm between the health of the largely Caucasian Hills community and the flatlands’ African-American community. 

Worthington did not miss a chance to take a swipe at the city manager: The progressive budget “reflects values not sufficiently addressed in the city manager’s budget.”