No, I don't.

All right, everyone, if I could call this meeting to order, please.

Good evening, everyone.

Um, and welcome to the City of Alameda City Council meeting tonight.

Tonight is Tuesday, October 21, 2025.

And I am calling the City of Alameda City Council meeting to order.

We are going to start with we're about to go into closed session.

Would I would like to start with roll call.

City clerk Laura Weisaker, would you please call the role?

Council Members, bowler.

Here.

Perfect.

We'll go next to the consent calendar.

This is just a consent calendar for the closed session.

And these are routine items that will be approved by one motion unless removed by council members.

Madam Clerk, will you please introduce the consent calendar item?

It's uh designated the negotiators for the server club item um that's on the closed session.

All right, thank you for that.

And do we have any public comment on closed session items?

We do not.

All right, so um seeing that we have no comment on closed session items, we are now going to adjourn to closed sessions.

I'm so sorry, there's a consent.

Yeah, I'm ready to line.

Yes, could I get a motion in a second, please, on the closed session consent calendar.

So moved.

All those in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye, any opposed, any abstentions, hearing none.

The motion passes, and then we move to item four.

We will adjourn to closed session to consider the following uh items, and um I would ask the city clerk to please let us know what those are.

4A is conference with labor negotiators pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven point six.

The city negotiators are the city manager, human resources director, Jack Hughes from Liberty Cassidy Woodmore and Assistant City Attorney Employer Organizations are the International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, and Alameda Fire Chiefs Association under negotiation are salaries and play benefits in terms of employment.

4B was withdrawn and will not be heard tonight.

4C is conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956 point eight.

The property is a portion of Alan DePoint Enterprise Park, boarded by West Hornet Avenue, the San Francisco Bay, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, and the Instinald Launch.

The City negotiators are the Assistant City Manager, Reckham Parks Director, and Wreckham Park Assistant Director, and Deputy City Attorney, negotiating parties of the City of Alameda and Neptune Beach Surf Club developers development partners under negotiation or price and terms.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

All right, with that, we are going to adjourn into closed session, starting with everybody who's here for item 4A, and to members of the public who are watching, we have every intention of being back before you at seven o'clock this evening.

Thank you, I think we have a lot of the other one.

How do we give us a hug Ah, it's seven oh three.

Okay.

All right.

Welcome everyone, and please come on in and take your seats.

Um, welcome to the City of Alameda City Council meeting.

Um, tonight is uh Tuesday, October 21, 2025, and council has just returned from closed session, and um I am going to ask the city clerk to please announce um any action that was taken in um in closed session.

Thank you.

Um regarding Fort A, which was conference with labor negotiators, uh, the city council was provided information or staff provided information and council provided direction uh by a vote of five eyes.

And regarding the real property negotiators for the um uh potential um negotiations with Neptune Beach Surf Club, um, staff right information and council provided direction by five eyes.

All right, thank you.

So with that, I'm going to adjourn the closed session and I'm going to call to order the regular city council meeting for October 21, twenty twenty-five.

And we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I would like to ask our Vice Mayor Michelle Pryor to please lead us in the pledge.

Ready to begin.

So then we will move on to proclamations, um, special orders of the day, and announcements.

Um, and that is about um this is the proclamation declaring October nineteenth through twenty twenty-five united against hate week.

But before I read that proclamation, I also want to note that October is domestic aware domestic violence awareness month.

Some of us at the Daisy are wearing purple or shades of purple because that is the um the color of awareness of domestic violence, which is a serious and complicated issue in all of our communities, including Alameda.

And I do want to share with the public and with my council colleagues that we're actually working on a domestic violence awareness video, actually producing two videos.

One will be directed to adults and the other to youth because complicated relationships happen starting at a young age.

And I am honored to be working with Building Futures, Alameda Family Services, which has a youth advisory committee, so they're going to help us with the youth focused video.

From our Social Service Human Relations Board, Bernie Wolf is working with us, and he's the Shrub, that's the acronym for Social Service Human Relations Board.

He's Shrubs liaison to Alameda's domestic violence task force.

Sarah Henry, our communications director.

And we have two incredible consultants who are specialists in communicating about domestic violence and a videographer who works in these topics, and I'm working with them and learning so much as we go, and we hope to have the finished products by the end of this year.

And we were inspired sadly by a tragedy that happened in Alameda.

I'm sure you remember more than a year ago that uh a man, a father, a husband, pretty much killed his entire family, including two young children.

So we just wanted something constructive to be learned from that to hopefully prevent other incidents where we can.

So anyway, I commend all those who are working on that project, and we'll be back to you when we have more.

So now I want to read this proclamation, and I want to thank our Social Service Human Relations Board.

I see some folks and staff in the in the audience for for their assistance with this.

So the United Against Hate campaign began in 2017 with a poster.

This poster, well, probably didn't say Alameda because it had a different city's name, probably Berkeley, with a poster created by Bay Area Cities in response to white supremacist rallies in Berkeley and San Francisco, and that was as recent as 2017.

Since then, United Against Hate Week has been observed annually to call attention to the message that we reject hate of any kind, and believe that building a safer and more equitable world starts by working together.

This year, United Against Hate Week takes place from October 19 to October 25 as a call for local civic action to stop the hate and implicit biases that are a dangerous threat to the safety and civility of our neighborhoods, towns, and cities.

In 2020, the City of Alameda adopted a resolution entitled Declaring Racism a Public Health Crisis, which committed to promote equity and justice through all policies, recognizing the harm caused by racism, prejudice, and bigotry, which undermine the well-being and dignity of individuals and communities.

By acknowledging its responsibility to address racism as a fundamental threat to public health, safety, and welfare, the City of Alameda also recognized that promoting equity, inclusion, and diversity are essential to creating a just and thriving community.

The City of Alameda commits to continuous evaluation and public transparency of its policies by regularly assessing equity outcomes, soliciting community feedback, and revising strategies where necessary to ensure meaningful and sustained progress toward racial justice.

As a self-declared hate-free city, Alameda works to promote acceptance, respect, and tolerance in order to create a safer, inclusive community.

City leaders can actively support the mission of United Against Hate by amplifying inclusive civic values, fostering a culture of belonging, and confronting systemic injustice wherever it exists.

Alameda aspires to be a city where people can live, work, and thrive free from discrimination, abuse, violence, exploitation, and fear, a community where everyone belongs.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that I'm Marilyn Ezie Ashcraft, Mayor of the City of Alameda, to hereby proclaim the week of October 19 through October 25, 2025, United Against Hate Week in the City of Alameda.

I encourage all Alamedans to learn more about this campaign by visiting the Alameda Free Libraries, United Against Hate Week book display, and by attending the screening of the documentary film Bias that explores how unconscious bias impacts all aspects of our daily lives.

And that film is being shown this Thursday, October 23rd at 6 p.m., right here in council chambers at City Hall.

So I hope you'll all come.

And also, I do believe, Sarah, Ms.

Henry, did you put are there posters on the table?

On the wooden desk that's just outside the chamber entrance is a stack of these posters, and I would love it if you would take one home with you.

If you have a business, put it in the window, put it in your house or your apartment window.

It's just a great message to share.

And I will tell you that just yesterday I was on a statewide webinar with the League of California Cities all about united against hate, and one of the speakers was the gentleman from not in our town who whose organization got this campaign started.

So it's something that's going on all over our state.

It started in the Bay Area, it branched out, and now there's more than 200 communities just like us that are doing things.

So thank you everyone for your attention.

All right.

Um before we go into oral communication non-agenda items, I am just going to read some just operating instructions for these are just the ground rules for city council meetings, which in Alameda are generally very civil.

But I'd like to remind people that this is a business meeting.

We're here to conduct the city's business in the people's building, our city count, our city hall.

But it's not theater, it's not a sporting event, so we don't applaud, we don't boo, cheer, jeer, do the wave, we don't do that.

We just sit politely and listen to speakers when it's our turn to speak.

We come on up and we speak for just the allotted time or less, but not more.

And I make these reminders because public speaking is considered one of the most stressful things someone can do.

Some of us have spent time hanging out in courtrooms and we've gotten used to as lawyers.

Um, and we've gotten used to speaking in the public, but not everyone has had that experience.

And for some people, they might not even get up and speak, even if they intended to, if the crowd seems hostile or boisterous or unfriendly.

So we don't do that.

This is Alameda.

We just sit, we listen respectfully, we treat people the way we would like to be treated.

And I also like to remind people that we often have young people in the audience, and even though there aren't, I don't see students here today, they might be watching at home.

And so we always want to set that good civic example about what what good governance looks like.

We want this to be a safe place to speak and to listen and be listened to.

If you want to hold up a sign, that's fine, it's your first amendment right.

Just don't hold it up over your head and block anyone's view behind you, and yet lest you're in the last row.

And then I just have to read this language that says, um, in accordance with state and federal law, City of Alameda officials, including its law enforcement officers.

Sorry, that is the wrong way.

It's the that's if anybody wants to know about our sanctuary city policy, but we're not, I don't think we need to do that tonight.

This is um California Penal Code Section 403, which states that it is a criminal offense for any person to, without authority of law, willfully disturb or break up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Penal Code Section 302 or election code Section 18340.

First violations will receive a warning, and continued violations will require additional action, which could include police intervention.

That's just required language.

I don't anticipate that we will need it.

And so with that, we were going to go on with the meeting.

Madam Clerk, um, we're on item four.

Do we have any um speakers on oral communications non-agenda items?

We do.

We have two, so we'll get three minutes each, and first up is Rita Lark.

Welcome, speaker Lark.

Um, if um you're holding um speaker slips, do you need to turn in your speaker?

Come on up.

Now, just so you know, these are items that aren't on the agenda, correct?

Okay, come on up now.

Yeah.

So the time will switch to two minutes based on the speaker slip.

Sure, sure.

Okay.

So do you want to explain about the timing, Madam McClink?

Yes.

Um, since now there are um five or more speakers that'll they'll all get two minutes each, and then hopefully we can get through them all during the session.

All right, okay, so uh welcome, Tri Speaker.

Okay, good evening.

My name is Rita Lark.

I'm a resident at the Fronza.

And I'm about the thing that I came to speak about, the plumbing issues.

They said that uh sewer pipes and the pipes in each of these apartments were supposed to be redid a year ago, and they haven't been.

Then they uh sent uh newsletter out saying that they were going to come and inspect and tear up the ground and autos.

Nothing like that happened.

So I was wondering if somebody could uh probably do an audit and find out where their money went a year ago because we since I've been there, it's nothing but poopy and E.

coli water coming out of your faucets.

You can't bathe, you can't cook, you can't do a lot of things.

So I would appreciate if somebody will look into it.

Plus, I sent you two papers up there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Our next speaker.

Uh Mitch Ball.

Welcome, speaker.

Is it ball?

Yeah.

Come on up.

And when you come up, just make that microphone yours, whatever level you need, so we can hear you.

Hi.

Hi, thank you.

Um, came also to speak later, but this is more of a spur-of-the-moment thing.

Uh, it's a bit off the cuff, but I'm 27 years old, I'm a renter, I'm an immigrant, and I don't own a car.

And I come to city council meetings often because you rarely get to see people in my demographics at these meetings.

I live here and I think I made a good choice.

However, like 10% of households in Alameda, I don't own a car because I can't afford it.

Instead, what I can afford is a one-bedroom apartment that's about three parking spots large.

I started renting last year, so I pay two thousand four hundred dollars a month, and that's nothing special, that's just the current market rent.

Meanwhile, if I wanted to, I could pay for three parking spots at the Civic Center parking garage for about 105 dollars a month.

Total, and that's just you know, the parking garage is actually far more heavy construction than an apartment building.

So ultimately, you know, my question is like, how on earth did it get like this?

And I think I know the answer to that.

People from my demographic do not often come to city council meetings.

I know a lot of other people who typically come to city council meetings, own homes.

They're typically more older than me, uh, and they're definitely often more well off because if you're well off, you have more time to come to stuff like this.

I really support all of the new bike lanes throughout the city.

I use a bike to get groceries, I use a bike to get to work.

It's not an option, it's just how I live.

And I really appreciate that the city has not been fighting back against the California state housing element and has been approving building new buildings in the city, even ones that are taller because that's more homes, and that's less people are homeless, and that's you know, more affordable rent.

So, yeah, ultimately I I hope that the city council board uh takes thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is um Robert Shea, then Carmen Watson, and then Chris Boswell.

Okay, and you hear your name be ready to come it up.

Welcome.

Is it Speaker Shay?

Yes, hi.

Good evening, City Council members.

I love Alameda.

I'm a retired Coast Guard officer serving 20 years in the military, eight of those years.

I've either worked or lived in Alameda as a homeowner.

I love this community and I love raising my three daughters here.

I'm also resident of Fernside, and I'm here tonight to speak about a pattern of misrepresentations and untruths made by the Alameda Housing Authority.

A few months ago, I began engaging with AHA regarding a proposed affordable housing project in my neighborhood.

As a resident of Alameda who is pro affordable housing, I was enthusiastic to engage with AHA, and I was excited to learn how the project will meet our city's much needed housing goals.

What I've been met with over the past two months has unfortunately been nothing short of obfuscation, dishonesty, and an unwillingness to engage with our community.

I have several points to raise with you tonight.

I'll have to fit it within my two minutes.

The first one is false disclosures used by the AHA board when speaking in closed session.

We brought this to their attention.

This was a direct violation of the Brown Act.

They refused to comply with it until we pressed them on it.

And finally, their lawyers issued a apology at the last board meeting.

Violations of the Brown Act are a criminal offense, and it's alarming to see the AHA board intentionally mislead the public.

Point number two is that from the beginning of these community meetings that AHA held, it was clear that they plan to pursue SB 35 entitlement for a upcoming housing project.

This fast tracks approval and provides ministerial review.

One of the qualifications is that the site cannot be a hazardous waste site.

This particular project site, AHA knew, had hazardous waste issues and was on the DTSC Cortez list.

However, they represented to the community on several meetings that it's eligible for SB 35, and I've submitted documentation to the clerk showing their slides that it qualifies for SB 35.

Privately to the board, they mentioned the site is ready or is not ready for SP 35, and the consultants were preparing it.

There were all these accidents are too many to be to be mistakes, and I demand a higher level of service from the next speaker, Carmen Watson.

Then Chris Boswell.

Welcome, Speaker Watson.

Hello, my name's Carmen Watson.

Good evening, Council members.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak.

I am also here tonight.

I also live in the Fernside neighborhood, and I wanted to address the Poplar project that AHA is currently working on.

And I started to attend community meetings that AHA invited local community members to, according to their own statement, to share information with stakeholders and seek meaningful input to shape the development plan.

So when I went to these meetings, I was under the understanding that we as a community that our input would be valued by AHA in giving them valuable information on things that we think would be good for this project.

My goal as a resident of Fernside, I worked really hard to buy a house in that neighborhood, and I want to see it to continue to be a thriving neighborhood, not just for the people who live there currently, but for any new residents that will move in.

You know, for people like this young man, you know, that the the parking and the all of the things that that people need that move into these types of types of housing that they that AHA listens to us who live there, so they know like traffic concerns and all of those kinds of things.

They have not been really listening to us.

Um they have a hired consultant.

I don't know how much money he's making, who's been flat out rude when people have raised concerns.

Questions haven't gone have gone unanswered.

Um, you know, they they called one of the meetings a charrette, which is supposedly a meeting in which all stakeholders in a project attempt to resolve conflicts and map solutions, but so far our questions have gone mostly unanswered, and I do share concerns that Mr.

Shay also mentioned uh just about um stuff not being disclosed about the Cortez list, uh Brown Act violation at the AHA board, um, and it just feels very unsettling to live in a neighborhood where maybe um a project is is being considered where not all the factors are being so I I being considered.

I just ask you to please hold them accountable.

Um, thank you so much.

Our next speaker, Chris Boswell, then Maria China, then Colin Herrick.

Welcome, Speaker Boswell.

Um thank you very much uh for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you all.

Um I second what the previous two speakers have said.

I have also run into similar problems and have not received certain notices that other people in the neighborhood may or may have not received regarding information to the public.

I have other neighbors on, I've lived on my families lived on Pearl Street for about 76 years.

My families lived in the city of Alameda for over 11.

There is no way, I think, even though California is apparently allows the state allows these low-income housing projects to supersede a local district laws.

So we live, I believe it's called an H4 or a P4.

I went to the building department this morning, and we have a building restriction height of something around 40 feet.

This is a proposal for between five or six floors.

So we're talking 84 to 96 feet.

It will be taller than a telephone pole.

They're allowed to go two floors higher than what is allowed.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be putting in low-income housing.

I just think that we shouldn't be ruining our cozy neighborhood, destroying people's property values, and building on a potentially toxic site.

My great great grandfather worked on this site when it first opened, I believe, in 1939.

There were working on cars.

There was oil changes, there was gasoline, apparently a gasoline container.

I don't know if it was above ground or below ground.

Secondly, I want to comment on the Clement Avenue Tilden Way roundabout that's being proposed that's going to take the uh two lanes down to one lane and do a roundabout.

Um I've been all over the world, I've seen roundabouts in all the countries, and they can work, and this one will not work.

It will not make traffic better.

And if we're gonna do a roundabout, it should be a two-lane roundabout.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Maria Kinott, then uh Colin Herrick.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Is it Kia?

She'll tell us.

Sorry.

Hello everyone, thank you for having us.

I am also here to talk about the um proposed development on Eagle Avenue.

Um, again, I want to uh you know point out that the AJ has made lots of mistakes that because that we've all been as a neighbors uh trying to uh help them correct their mistakes, and they've been very resistant to admitting those mistakes.

Um, and then our questions, some of them have been answered very vaguely or with very dismissive answers.

Um they refuse, for example, to do a traffic study of the impact of their suggested 60 uh residences.

You know, everybody's gonna have a car.

Maybe 10% of people don't have a car supposedly here, but uh a lot of those people are gonna have cars, and it's just gonna make this whole roundabout worse, it's gonna make all of it worse.

So there's lots of concerns with basically the communication and in the charat meeting.

We've we're shown you know four options that none of which we were made to choose between four bad options.

Uh there was not, you know, really much receptivity from their point of view.

Um, and it's all just really out of scale.

Um so we're worried, and so we're hoping that you know, although um there's these bypasses now to try and fast track this type of project through.

We hope that you will be paying attention to the project that will be presented to you, and that it is respectful to the neighborhood and to Alameda and to its residents and to um you know to the law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Colin Herrick.

Welcome, Speaker Herrick.

Hello.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I also live in the Fernside District, not far from the proposed popular development.

Uh, when this project first started getting rolling, it was maybe three years ago at this point, and the initial flyers came out that were sent to us.

It was a very modest at the most three-story property, somewhat like some of the other AHA developments that have gone in recently.

Uh, and we were all pretty okay with that.

You know, like everyone else in the neighborhood, I'm I'm fine with more housing coming in.

None of us doesn't want this development to happen.

But if you're driving along Tilden Way and you look to your left across from Knob Hill Market and you picture a five or six story monolith, and I'll call it a monolith because that's what they're proposing.

It's going to cast that entire area into shadow in the morning.

I mean, it is way out of scale with both the property that they are developing, the shape of the property, the access points to the property and to the neighborhood as well.

And the fact that it is right there as you come over in one of the five entryways into Alameda, and the first thing you're gonna see is this monstrous building blocking out the skyline.

I think that as the city council, you really should take a closer look at what they're proposing and possibly rain it in a little because I think it's way out of scale with both the property and the neighborhood.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

That was our last.

Oh, okay.

So with that, we will close um public comment on uh oral communication non-agenda items.

It was public comment, and we will move on to the consent calendar.

And these are routine items that are approved by one motion, unless council members remove items for discussion.

Removed items will be heard at the end of the regular agenda, and council members may speak for up to three minutes on the consent calendar.

So, first, um, do we have any items that council wants to pull from the consent calendar?

Going once, going twice.

Okay, then does council have any questions clarifying questions about any consent calendar items?

Okay, not seeing any.

Madam Clerk, do we have any public speakers on the consent calendar?

There are none.

We are striking out, but that's okay.

Um, council, does anyone want to comment on the consent calendar?

And if not, could I just get a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar?

On my left, on my right, I move to approve the consent calendar.

Thank you.

It's been moved by Vice Mayor Price, seconded by council member Boulder.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

The consent calendar passes unanimously.

Okay, and so then we move on to the regular agenda.

And we start with item 7a.

Madam Klerk, could you introduce that item for us, please?

Workshop to discuss City of Alameda's fiscal sustainability, including reviewing the current financial status of the city budget and seeking feedback on future revenue measures opportunities and improved collections processes and a draft budget and financial accountability process.

Thank you so much.

And welcome, Miss Henry.

But before you get started, um, thanks, speakers.

Um, before you get started, I think I heard on good authority that we could use it.

Normally we give 10 minutes for um staff presentation, but this is a really meaty um staff presentation with um and my iPad's gonna freeze any minute now, but I know the agenda.

Um, it has a lot of parts to it.

So um, how many how much more than 10 minutes and 20 is okay?

20, that'd be okay.

Council.

What I'm looking for is um, and you've seen the agenda, so you know that you and you've read the staff report, so you know it's meaty.

Um, so I'm looking for a motion.

I need at least four affirmative votes to extend the staff presentation time by 10 minutes, going essentially from 10 minutes to 20.

Motion, please.

Um I move that we extend this um presentation by 10 minutes up to 20.

Thank you.

It's been moved by Vice Mayor Prior, seconded by Councilmember Days.

You're nodding.

Is that a second?

Yeah.

Sure.

Eagle Eyes here is keeping an eye on things.

Okay, it's been moved by Vice Mayor Prior, seconded by Councilmember Day Side.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, you've got 20 minutes.

Welcome.

Oh, you and I know there's others that are taking away.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Al.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

I'm Sarah Henry, the city's um communications and legislative affairs director.

And tonight I'm joined by finance department colleagues to talk with you and provide an update to the public about the city's financial financial sustainability.

Back in June, the City Council adopted the city's biennial budget, and due to uncertain economic conditions and increasing programmatic costs, our existing revenues covered most, covered 96.5% of the city's ongoing expenses.

At the time, City Manager Ott identified that while stretched, the city was in a financially stable position and committed us to continue to monitor regularly our financial status.

So that's why we're here tonight to provide a fall budget update.

And we're also seeking council and community input on opportunities to increase revenues.

In addition, in an effort to increase accountability, we're also presenting a draft budget policy.

So I'm now gonna turn things over to Finance Director Ross McCarthy, and then we'll hear from our budget manager E.

Katburton.

Welcome, Finance Director.

Hi.

Hi, Mayor, Council members.

My name is Ross McCarthy.

Sarah mentioned, the finance director here at the city.

I wanted to start out with an update on the city's financial position as of June 30th, 2025.

Our annual audit began yesterday and will continue for the next three weeks.

So these numbers are not quite yet set in stone.

The city's financial position remains stable with a modern improvement in residual fund balance driven by stronger than expected one-time revenues, including transfer taxes and interest income.

As you can see, transfer taxes exceeded projections by 2.7 million.

These are notoriously difficult to budget.

And as such, staff plans to keep its fiscal year 26 projection conservative at 11.3 million.

Interest income surpassed estimates by 3.3 million due to higher interest rates and a strong cash position.

Staff has noted this trend and has already increased the amount of anticipated one time revenue in the current biennial cycle.

Property tax, that last point there.

The only ongoing revenue on the list did increase 1 million more than anticipated.

Well, I wouldn't bet the farm on this quite yet, it is a very positive sign.

This one?

Yep.

Now for the downside.

Sales tax did drop by 1.6 million dollars year over year or about 14.5%.

We had anticipated a decline after the departure of a major tax remitter and overall sales tax slowing throughout Alameda County.

But the impact was greater than expected.

We are also watching potential risks related to federal funding, as you can as you know, given the recent uh government shutdown and uncertainty with new grant requirements.

Overall, at this time, staff does not recommend any significant changes to the fiscal year 2527 budget, but as always, we will continue to monitor our fiscal health.

I'll now turn the time over to Sarah for more.

We discussed having a baton, but we decided against it.

Thank you, Ross.

So, and we will be back in the spring with an update on the mid-year budget.

Two of the projects that are in the strategic plan are to explore potential revenue measures that increase our fiscal resilience and sustainability, and specifically to explore an infrastructure bond to fund deferred maintenance and new infrastructure needs.

Last year we identified an $800 million need for public infrastructure citywide to protect our city and maintain our quality of life.

The funding gap is twofold.

We need to address the large backlog of maintenance critical to maintaining our assets, and we need to make crucial investments and upgrades to protect Alameda from natural disasters and enhance public safety.

To stop costs from escalating further, we must secure locally controlled funding sources for our highest priority projects.

Because relying on uncertain federal funds risks having our project goals reversed and our funding restricted or taken away.

This summer we launched the stronger together campaign to openly share information about the city's greatest needs and gather input, including the four workshops noted above.

On November 4th, we'll be back to focus on the needs of our libraries, recreation programs, and city parks.

And on December 2nd, we'll focus on flood protection, sea level, and groundwater rise, and disaster preparedness.

Then, following our December workshop, we'll use the input we've received to conduct a statistically valid poll that will help us understand what is most important to the people of Alameda.

And if the council determines that a revenue measure should be presented to voters to fund our immediate and long-term needs, we'll return with a proposal in late spring.

Since 2016, Alameda voters have consistently supported local funding by passing four significant revenue measures, an update to the utility users tax, a half cent sales tax increase, a new stormwater fee, and an increase to the transient occupancy tax or TOT.

Combined, these four measures generate an additional 4.8 million dollars each year, including 2.3 million dedicated to the general fund.

Most recently, in 2024, voters overwhelmingly passed the Alameda Unified School District's Measure E with a strong 96.15% yes vote.

We're actively exploring potential new revenue measures to close our critical funding gaps and ensure the city can meet its needs.

And as mentioned, to better understand the community's priorities, we'll be conducting that statistically valid poll this fall.

Our last poll indicated that around two-thirds of respondents were supportive of a local funding measure specifically dedicated to infrastructure investments and improvements.

At that time, we shared that a 150 million dollar infrastructure bond would cost property owners 29 per 100,000 of assessed value.

We'll be sharing similar and updated information this fall.

In addition, we know that ensuring public safety is a key priority of the city council and Alameda residents and businesses.

While the city has never considered a dedicated public safety tax, this type of funding mechanism has been successful in several nearby cities.

While a measure like this could help cover our increased expenses, it wouldn't help meet the $800 million gap we've identified for public infrastructure citywide.

Tonight, we're asking and seeking your direction regarding what to include in that upcoming poll.

So we have our staff recommendation to provide direction on revenue measure opportunities and explore potential voter support for revenue measures in an upcoming poll.

And Ross is up next, our finance director.

Take it away.

Hello, hello.

So now we're going to be talking about the collection process.

As of June 30th, 2025, the city has about 1.4 million dollars in unpaid outstanding revenues.

This includes fire inspection fees, police fines, traffic mitigation fees, business license taxes, and other program fees.

These are funds the city has already billed but not yet collected, services provided that are billed in arrears, fees and taxes that should go to support necessary services like public safety, parks, and infrastructure.

When these payments remain outstanding, it puts extra pressure on our general fund and special revenue funds, forcing us to stretch limited dollars even further to maintain the same level of service to our residents.

As you can see, most of the uncollected revenues are classified as unsecured debt, meaning that there is no real property behind it.

Code enforcement citations and rent program fees are secured.

And sidewalk costs are already authorized for property liens through state legislation.

Most Bay Area cities, including Berkeley and the list you see here, already have well-established collection policies in place.

They use tools like county tax liens, the state's state's franchise tax board intercept program and outside collections agencies to help recover unpaid debts.

If we don't take action, we will remain one of the few cities without a complete process, meaning we're leaving revenue on the table, money that could be reinvested back into our community.

As this graph shows, when we don't act quickly, the likelihood of collecting unpaid balances drops sharply after about a year.

Eventually, these accounts have to be written off, which means the city permanently loses out on these revenues.

So the longer we wait, the more difficult and costly it becomes to recover what's owed, and the greater the strain on our budget and our ability to deliver essential services.

Our goal is to be fair and consistent but not overly aggressive.

The city's proposed general billing and collection policy will lay out a clear step-by-step process that gives everyone multiple opportunities to resolve their balances.

First, customers receive several reminders and notices, at least for over a six-month period.

During this time, the customers can either pay in full or set up a payment plan if needed.

Second, after 180 days and only if there's no response during these first attempts, would we consider stronger actions?

This is where staff needs city council directions on extending the collections policy by either taking the debtor to small claims court, adding the amount to the property tax property tax bill via liens, using the state's franchise tax board to collect, or a combination of all three.

This approach ensures fairness, transparency, and multiple chances to make payment before enforcements begin.

Collecting these funds is ultimately about fairness and responsibility.

Strong collection practices discourage non-payment and promote equity among payers.

It also strengthens our financial foundation, helping protect the services that make our count that make our community safe, clean, and vibrant.

And importantly, our policy will include payment plans and hardship options so we can promote a compassion while still being fiscally responsible.

Well, did I push your three buttons here?

Tonight, staff is asking for direction on improving the city's collection process to align with best practices across the Bay Area.

With your input, we'll return later this year with formal next steps to implement these improvements.

By taking this step now, we'll help the city recover lost funds, protect taxpayer dollars, and ensure the long-term sustainability of the services our community relies on every day.

Thanks for your time.

I'll turn I'll now turn it over to ECAT Burton, the city's budget manager.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

I am here to discuss another item supporting our goal or city's goals for achieving fiscal sustainability, and that is the city's inaugural budget policy.

The purpose of having a budget policy is to institute and maintain current best practices and budget development, reserve maintenance, and grant procurement.

While city staff already incorporate many of these best practices, we want to formalize them into a codified policy in following a clear budget policy that includes measures to ensure compliance.

Our hope is to instill a culture of fiscal prudence citywide.

So the budget policy is broken out into three sections, and I'll go over each section briefly.

The first section is on best practices for a budget itself.

Here are some of the highlighted practices we'll be instituting.

One policy is to ensure that the budget will be structurally balanced.

Another policy would be to ensure that one-time revenues are used for only for one-time purposes.

The second section is on best practices for reserves, revenues, and grants.

And here are some of the highlighted practices we will be instituting.

We will be reifying our commitment to having adequate reserves maintained.

We will also be reifying our continued practice of using stable portions of revenues for ongoing operations.

The third section is on best practices for reporting and planning.

Here are some of the highlighted practices we will be instituting, a periodic review of the financial status of major city funds, and producing a long-term general financial plan.

So I want to thank you all in advance for reviewing the budget policy as a part of this package.

And tonight, staff is asking for you to provide feedback on the budget policy, and we will then be returning to council next month so that it can be formally adopted.

I will now pass it back to Sarah.

Thank you so much.

And we are not going to use all of our 20 minutes, which is great to great to give some of that back.

Wanted to say that in addition to looking at increasing revenues, we continue to monitor our expenditures and maximize existing funding.

One example that we put together is that with the change in federal administration, funding requirements for certain grants were revised.

The city had been approved for a $15 million grant in the Warta bill for coastal adaptation projects.

While the budget amount did not change, we could no longer use the funding for coastal resilience, which is what we were planning on doing.

So we quickly pivoted and updated our request for the same 15 million to be used for stormwater infrastructure to improve drainage and reduce flooding in the main street neighborhood at Alameda Points.

We're able to keep every dollar of that $15 million dollar grant in place.

We are also closely reviewing city contracts, monitoring other funding losses, and exploring all new funding opportunities.

Alameda is an amazing place to live and work.

And when we're fiscally sustainable, we not only avoid much higher cost down the road, we can better serve the Alameda community and weather uncertainties and other economic downturns.

We'll return to city council for our work session on libraries and recreation and parks on November 4th.

And in the meantime, we'll continue to update the city's website and share information with the community.

And so now we'd love to hear from you and hear from members of the public.

That concludes our presentation, and we look forward to receiving input on budget update, potential revenue measures, improved collection process, and our draft budget and financial policy.

Thank you so much.

So we are going to I um I handed out during um closed session the um little pads and pens for the council so they could take notes because we do that in closed session because we have lots of questions.

So what I would like to do is go, so these are clarifying questions.

We'll have discussion after we hear public comment.

Madam Clerk, I'm assuming we have public comment on this.

And um, but if we could um just I think then we can all ask our questions about the budget update, and then we'll go through and we'll all ask our questions about the potential revenue measure and then improve collection process and the draft budget and financial policy.

So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna start on my right, but I'm gonna start with a different person for each topic.

So let me start with you for this one.

Council member Daysog, any clarifying questions on budget updates?

And again, we'll get into discussion and recommendations when after we've heard from public the public.

Yeah, I guess one clarifying question I have is why do you call it a public safety tax when it seems to be more of an infrastructure tax?

Public safety cannot police officers or.

Who would like to take that?

City manager, you leaned in.

Why don't you get it?

What we're actually contemplating, we have been talking about an infrastructure bond revenue measure.

What we're also introducing tonight, that would help us with our one-time kind of capital needs that have been deferred as well as some of our future needs.

Um, what we wanted to introduce here is is there any interest from the council to pursue another, not at the same time, but to just poll to see how the community feels about a tax that would help us offset our operating costs.

Um, so it's not it's not we're not calling the infrastructure bond a public revenue or public safety tax.

We're just exploring whether or not the council would like us to poll for both or just focus on infrastructure or so that it's really just there would be two different measures, but we're not suggesting we'd put both of them on the ballot, and just one other point of clarification, um, looking at how other cities do it and or have done it in the past, it's not necessarily on the assessed value, it could be on the assessed value of improvements.

So, for example, the city of Berkeley, when they uh put their public safety tax out there, it was just on the improvements that that homeowners were taxed for public safety, and in the city of Berkeley that generated around eight and a half million, so not at the same uh level as well as that infrastructure bond.

So very different potential measures.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions on the budget update, Councilmember?

Oh no?

Okay, council member bowler.

Thank you.

Is there any way for the city to contemplate some type of fiscal stewardship policy at the same time as the tax?

In other words, trying to tie together sound fiscal management with this so that the community is clear that we're doing both.

Yes, absolutely.

And we would naturally do some sort of oversight and that kind of stuff embedded into a revenue measure.

And we've talked about this in the past with our polling.

We've asked folks what they'd like to see in terms of that oversight, but certainly we could include other other mechanisms as well.

Okay.

And so let me just see.

Um I'm so sorry.

I'm going to wait for my iPad to unpad unfreeze and go on to Vice Mayor.

Do you have any um uh clarifying questions on the budget update section?

I do not.

Okay, Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you.

With regard to the uncollected revenues, I you mentioned that the go ahead.

This is on the budget update.

Yeah.

Is that part of the budget?

Well, it's is it the improved collection process you're talking about?

I'm trying to go section by section.

But you just wouldn't like.

I heard Councilmember Day Sog mentioned the um tax proposal.

Is that part of the budget?

Um it's um, yeah, that is true.

It's you know, you all just you do you.

It's fine.

I was trying to make a little easier on staff, but staff is adept, they can jump up when everyone, whatever question comes up.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Uh I would like to get a little more information about the um uncollected revenue, specifically the traffic mitigation revenue, which is not being collected at all.

And I uh this, whether this is just one time that it hasn't been collected for the current year 24-25, whether last year was the unusual year by collecting the revenue, and uh it's and where does this revenue the traffic mitigation revenue tend to um be derived?

So the traffic mitigation revenue is uh on the Alameda point at Alameda Point.

So um director um Abby Thorne Landon would take it.

However, she's not here, but I do know what it is.

Basically, the city collects these traffic mitigation fees on new developments on ACTC's behalf, and so we collect fees and then we remit them directly to ACTC.

Um so this is just the collection portion of those.

So if that that is that is a pass-through fee.

Thank you.

And um, if you could stay for a minute, finance director, we could the you mentioned in the presentation that the sidewalk program is not but was established actually in 24 or 25, and so there's been some collections.

Can you just expand on what exactly the sidewalk program is collecting for public works, yeah?

Works director and Smith.

How many app Director Smith?

Good evening, Madam Mayor, uh Vice Mayor members of the council.

I'm Aaron Smith, the city's public works director.

Um, thanks for the question about sidewalks.

Um about a year um about a year ago, a little less than a year ago, we launched a pilot program for our sidewalks where we are now offering property owners the option to have the city do the work and that we invoice them.

Um so the dollar amount that was shown on the slide actually was reflective as of the end of last fiscal year of um property owners that elected to not join the program, meaning have the city do the work, or did not do it on their own, and so the city went and did the work to remove the tripping hazard, and then we invoiced them.

Um and the dollar amount that is shown would be those that have been invoiced, so an enforcement has started as in we've done the work and we've invoiced and they've not paid.

Um I did a little data analysis before this evening, um, and the numbers actually a little bit less than shown there.

Um we have about a 70-70% participation rate in our new sidewalk program, which is really exciting.

And the 30% of folks that are choosing to not respond to us, um, and that we are going to do the work, about 40% of them are actually even paying.

Um, so it's really a small percent, although the dollar value is significant.

It's a small percent of properties that are actually completely non-responsive.

Well, that's good.

That's good news.

And my other question for you briefly is the collection, which isn't mentioned in um in a footnote with the zero waste program, which was no there was no collections in 23-24, and we began collecting in 24 25 with a small relatively small amount.

Yeah, so those relate primarily to violations of our foodware ordinance, and the dollar amount shown reflects of a variety of different businesses after numerous attempts for compliance, um, uh there are citations that are issued, and then citations that um go unpaid continue to sort of ratchet up over time, both in dollar value um and frequency.

Um, and so that 40,000 is primarily a couple of businesses that remain non-compliant.

Um, but yes, that is related to our foodware ordinance.

Thank you, and hopefully those will continue to be going down in the future as more compliance occurs.

Director Smith, as long as we've got you here, so you talked about the sidewalk program, and in it is fairly new.

If you know from talking with other cities who have similar programs, do you find that often in the first year there's there's sort of a learning curve and it takes people time to know about the program and then the results improve over time?

Um I haven't mayor haven't really seen that so much.

We've, you know, we've modeled.

I think our letter is pretty pretty straightforward, you know, in terms of gotta do something or we're gonna do something for the benefit of the public.

Um I would hope, I mean, similar to sort of our parking enforcement, uh, you know, as as we continue to sort of force the issue, compliance does sort of um get more in line, so we would be hopeful for that.

Um, but I I did was pleasantly surprised at the percent, um, that it's really just 15% dollar value wise of what we're doing that would remain at this point in need of further collection.

I agree, I think it's impressive.

All right, thank you for that.

Thank you.

Um and I I did get my iPad back and um I just have comments, not questions.

So with that, we'll go on to public comment, Madam Clerk.

I'm sorry, did I just skip you?

No, well, I guess I think you always can ask another question.

Yes, go ahead.

It it was it's also about the uncollected revenues because um which so I am in favor of that's my comment.

But yeah, questions only please.

Yeah, my question is the rent program fees.

Oh, microphone, yeah, sorry.

The rent program fees is 470,000.

So is it like landlords not paying or what?

What is that?

Come on, I can introduce yourself.

Thank you.

Evening uh Mayor and Council members.

Uh Bill Chapin, I'm the director of the rent program.

Uh, yes, and uh so uh those amounts are uh primarily landlords uh who have not paid the uh annual program fees that they have been billed for.

Uh the uh the amount that you see for the last fiscal year there that represents about 800 uh rental units out of the 13,000 uh rental units uh that uh that we regulate.

Um so uh again similar, it's a significant amount of money, but a small percentage uh of the total.

Um we uh continue to you know work with the landlords.

Uh we we do have uh some uh uh we have the uh ability to uh there's a lot of outreach to the landlords where we inform them hey uh these fees need to be paid or else you won't be able to increase the rent uh on your unit.

Uh that that tends to get people's attention.

Um there we have the ability to uh to issue citations uh and we've been doing that for some of our landlords that own say uh you know 20 or so units uh and uh have just been uh ignoring uh rent program communications for the last five years, um but uh uh a good chunk of that money there is just uh is smaller landlords where uh we think that maybe citations aren't appropriate, but we would still uh like to see some sort of a collections process to to try to get those processed.

Well, and then with that, because it said it on a previous slide that um that we would because I highlighted it because I thought that was appropriate that we would be flexible essentially.

So um sorry, flexibility, uh, that would include hardship, you know, policies, payment plans, you know, appeal processes.

So that currently happens.

Does that currently happen?

Um there uh there is uh there's outreach uh that is done.

Uh we do, there's a uh written into the rent ordinance is a uh a late penalty that increases each month up to 60 percent.

Um and uh we uh again there are we do multiple uh multiple outreach and really only consider issuing uh citations against the largest uh landlords who have not paid any fees since the program uh uh began.

Um if that does that answer your your question.

Uh and uh and I think that the what's being proposed in terms of the collections and you know those uh those additional steps uh to be taken is is uh we're in favor of and and being lenient with those landlords and just trying to get them to come into compliance.

Thank you.

Um so if I could just go back over what somebody just said, although the city attorney looks like he has something he'd like to say, do you?

I do, Madam Mayor.

It may answer your question.

Um, you reading my book.

Perhaps you may uh be wondering why it took us five years to get to some of these uh citations.

Um the reason for that is that the rent program for the first uh number of years were not operated by the city, but instead by the housing authority.

And when it was being operated by the housing authority, we were not able to come to agreement on issuing citations, which is actually one of the reasons why council directed that the program be transferred back to the city.

Once the program was transferred back to the city, we requested, and the council uh subsequently authorized us to hire a inspector, uh and that inspector came on board about a uh the full-time position came on board about a year ago, and since then that inspector's been going out issuing citations, and in fact, uh Director Chapin has reported to me a number of times that um those citations have um substantially funded the cost of the position, and we intend to continue to pursue um outstanding um registration uh cases where we find them.

Um thank you.

That was helpful.

It wasn't quite what I was gonna ask, but I got some good information.

Um and I did forget about how we did the transition from the housing authority to the city.

Um what so Mr.

Chapin, how many large landlords are we talking about who have not paid any program fees since the beginning?

Um we are currently working on a list of 20 landlords uh who uh owe at least uh I want to say $5,000 uh in fees.

Um and that's the the that number, 20 landlords is the we we look at everybody that would owes more than 5,000.

We identified 20 landlords that fit in that in that category.

And and are and I should mention also I'm sorry, um, sorry to interrupt you.

Uh, but since we began this process, several of those landlords have paid and uh and come into compliance, so we're uh only looking at about 10 now.

Okay, and when these are large landlords, right?

Uh there are landlords that own multiple properties uh across the city.

Um none of them are large apartment complexes.

We're not talking about the 50, 70 uh unit complexes uh where uh we're instead talking about people who might own uh you know uh seven or eight fourplexes across the city, for example.

That adds up.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, but so you're now down to just about 10 who are outstanding.

I believe that's right.

Okay, and do you attribute that to the this um inspector?

Uh absolutely.

Uh the uh process that he's been going through uh to first issue uh notices of violation uh that uh he was actively going out and serving uh papers in person, and that helped uh to make contact with some of these landlords that we just have not you know been able to uh get through to and explain to them the seriousness uh of the situation.

So, okay.

Well, that sounds very helpful, I'm very hopeful.

Thank you for that.

Okay, any other clarifying questions?

Council Member Days.

Yes, clarifying questions.

Um to the budget um team.

Um section two is called reserves and revenue practices.

Um questions one is more um what thought has been given to having a section instead called reserves, um, expenditure practices and revenue practices.

That's the first question.

The second question is what thought has been given to taking the historic annual total compensation change, annual change for public safety and non-public safety, and creating that as uh benchmark um such that if we're asking the residents to pay either a public safety tax or an infrastructure tax that city hall is making a commitment to control safety expenditures on and non-public and miscellaneous um expenditures, wage uh operating expenditures, uh that is um several questions.

Um, does um is there any input that we need from city attorneys and you wanna I I I think I understand the question, which basically is how are we gonna do budget controls while also doing uh how does that relate to the proposed infrastructure tax?

Is that basically the question?

Yeah, I mean the background is you're asking residents to pay a tax in exchange for the residents to pay a tax to pay for shortfalls in infrastructure that city hall on the expenditure side is committing itself to some kind of discipline that it won't go above a certain amount of spending on operations because why should the residents pay a tax if City Hall isn't going to exercise some form of fiscal discipline?

So what thought has been given to that kind of a conversation?

Let's hear from the city manager Ott first, please.

Yeah sure, and I I would just want to clarify whether or not you mean in the infrastructure bond or the tax, we the council might agree to kind of some sort of policy that it put upon itself in terms of expenditure, or are you saying because I've I've heard of cities where they do a measure, even if it's a general tax and they may adopt policies outside of the actual tax measure that says, hey, we're gonna spend it on this, and then they put it in different funds.

So are you saying through the tax you have we given thought to restrictions like that in the actual tax measure?

Um we have not.

I mean, what I think on an infrastructure bond, I think.

It would really part of the polling is to solicit that feedback on what the priorities are and then develop, you know, a list, and I think the question's gonna be for the council is how detailed you want that list to be do you want it to be exact projects you want it to be groups of projects what happened when we polled last time the projects that really stood out to be you know were street projects shoreline um adaptation and and then uh disaster preparedness so when we prepared the title for that those were things that were highlighted in that um so we haven't given thought to kind of saying hey if you're gonna do this measure then you'll have to make sure you don't spend more than X on public safety in the measure those are things that could be if the council the majority of the council wanted to add to the policy or other things we could we can discuss that but those weren't those weren't things we were talking about adding to the infrastructure measure.

And I've got a question for you Council Member Days I have you seen this form of a ballot question or inclusion in a ballot measure elsewhere if so could you tell us because as I often say we don't need to reinvent the wheel no it's just an idea.

Okay just uh first impression I I think it's a great idea but um okay I that was just my question if it exists somewhere else that you could refer us to and then mayor I think there was a first question which was about around the policy and whether or not section two could incorporate because it says reserves and revenue practices and I think your question was whether or not we could also talk about expenditure practices is that true and adding that is that part of your one of your questions well the second question is really was the okay I just want to make sure we answered your other question related to the policy.

So who would like to um does or do you think we've answered that in enough and we could I think I think I I heard uh what the city manager said.

Yeah.

Well and at the end of the day of course it's those five of us up here who'll decide what direction to give for any language if indeed we decide to do a revenue raising measure.

Okay clarifying questions before we go to public comment counsel.

All right Madam Claire let's do public comment okay uh we have one speaker so they'll get three minutes Mitch Ball.

Welcome back.

Hi.

Hi I'd like to talk about the proposed public safety parcel tax public safety whether it be achieved through police or mental health response teams is important so I don't take issue with funding uh these public services through a parcel tax but I am concerned about the structure of the proposed parcel tax for context we're in a housing crisis there are many people living on the streets or in their cars because there are not enough homes available many people my age do not benefit from a home purchase decades ago are struggling to pay rent and might never retire because they just can't afford to put anything into savings.

This is the number one issue in the city and it contributes to all of the other issues.

The current proposal is for the tax to be collected per square foot of improvement area I sent a written comment in earlier arguing uh against the tax for uh floor plan area it's not about floor plan area that's my mistake but the same general uh concerns still apply here uh unfortunately if you tax improvements this discourages the development of desperately needed new housing collecting taxes for public safety in this mandate may have the coincidental unintended consequence hurting public safety by making more people homeless and making ends harder to meet for young people often have more mental health crises when homeless and financial difficulties can encourage young people to turn to crime there's a smarter more effective way to pay for public safety rather than taxing improvement area we can instead tax law area like how Albany does to pay for its sidewalk management or how Berkeley does to pay for its stormwater drainage this seemingly small change has big benefits firstly it's just easier to calculate and has more predictable revenue.

Secondly, rather than discouraging building homes, it instead discourages ownership of vacant or underutilized lands, which may even have the effect of actually encouraging development of more homes.

The last argument is that it better captures the tax benefit linkage, making the tax more palatable to voters.

Crimes and mental health crises do not only happen on improvements.

In fact, unimproved or vacant land can be an attractive location for crime, given its remoteness and lack of lighting.

Additionally, is yard space considered improved land?

If someone breaks into my backyard, I would want the piece to police to be paid for responding to it.

If we need more funding for police and mental health response teams, then let's pay for it, but we should make sure it's paid for the right way.

In a housing crisis, we shouldn't be giving tax breaks for vacant lands.

Good tax policy is designed to run thoughtful incentives and clear linkage between what is taxed and the public benefit that the tax provides.

And lastly, I'll just want to repeat again in a housing crisis, we should not be giving tax breaks for vacant lands.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that was all our speakers, no remote speakers.

Okay.

We will close um public comment then on item 7A, and we will open it up to council discussion.

And I'm gonna jump in first just because I didn't um I might not have um comments either because they're in my iPad, which just keeps freezing, but I do know some of them.

So what I um so first I'm gonna just respond back to you, council member Daysog on the revenue raising measures, and I mean this is something we do need to consider carefully.

I fully and firmly believe in doing polls, partly just because of my background of having co-chaired or chaired a couple of major campaigns to build the main library and keep Alameda Hospital open, and we relied um heavily on good polling and listen to what the people wanted, and then gave them in the ballot measure and then the expenditures what what they would support, and all these years it's worked quite well.

So it's important to do that.

I um some of my concerns are that um I it's lovely to hear about what other cities or agencies around our area have passed, but we also need to remember just the times we're in.

I mean, we heard about the war to bill, and now we're going to reallocate those funds because now they can't be used for some things.

But I do believe the warda bill and its expenditures are frozen right now because um Congress is not in session, and we are facing one challenge after the other, and just because revenue residents have been generous in the past, we have to realize that and to the point that the young man who's spoken twice now made is a very high cost of living and housing and everything is expensive, and a number of people are gone without paychecks right now, but we also need to consider um other potential revenue raising measures in 2026 and city manager and I have talked a lot about this from the state.

I don't believe I do believe that um assemblymember Buffy Wicks is not bringing her affordable housing bill this um in 2026, put on the regional level, the nine Bay Area counties, and that includes us.

Um, well, knock on wood.

Um we hope we'll get Prop 63 on the ballot, which is to keep our transit systems from going over the financial the fiscal cliff.

So I would like to hopefully not compete on the same um fall ballot with them.

And then I know the county is talking about doing, is it an affordable housing um bond in um in 2026?

And um I I don't know what the school district's doing.

I haven't I haven't checked in with them, so we need to just keep all of all of those things in mind for timing.

But of course, we start with polling.

We are very respectful of our residents and what they um what they tell us, and you know, they are they are our eyes and ears and and will give us good information, and we always do good polling.

I also just want to say that we um we need to manage our expenditures by avoiding unnecessary expenditures and I'm particularly thinking of lawsuits and settlements for things like trip and falls on city streets, and it's great to know that we have this program where if people don't um take care of the street trees or or the sidewalks in front of their property, we'll do it for them.

Um we did some of us did a site visit um last week on uh you know some um traffic improvements in the Fernside District.

So we were walking along Gibbons Drive for part of that time, and it I mean it's you know almost like being in the Alps or climbing up the steep slopes, maybe not quite the Alps, but it's it is it is very concerning for as long as I have been mayor, and I would say as long as I've been on the city council, and that goes back to 2012.

This has been an issue, and those trees are getting bigger and those roots are getting bigger, and those slopes and the sidewalk are getting higher, and I'm forever hearing that.

Well, it's complicated, and we work with the the residents, and we have to do this and we have to do that.

The time is now.

It just if we keep kicking the can down the road, the cost of everything doing it, addressing it gets higher, and then if we get hit with a lawsuit because someone tripped and fell and injured themselves badly, that's that's just that was avoidable.

So I I would really like to see um I and I'm it takes nothing away from what a hardworking staff we have, but we have to just have project delivered.

We have to get these things done.

And the other one is the civic center garage.

We um have and I know this council has approved the expenditure for the security gate, so we can close it off at night so we don't have people going in there and breaking the elevator time after time, then other people can't use it, including people who don't have the physical ability to climb the stairs, and then we get into some ADA issues.

So I I know that you know there's all different reasons that things take time, but I I just cannot over-emphasize that we staff has done a great job on the bud budget.

Our fiscal sustainability is very impressive, and that is why I don't feel the need to have language in a ballot measure.

Of course, it's up to five people on this diet to decide.

I don't think we need to do direct our staff to make responsible expenditures and decisions.

I think it's shown, it's evident that they do.

But we we also need to be very mindful that in defer, just like in your home.

If you defer these these repairs, these improvements, it just gets um more costly, and somebody's gonna you know step on the step and go through it because it it wasn't repaired.

Anyway, that's that's my plea, find that money somewhere.

Um, but anyway, I I um I'm uh agree with everything that is being proposed.

Um I do want I'm really proud of the rent program we've put together, Bill Chapin, you do an excellent job of of running it.

Other cities in our county are thinking of of doing one, and they just it's such a heavy lift, and I'm just so glad that we put it in place all those years ago and it's really um been working, but it depends on those revenues that are and that are paid for both by the landlords and they can pass through a portion to the tenants, so um, yes, was let's get everything collected that that we are due.

Um yes, so that's all for me.

Um, let's go to my right.

Councilmember Bowler.

I just have to agree that I think you know, city staff is is being very responsible in their approach and and their emphasis on um fiscal responsibility, looking at the various types of revenue measures, thinking about how to get the community input for the polling, those are all really important.

I I do want the community to understand that in a general sense.

I certainly don't agree with the money is available, we have to we have to give the voters a general sense of what we't allow for flexibility and making and good work from there because otherwise the experts who work in City Hall and our consultants would all be um straddled with sort of a framework that might not be feasible or the most um effective use of the monies once they're there.

Thank you.

Um Vice Mayor Cryer?

Yeah, um kind of to what Councilmember Bullard said.

I I think it would it's fixed it's fiscally responsible to put a bond measure on the ballot.

Things are gonna get more expensive the longer we wait.

Um, but like practical things that we use like signal lights are coming to their end of useful life, and those are expensive.

If we want to add, you know, a left or you know, a left-turned arrow light thing.

I mean, that the extra weight of that, the you know, the the signal lights, for example, can't withstand that, and those things cost what like it was 189,000, and there's many, many.

Um, that's just one example.

Uh, we heard about that there are no decontamination zones in our firehouses, um, and that is not safe for our firefighters, and these are people who keep us safe, and that is one of many um needed upgrades that are very expensive.

Um, keeping our sidewalks um ADA accessible.

Um, I I have many times, you know, gone down a sidewalk.

I teach students with special needs.

A lot of my kiddos have wheelchairs, so going down a sidewalk, um, that's bumpy or with I mean it's not fun, it's not safe.

Um, and then you know, we have to contend with sea level rise.

So I I am absolutely for um looking into having a bond and or a parcel tax, um, definitely polling this, um, because you know, we want I mean our constituents to give us feedback.

Do they agree?

Is this something they like?

Um, how do we make it work that's fair and equitable, but but we have a lot of work um the the presentations that staff have done um are it's just very clear to me that we have a lot of work, and I think it is our responsibility to get it done.

Councilmember Jensen.

Um yeah, I I appreciate the work that city staff has done and in this report especially to solicit and maintain grant funds, um, talking about the potential loss of funds or or pivoting to uh ensure that grant funds are remain available and remain and are provided.

And I want to um point, you know, as we all know the challenge is is tough, and the challenge remains that an infrastructure bond, there aren't going to be enough grants, and we're not gonna be able to get enough funds from from outside of Almeida, the state, the federal government, um, the county, elsewhere to meet our needs.

And so I continue to support an infrastructure bond to improve Alameda's deteriorating roads, intersection sidewalks and facilities.

And to my colleagues' point, um I know that we've had this discussion, and unfortunately, we weren't able to to get consensus when this came up in a um earlier in prior prior council, but I wonder, and I would like to just suggest that in um many cities and many jurisdictions, municipalities, school districts, etc.

When bond bond measures are um proposed and submitted, they include some sort of oversight for to ensure and to ensure that the funds are going to the intent of the that the legislature or the legislators put on the ballot, and also to um make sure that residents and those who are paying the fees are comfortable with where the fees are going and and comfortable with the the um direction that the any revenues are being used for.

So my suggestion would be as we move forward, and if we get consensus to put something on the ballot that it include uh an oversight, some sort of oversight structure to to do those things.

Council Member Desig.

Oh, thank you.

Um basically just two points.

The first is continuing on a topic uh discussed the last time and because it was raised um this this evening as well um polling um i know that uh the phrase that was used was statistically uh valid um sample of polling so what i would um definitely encourage is um a polling that really takes into account um the responses from residents uh from renters as well as responses from homeowners so what that means is that in order to have um survey response that we we can say is 95 percent comp that we have a confidence of 95 percent level with a plus plus minus margin of of perhaps 4% what that would mean is you would need to have 600 homeowners who are polled and 600 res uh renters who are polled so 1200 um randomly um polled um residents because if you just do 600 and then within that 600 you know you you splice up what is the the um homeowners and what are the renters the response rate from just a limited pool of 600 um is going it's going to be probably very difficult to understand is whether or not it's statistically valid but I think if you have 600 homeowner respondents and 600 um renters I think you'll you could definitely and it's done obviously in a random fashion um then you could definitely get a response that that you can feel 95% confident with a plus minus four four percent margin of error that's the first point the second point is you know because we've heard infrastructure needs in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars that's why I believe that if City Hall is going to ask residents to make to pay more taxes for needed infrastructure then residents in turn deserve to hear fiscal discipline on the part of City Hall with respect to wages and non-wage compensation I think what you don't want to see and it wouldn't wouldn't be this council is you know you don't want to see residents paying more taxes for infrastructure and then suddenly city hall paying more wages and non-wage compensation above what is the historic annual average for total compensation because I think one of the reasons why we're even doing the um contemplating the the tax increase is because we're saying the current revenues right now are so constrained that we're having to make these decisions that are are very difficult whether we're gonna have we're going to pay more for roads or we're gonna pay more for city hall staff you know there's just only so much money um so if the residents are going to pay more in taxes to pay for better infrastructure then I think city hall needs to show that City Hall is also demonstrating um discipline with regard to wage and non-wage compensation.

Thank you.

A couple of points um I often need to remind myself that we are policy makers and we make recommendations about policy we're not up here to get into the weeds but I do think it would be helpful when the time comes to have a presentation by upholstery to explain just what does go into a poll and what makes a statistically relevant poll.

You know, as they say in law, reasonable minds can differ.

I do know that public safety is really important to our community members, and one of the ways that you attract and retrain attract and retain good folks to work in your public safety departments is by paying them adequately.

And we will all those things will be taken into consideration.

All right.

Any other comments?

I think we've given staff quite a bit to take away.

City manager.

Yeah, can I just walk through, just make sure we're all on the same page in terms of the recommendations.

I think everyone agrees with this one.

There's no need for significant changes.

I think on the revenue measure, I would love just to be clear.

Is there desire for us to add a question on public safety tax or just focus?

I heard a lot of discussion on infrastructure.

So should we just keep the polling focused on infrastructure, or is there is it okay to add that as a I think more information is better than last.

Okay, let's find out what the residents think.

Great.

And then just on collections and budget policy based on this feedback, we'll move forward with staff's recommendation.

We'll bring those back for future items.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you all, all of you for all the good work that went into this, appreciate it.

All right.

Okay.

Our next item is item 7B.

Madam Clerk, will you introduce that for us, please?

Introduction ordinance, amending the Alumni Admissible Code by adding Article 14 sidewalk vending of chapter six, businesses, occupations and industries to establish regulations for sidewalk vending and by making related conforming amendments and a public hearing case that are adoption of a resolution amending master fee resolution number 12191 to add a sidewalk vendor permit fee to the fee schedule for public works.

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the Common Sense Exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061B3.

Thank you.

And I believe assistant city manager Amy Woolridge, are you presenting?

Okay.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And if I could get clerks' help because the I realize the clicker is over there, but I can just say no.

You don't want to go to the dias.

Oh, I can you want me to go to the podium?

I think it's I think uh it's kind of nice for anyone who's watching because then they can see you.

Is it yeah, bring your okay?

You don't need your your iPad.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Madam again.

Hello again, Vice Mayor, Council.

Amy Woolridge, Assistant City Manager, and I'm here tonight to talk to you about the sidewalk vendor ordinance.

So, as many of you know and have heard from our residents, we've had an increase in sidewalk vendors throughout Alameda for the last few years.

Um that's been at uh city annual events like Winter Lights that's been at um other permitted special events like our Park Street Art and Wine Fair.

It's also been at community-led um celebrations like Halloween that we have throughout the island, and Christmas Tree Lane.

Um, so in response to that, uh, as part of the council strategic plan update in 2025, earlier this year, um, we added uh you added, and we are implementing the project CS33 to bring this ordinance before you.

Um, and my goal was to bring it before you before Christmas Tree Lane so that we could address it this year.

Um so what we did is we pulled together an interpartmental team, included city manager's office, public works department, planning building and transportation, police, base reuse, and economic development.

Um so it was very uh we had a lot of smart folks in the room.

Uh we reviewed uh sidewalk vending ordinances from Dublin, Hayward, and Santa Monica.

So the framework that we are working with in here is based on SB, California State Bill uh SB 946, which is called the Safe Sidewalk Vending Act.

Um, the intent of that act was to decriminalize sidewalk vending, um create economic opportunities for low-income and immigrant communities who generally operate these sidewalk vending businesses and but also protecting public health and safety.

So what it allows us is it allows a city uh authority to regulate sidewalk vending within the restrictions established by SB 946.

Um we may impose additional or more restrictive regulations if we can show they're directly related to health safety and welfare concerns.

So we did uh reach out for community input specifically.

We held a well-attended neighbor with meeting with the Thompson Avenue neighbors where Christmas tree lane is held.

Thank you, Mayor Ezy Ashcraft and Council Members Jensen who attended, and there was great lively dialogue there and strong support for this ordinance overall from those neighbors and heard a lot about what they experience during Christmas tree lane.

I also spoke with the business community and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce CEO, Madeline Sadek was extremely supportive of this.

Um that sometimes interrupt the brick and mortar stores.

And so she we talked it through quite a bit in terms of what she was looking for and what we could do, and and she's very supportive of this, and the fact that, for example, for permitted special events such as art and wine fair, mobile the sidewalk vendors such as these are not permitted within 200 feet of those events.

It also will not impact the brick and mortar sidewalk displays.

That's a completely separate existing permit process.

So, in terms of the framework, this is specifically about non-motorized sidewalk vendors on public property and right of way.

This is not on private property.

There's a couple definitions, one that are specifically spelled out in SB 946 that we're using.

One is stationary vendors who sell food or merchandise from a fixed location.

So think of a vendor who sets up a pop-up tent.

In our ordinance and based on the framework SB 946, stationary vendors are prohibited in residential neighborhoods.

But stationary vendors are prohibited in residential, they're allowed in commercial areas and parks.

Roaming vendors are allowed in both residential and commercial neighborhoods.

And then we have time frames.

What we can do, what SB 946 says is we're not allowed to make it more restrictive in commercial zones than what the brick and mortar stone brick and mortar stores.

Wow, that's hard to say, um, uh what their hours are regulated.

So the 7 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Um is the commercial zone hours for sidewalk vendors, and then we put 8 a.m.

or 8 p.m.

or sunrise to sunset, whichever is earlier or later for residential.

Um we also included a specific carve out for Thompson Avenue for the month of December, just to create an additional layer of an ability for co-enforcement to enforce in that area.

So for that we said it was 4 p.m.

to 9 a.m.

What that does is it actually gave us the sunsets around 5 30, but the vendors really start setting up before sunset.

So it gives us about an hour before sunset before the ordinance would normally kick in, where our code enforcement can be out there and saying, Hey, no, you're setting up and we see that, and and you're not allowed to be here.

So the process, the permit process.

Um, it is a version of our city encroachment permit.

Um, what we'll be doing is creating a streamlined version of that that will where we'll require contact information, a list of items sold, site plan if they are a stationary vendor, as well as all the required documents.

And those required documents include a city business license.

If they're selling food and Alameda County Environmental Health Department permit.

If they're selling anything taxable, uh a California seller's permit, and then insurance, uh including workers' comp and commercial automobile uh coverage with a minimum of uh one million single and two million aggregate.

Um and so and that insurance was recommended by our insurance pool.

For operational requirements, there's a lot more detail in the ordinance.

I just wanted to give you an overview to maintain ADA clearance, comply with noise regulations, not be within 200 feet of a permitted special events, safe distance from different things like driveways, not blocking bike lanes, not blocking school drop-offs.

There's a list of prohibited items, their obvious things like cannabis and alcohol, and generally maintaining sanitary conditions.

For vendor education, we'll have a website, brochures and multiple languages, QR code, and those are things that the business that the code enforcement officers can hand out and that will post at Christmas tree lane.

In terms of enforcement, it will be done by our city uh code enforcement, um, primarily complaint-based, uh, and enforcement evenings and weekends will be intermittent and complaint-based due to staff availability and overtime.

Um but for Christmas tree lane, I want to point out that uh co-enforcement has committed to be there daily for the first two weeks to really come out strong and really send a message.

Um, and then these citations are what is the maximum allowed by um SB 946?

So with that, there are um, I'm open to any questions and comments from city council.

There are a couple of considerations in front of you.

For example, we staff chose a $50 annual permit fee.

You could choose to reduce or waive that.

You could choose that it's a one-time fee when they first apply, and not every year after.

You could change it.

It is already a subsidized fee.

The public works, um, it takes them about will and take them about an hour to review these permits.

Um our hourly rate for public works is 262 dollars.

So this is already subsidized because we recognize this is a low income community.

Um in talking to uh city city engineer Scott Wicks, Wickstrom, he had an experience with this implementing this in Hayward, they got maybe 10 to 15 TOPS applications a year, so we're not expecting a high volume here, and so uh he was fine uh absorbing this into their budget.

Um another thing is a business license.

We I worked closely with finance, 119 dollars is the very minimum business license we could find.

Um if council so cho chose, you could ask us to reduce or waive that.

It would require um updating the business license or license ordinance and fee schedule and and it would set a precedent.

So um we currently don't waive any other business license fees.

So with that, that concludes my report.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, assistant assistant assistant city manager Woolridge.

Um before we go to public comment, do we have any clarifying questions from the council?

Okay.

I have a question.

Clarifying question.

Council Member Design.

Yes, um clarifying question.

So in what way um does the um uh ordinance that's uh being contemplated um still allow for say high school students from a club to sell um food um for their high school um project?

Great question.

If they are on public property, they would fall under this ordinance.

If they are on private property, if they're on school property, or if they're um if a kid is selling lemonade at a corner stand and they're in their front yard, it would not comply it would not fall under this ordinance.

However, if they move to the sidewalk in the corner, um it would, however, you know, realistically, this is complaint-based and complaint driven.

Our code enforcement generally is focusing on um high priority health and safety, and they will, you know.

Um I'm just going to ask the we'll finish your sentence, but I am gonna ask the city man, city attorney to just um uh chime in.

It would be it would fall under this ordinance and code enforcement absolutely uh could enforce this.

And they have a prioritization in their calls.

Um do you want to just talk about um how we apply laws?

Uh, sure, madam mayor.

Of course, laws are equally applied through, you know, and all violations are violations, and um just you know, I'm sure the city enforcement staff will uh deploy resources accordingly.

And I would just add in answer to your question that in the course of the discussion, and we have visited Christmas Tree Lane.

Well, I mean, I grew up here, I've been going there for years and years, and um generally when I see those high school students from the clubs and whatnot, they're on private property, they're selling in someone's driveway.

So that wouldn't, the ordinance doesn't apply if they're on a yard lawn with someone's permission or the driveway, right?

Exactly.

That's what I was saying.

If they're on private property, the ordinance doesn't apply.

If they're on public, anyone on public pri property, it would apply.

And the um code enforcement officer will be trained to treat everyone equally, correct?

Absolutely.

My point was more that it's complaint driven.

That code enforcement will absolutely you know uh be enforcing equally.

Uh and because we are you know resource constrained with a couple of code enforcement officers, we would respond mostly upon complaint.

With Christmas Tree Lane, we know it's a significant issue, so we're taking a proactive approach at that and other areas where we know we have a lot of unpermitted sidewalk vendors.

I appreciate it.

I think training is important to guard against um uh allegations that we're picking and choosing who to um enforce the rules.

Thank you.

Oh, and then uh, vice mayor.

Um yeah, so I um so if a vendor was not really aware, do they get a verbal warning or at first before they get a um financial um citation?

Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor Pryor.

Um, yes, there would be verbal warnings, especially in this first year.

We want to do a lot of education, so there would be verbal warnings and written warnings before we even start the three citation projects.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions before we get a public comment?

Yes, um, just to be clear, okay.

And then back to you, yeah.

Councilman Jensen, then we'll go back to Councilman, Councilman Johnson.

So, the all vendors will have to have a city business license.

That's correct.

Unless it's what unless we change that requirement.

The ordinance is currently written to require a city business license, yes.

Okay, thank you as drafted.

And Councilmember Days had another question.

One more question.

Um, what thoughts slash trainings have staff given?

Have you given with regard to um training code enforcement officers as to what constitutes private property on commercial areas uh versus um public property case in point, the um the cannabis shop on the corner of Webster and Hate.

Um the immediate sidewalk that's immediate to the cannabis shop is private property actually, and then the sidewalk, the rest of the sidewalk is public, so the um so that so you might you know staff might give some consideration to uh to training as to what constitutes public and private property, especially in commercial areas.

Understood, thank you.

Uh thank you for the question.

Any further clarifying questions, counsel?

Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

We do.

Uh Richard Heike and he'll get three minutes.

Welcome, come on up.

Uh thank you, everybody.

Um I was up here about a year ago talking about this, um, asking for something to be done.

I don't live on Thompson Street.

Um I'm going head to head with these vendors as a legal vendor in the city of Alameda.

Uh I am probably your biggest complainer.

Because I have people who for the lack of better word, don't play by the rules.

I have an ice cream truck.

And as far as I can tell, and by the talking to people here in the city, I am the only legal mobile food vendor in the city of Alameda operating.

Not Mr.

Softy, not my main competitor, and almost none of these guys have permits.

I can't operate on, I can't legally operate on park.

I can't legally operate on Webster.

I can't go head to head with brick and mortar businesses, but I can have people illegal vendors just pull up right there and sell the people in my line.

The basketball not just in this, but I also work with them in my other business.

And uh it's it's been tough dealing with this because even though there are existing laws, the police can't do anything, code enforcement can't do anything, and because this law doesn't exist, uh the environmental health county environmental health can't they refuse to do anything until there's a law on the books that gives them something.

Sorry, I'm kidding that.

Um so uh yeah, thank you for for getting this on.

It's pretty comprehensive.

Uh I did notice in the uh uh the information I was given by uh Amy Woolrich, uh there is a typo, so I'd uh I'd love to show you that.

Um but it is pretty comprehensive and it does put it pretty much where I'm at with my business.

Um and so I do appreciate that, especially when it comes to schools.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um any further public comment?

No, that's it.

Okay, we will close public comment on this item, and we will go back to the council.

So what we're being asked for is but the introduction of an ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code to add this sidewalk vending um item and also um to adopt a resolution amending the master fee resolution so we can add that um sidewalk vendor permit sheet.

Uh any further discussion or do I have a motion?

Um, yeah, I Vice Mayor Pryor.

So, oh, sorry.

If you're gonna make a motion, I wanted to.

Well, we'll still have discussion after a motion, but um I can wait.

We can wait.

Councilmember Jensen, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

I um actually I have a couple of things that I feel that one thing that I think the city could possibly do, and this comes from a discussion I had with um actually one of the neighbors this afternoon while I was walking my dog, I was chatting with some Thompson residents and um when someone suggested who's lived on the street for a long time or pointed out that many of these vendors seem to um be working together.

They have um they come from a collective, say I see that um our experienced vendor is shaking his head and and so um my suggestion based on this information might be that it that co-compliance could um work with experienced and um compliant vendors to determine who these umbrella organizations are and reach out to them to ensure before they deploy and before they purchase and supply and deploy these individual vendors that they know that the that this has changed and that they know the new requirements so there's no confusion and um other I think it may have been discussed briefly, but we're um whether to put signage up.

Some of the neighbors were very supportive of that, at least in at least initially before there's any um any action taken or any fines levied.

And finally, with regard to the permit fee or business license waivers, I feel like that there should be some financial contribution by these vendors.

So whether it be either the business license or just establish the $50 vendor fee, that is important.

I think that just by paying that fee, even if it was less than that, by having to pay that fee and being knowing that they have to pay it, and that gives them the responsibility to comply with the requirements.

So those are my comments, and I'm definitely ready to support a motion to approve that.

And as I understand from the staff report, we are talking about signage and in fact signage with QR codes and A frames.

I will assume that those are A-frame signs that will not be blocking the public right-of-way.

Um, and also we are talking about fee because that's part of the reason we're amending the fee ordinance, correct?

Okay, it's correct.

Okay.

Assistant manager, city managers, which is um yeah, is not here.

Please, Vice Mayor.

Oh, I have a question, not a motion.

Sorry.

And what uh council member Jensen um got me thinking um that so could are these or do we know as a way to find out are these the people that are working that are selling?

I mean, are they necessarily the business owners or are they working for somebody else?

Um, because if they just showed up and because the boss told them to, then I feel like that might cause issues.

So I just that was my question.

It's a great question, and it's generally a combination of both.

There are definitely vendors out there that um are workers and not owners of that particular, I'll call it a cart, um, and so but it's the owner on the cart that needs to be permitted.

So that's where the code enforcement would be working with them to you know identify who the owner is, track them down and and let them know and do the education and the verbal warnings, written warnings, and then citations to the owner.

And then um, I mean, this isn't part of the ordinance, but now I'm just concerned about that the owner is um adhering to labor laws.

And you know, I I guess I'm just worried about having people who are essentially being exploited to work at these um places who are gonna get all the grief from the residents and they're gonna get you know police citations, etc.

etc.

That um so that's just I I feel like it's a bigger question that maybe you might not be able to answer today, but I I I think it's something we should look into.

Could I just comment and we did have um assistant city manager Woolderidge and communications director Sarah Henry and two members of Alameda Police Department um all put on this great presentation where it was well attended at Lincoln Park Community Center for the neighbors, and um you know there is talk that in some times that there may be some exploitation, some human trafficking involved.

That's how we have a police department, and if they and I mean they do follow um human trafficking cases that come through our city um at times, and so that is always out there and available, but it is such a balance, and that state legislation, and I think it um originated maybe in Southern California where there were a lot of these kind of street vendors, but it is a form of people's livelihood, and sometimes it's migrants, and um, you know, we've heard what a what an expensive place to live this is, but as with anything we do, there has to be a balance because this is also residential neighborhoods, and then at Christmas time, Christmas Tree Lane, it's like open houses being held on these folks' street, but in recent years, it has become difficult, even dangerous to walk in.

People end up walking in the street, but then there's cars in the street and people with wheelchairs or shoulders, you know, can't get by, so it's we're trying to achieve a balance.

But you're right, there could be a lot of other things going on.

I think this ordinance is a really good start.

And as we get out there as code enforcement is being very proactive in doing education, I think that's a great place to start.

And we can always, if there needs to be um revisions, amendments will go from there, but it's a good, I think it's a good starting point.

And then it clarifying questions.

Let's look for a motion.

Did you did you make the motion earlier, Councilmember?

Yeah, Vice Mayor.

So I would like to make this motion.

And in the motion, sorry, are we specific about what we're charging, or we're just saying yes, we should charge a fee?

It's it's come on out.

Yes, the motion includes an amendment to the master fee schedule to add this as a $50 permit fee, which means it would be an annual fee every time they reapply.

Okay, so yes, that my motion includes the $50 fee and to um sorry, and if to approve the ordinance.

If I could ask that the motion also include um uh to to the edit to change R5 to R6 in the ordinance, it's to add our six, and it's to section six-sixty-two.9 subsections B and C on page 11 of the ordinance.

And and also we can do both the ordinance and the reso, the resolution to add the permit fee in one motion.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, okay, so so moved.

Well, I actually wanted to, I have a question about the motion about the fees.

Um and with my with the just the the um idea that possibly there could be a fee waiver, which I'm not gonna support, but it there will be a business license fee for every vendor as well as a fifty dollar vendor fee.

Correct.

So what it essentially to tally it up, which is what I think the question is, is it's uh $50 once a year fee plus a hundred and nineteen dollar if they make less than eighty-eight thousand dollars a year, which we're assuming they do, um so it's fifty-five plus a hundred and nineteen dollars per year plus any fees to uh for their to procure insurance.

Um, and talking to food vendors, I I met with Mr.

uh with Richard Haik, um you can get it for approximately $25 a month.

Um so there's the insurance cost, and then the Alameda County food permit cost.

I don't know what that is, and the state resale license cost.

And I uh to the point that the Vice Mayor made earlier, I whether or not these individuals who have been doing the vending have had any of that any business license or any um insurance or any of that um protections or financial uh financials in place in the past, it's unlikely, I think.

And so to the suggested potential waiver, I I'm just a little uncomfortable with with saying that yes, you can be a vendor, but now you're gonna have to pay over 200 every year to vend before four o'clock on any day.

I mean, this seems to effectively be eliminating vending, not just on Thompson, but in other parts of Alameda, unless there's a very uh just temporary vending, I guess, or or seasonal vending.

Well, it it act it actually allows year-round vending throughout the city, um, and from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

or sunrise, sunset, whichever is earlier later.

And that's just residential, 7 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

in in commercial, so um, and it's city-wide, so they could be in parks, they could there's a there's quite a bit of to your point, economic opportunities within the city.

And it the permit lasts for a year, correct?

Correct, yeah.

Yes, so the just over 200 is a is a is a once a year cost.

I understand.

But effectively this will be the people who are vending at Christmas time on Thompson Avenue aren't, as you mentioned.

They probably are are not having a business license or and the people who may be vending in our parks are more likely and and vending more regularly and are more likely to have a business license and meet these criteria.

So this, you know, with these considerations, it's really going to effectively end the opportunity if as long as we we continue with the uh with the the enforcement for vending on Thompson, most likely.

For Christmas tree lane, it will end vending on Christmas tree lane because it's at dark after sunset.

And both we have the specific carve out in the ordinance that's not allowed during the month of December after four o'clock on Friday, Saturday, Sundays, and the week before Christmas.

And it's not allowed year-round after sunset.

I understand.

And of course, insurance is definitely necessary, and that that we need to protect anyone who purchases from any vendor.

So I'll second the motion and thank you for the clarification.

And I will just add that I I think um really it's just been in the last few years that we've seen these carts appear on Thompson Avenue, and it's just not the best place for it because also every year on Thompson Avenue, there's more and more people.

But by doing some regulation, I don't mean it is a nice safe place, and if people want to come here um and pay some cost of doing business, that is a nominal fee.

Um but they I think that it's just the combination of all those carts and and all those people, and just wasn't a good one.

Um I I would have, and I I um discussed this with uh the assistant city manager earlier today.

I would have loved it if we had actually connected with um one or more operator of uh vending cart, because I do think that there is a difference between um someone who operates a truck who sees these as competition, and it would have been nice to hear directly um from an operator, but again, we're starting here, and I often say let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think there's a lot of good in this, and I think um we can we can see how it goes, but I think it is definitely um an ordinance that whose time has come.

So we have a motion by Vice Mayor Prior, seconded by Councilmember Jensen.

Any further discussion?

All right.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Any opposed to any abstentions?

Seeing none, the motion carries it is nine oh five.

That's almost violating my two-hour rule.

We always take a break.

Um council, it's nine oh five, let's all come back at nine fifteen to finish our meeting, and we don't have too much more to go.

Thank you everyone for um this last item.

Okay.

How do we give us a hug Thank you.

All right.

So um we now move on to the rest of the agenda and we go right into City Manager Communications.

City Manager, got anything you want to share?

Is it in my talking voice?

Yes, but uh, you know, uh the mayor's uh acknowledging that so the city of Hayward did just approve my employment contract this evening.

Um so um I will be sending my official resignation and forty-five days notice, uh my last day will be December 5th.

And I have uh as you'll see in my email.

I mean I I have love working in Alameda, and I've truly enjoyed working with all of you and the executive team and employees, and I will miss this job a lot uh quite a bit.

So it's certainly a hard job.

Uh but I really have enjoyed it and think we've all accomplished a lot together.

So thank you so much for everything.

Now I'll get to my official comments that have been scripted for me.

In recognition of United Against Hate Week, the Social Service Human Relations Board is hosting a free film screening of the movie BIAS, which explores how bias define our world taking place in council chambers this Thursday, October 23rd at 6 p.m.

On Saturday and Sunday, November 1st and 2nd, the 45th annual Alameda holiday boutique is open from 10 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

of the Oak Club with more than 70 local artisans.

The city has started construction on the Clement Avenue Tilden Way Improvement Project this week.

The first phase does not include any detours or disruptions, and we'll keep the community updated about future phases and the best detour routes.

We are finishing up construction on Central Avenue with the final paving in the area in front of Incennel School to be completed during the Thanksgiving school break.

Striping will then be installed, and contractors will shift their focus to the new roundabout at the Pacific and Main intersection.

And then lastly, a couple of transportation updates to increase ferry capacity changes are coming to the Harbor Bay and Alameda seaplane ferry routes effective November 3rd, including new westbound trips on Alameda Seaplane and service consolidated to hourly at Harbor Bay.

Afternoon, evening, and weekend schedules remain the same.

And then starting November 3rd, the water shuttle will move to a winter schedule with service Tuesday through Sunday, but the longer weekend hours will be a little reduced.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And then we go to oral communication non-agenda items.

No, no additional agenda.

Shaking her head.

Okay.

And so then council communications and council can speak for up to nine minutes on any matter not on the agenda, including reporting on uh conferences or meetings.

Councilmember Jensen, why don't we start with you?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Last Saturday I participated in Alameda's No King's Rally along with more than 4,000 of my friends and neighbors.

We voiced our opinions and our presence here in Alameda, and we joined more than six million Americans who believe in peaceful protest while knowing that together we can make change happen.

Just by showing up and sharing our hopes for democracy, we demonstrated our power against authoritarian leaders.

And on Saturday, really it was 400, excuse me, 4,000 multicultural, multi-generational Alameda residents who showed support for our values, support for the concept that everyone belongs here in Alameda and here in America.

And Alameda is truly a welcoming city.

I love it here as we all do.

And we have tremendous resources available to all residents and businesses.

Much of our recent successes in this city can be attributed to the outstanding leadership of City Manager Jennifer Ott.

The city council has followed Jen's direction to establish a free estuary shuttle, expand estuary park, develop the city's first aquatic center, provide a basic income to Alameda's most vulnerable residents, and to make our streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians, among other things, among many other things.

So I want to take this opportunity to thank Jennifer for her service to Alameda and wish her the best in her new role as the city manager of Hayward.

And that's my remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go down the line, Vice Mayor.

I just really quick just want to echo everything that Tracy just said about our city manager Jennifer Ott.

You know, as a this is my first term in the council, and you've just been so incredible and so supportive.

And I'm gonna miss you, and I'm glad this is not your last day.

So and I was earlier when you were talking, uh Mayor as the Ashcraft, I was I was really tempted to say boo when you know.

I was like, Oh, I don't want to get in trouble for breaking the rules.

Um, so things that I have done.

I went to Cal Cities in Long Beach October 8th through 10th.

Um it was great.

There was a lot of great workshops.

Um, I went to one about parking, emergency, emergency um preparedness.

Assistant city manager and I got to go to an event at the um aquarium.

So that was super fun.

Um on October 14th, I attended a meeting for Alameda Healthcare District Board.

We got a very sobering update about how federal cuts will affect Alameda Hospital.

And that was not good.

Anyway.

So happy staff.

I did the I got to co-host the Donut Fun Run on October 19th.

And then right after I went to the No Kings rally.

And then we went to a pause fundraiser.

And yeah, so I was busy, busy couple weeks.

The vice mayor has a special donut dress that she wore.

It was adorable.

For the record.

Council River Bowler.

Oh, thank you.

Just first on the events and meetings.

October 11 was uh Pride in the Park, and it was great to see my fellow council members there and so many people from the community who were uh out with great spirit and great fun and it was a it was an important event.

I was glad to be there.

Um then Wednesday, October 15, the Airport Noise Management Forum.

And um October 18, the FODS fundraiser after the ball.

Um also was at on October 19 at the Sister City Committee event for the Wadi Fakim proposal.

And I just want to say um Jennifer Ott, our city manager, it's it's a big loss for the city of Alameda to have you go, but you've left behind a legacy of service here.

You've you've had really incredible accomplishments, and you have some really talented people that you've helped mentor along the way that we have here, and and so you've left us in good hands that way.

We appreciate you.

Council Member Dayside.

Well, great.

Well, I just want to first begin by saying, you know, uh City Manager Jennifer Rott, uh, you will be sorely missed.

Um unfortunately, our loss is the City of Hayward's game.

And I know you're going back to a place that you did some work, but we are proud of all the work that you did here.

I remember I think you were the sidekick to Leslie Little in uh putting together the um historic theater, putting that together.

Um, and then uh and then afterwards uh you worked closely with uh city then city manager John Russo and really getting um the uh uh our base closure back on track after you know certain um sideways um so we certainly appreciate that um but especially you know the work that you did um and and the contributions that will be lasting um as a city manager um we are definitely um grateful and thankful to you and your service to Alameda all these years um so I just want to say that thank you um let's see uh well let's see on October 11th there was the United Nations 80th celebration at Jack London Square.

Um that was very nice.

Um uh certain um council members and the mayor of Oakland, Barbara Lee had attended.

Um I just gave a brief speech.

Um Stuart Chennad invited me, so um that was the day that I dressed up on with a tie, because immediately after the United Nations 80th celebration at Jacqueline Square, then I also went to the Pride celebration to Chen Yo Park, and so I kind of like why is he wearing a suit and tie?

Very nice.

And then on the Thursday of that week, I guess that might have been um October 16th, but I can't remember.

Um was the AC Transit City of Alameda uh joint liaison meeting.

That was very nice.

Uh uh, we we it was City of Alameda's official uh turn to host it, but we let Joel Young uh trustee of uh AC Transit uh run the meeting.

He enjoyed that.

Um, because you wouldn't run it.

And let's see.

Oh, yes, yes, yes.

Um, the donut fun run was a lot of fun.

I ran the race, believe it or not.

Um, it might not have been a complete five.

I mean, because my time was a little faster than like no way.

That's not.

But who knows?

Um, but it was a very enjoyable.

So, shout out and thank you to all the people who put that on, especially um Joan Dutarte who spearheaded that.

Amazing job.

And then after that, attended the uh No Kings.

Um, it was great to see so many Alamedans concerned about the direction of our uh country and um and out there to express their views.

Um, so I um I don't think enjoyed it is the right way to say it, but um, it was a sobering event about you know residents' take on what's going on nationally.

So I think we need to all stand up and listen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And and I'll go last, and I was at some of the same events with all of you from October 8th to the 10th.

I was in Long Beach for the League of California Cities annual conference and lots of good sessions.

Um I am now part of a group on um elected representatives from coastal and bay cities, and so my goodness, we all have our issues.

Um, and we had a keynote speaker who I think was just a highlight, um, Erin Brockovich, who is you know a longtime champion for um advocacy for clean air, water, California resident, and but she talked about how important it is for people, just everyday people to come to city councils and talk to your elected leaders, and that's how change starts to happen.

She's a very inspiring speaker.

And then that Saturday morning before Pride in the Park, I did um the CPR and AED training component of the CERT training.

So again, for anyone who hasn't done their cert training, I really recommend it.

CPR and AED was great training.

I think my one shoulder still hurts because it really does take a lot of pressure to get the sufficient chest compression, but so important to learn.

Um, and AEDs, we should all learn how to use AEDs.

And then I went to Pride in the Park and very nice uh turnout.

Oh, and that later that afternoon I was a guest at an Alameda residence.

Um she's moved to San Lorenzo, but she grew up in Alameda, was born here, and she just turned, she's 95, she's turning 96 in December, but she went to school at Mastic, and the party was held at Mastics Senior Center, and she was so physically and mentally active and alert, just an inspiration.

Um, October 14th, over at the library, I attended the community beat meeting that APD Alamite Police Department puts on for the different neighborhoods.

If you go to the police department's website, you can see where your neighborhood is and you can see when there's a beat meeting.

And there's an officer that comes and gives some presentation and statistics, but then answers questions.

It's really informative, and I I just encourage people to attend theirs.

Then on October 16th at 8 in the morning, a group of staff um we met out in the off of Gibbons Drive, but in some areas where tomorrow night the Transportation Commission will consider approving these quick build demonstration projects, which is to say two different roundabouts, but just quick build means there, you this is from the city engineer.

You do them in a circle, a circle of like he calls them shopping centers, speed maps, and we're hoping to get maybe community artists to design design for the middle and but the idea is to make these wide open areas more visible, and it was nice for us to be able to see how people were using those streets, lots of walking to school, biking, scooters, uh, and some cars too that all need to coexist.

Um, and that same day um was the employee picnic, play employee appreciation picnic at Jean Sweeney Park.

Such a nice event, perfect weather, but just lots of fun, all the different events and competitions and great food.

So great work.

So that was HR on Saturday the 18th.

Um I was also at the No Kings rally and spoke.

It was well attended.

That evening was the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter as it was noted after the ball.

The next morning I was at St.

Philip Neri Catholic Church.

Our St.

Philip Nary Church turned 100 years old, just like St.

Barnabas did earlier this year, and the church was full, the bishop was there, and I was just learned a lot about how the history of that church, how the city council for two years refused to approve a zoning change to allow the church to be built because they said, Oh no, it's a residential area, you can't build a church here.

Yeah, that was 100 years ago.

So things are different now.

And then later that day, I was also at the Buena Vista United Methodist Church with Councilmember Boulder to celebrate Palestinian culture and Wadi Fouquin.

And I do want to wish everyone who celebrates Happy Diwali.

It is now started, and last but not least, I too want to just express my um gratitude to uh Jennifer Ott, our current city manager, but not for too much longer.

Um Jen knows that I always want people to be where they can grow and thrive and feel like they can make a difference, and as I told her earlier, um Mark Salinas, the mayor of Hayward, who is still my friend, called called me this afternoon.

But I was saying, you know, you have chosen the right person at the right time because crisis Hayward is a city in crisis, and Jenny just brings such a strong skill set.

When you came here, it doesn't seem like that long ago, but you know, you restructured different departments.

You just came in and you've got this.

You you are such a great strategist, and um anyway, you did some restructuring, you move things around, you have such a good eye for what needs to be done and how to get it there.

So I'm thrilled for you for this next move, thrilled for Hayward.

Um, we will miss you.

But um you and I still have a few things we're partnering on, and our paths are gonna continue to cross.

But we wish you happy trails.

And um, with that, everyone, we're gonna close the council communications and just go on to item 11, because I have some board and commission um nominee nominations.

I'm just announcing tonight, and then our next council meeting, we will be voting for them.

So the first up is on um for the commission on persons with disabilities.

We have an opening, and um Lillian Jewell, who is the city's um Americans with disabilities act coordinator, and I interviewed five candidates.

Oh my goodness, it was not easy to choose among them because they were also qualified in their different ways.

But we um chose to fill the commission on persons with disabilities opening.

A woman named Michelle Canadler.

She is a designer with the Gensler firm, which is a very well-known and well-regarded design firm.

She has worked on buildings um in Alameda to make sure that they were built in compliance with the ADA.

One of the things, and and she was just engaging and really um interesting to talk to, but one of the things that caught our attention was that she has just um so inclusive design is part of her design work, but she has just recently finished a year-long research project with Stanford University in neurodiversity in retail shopping environments, and she says I'm passionate about connecting people with resources and information, and Lillian Jewel and I discussed how the Commission on Persons with Disabilities, which is doing a lot, but it has tended to focus on persons with physical disabilities.

But there's a range of disabilities and sometimes a combination.

So the fact that Michelle Canadler also has this area of expertise or or specialty was particularly attractive.

And as I mentioned, we really had a hard time choosing as among the selections, so I asked Lillian her opinion.

She thought it was a great idea because I said, you know, I have an opening on my on our social services human relations board.

What about the person that was right up there with Michelle Canadler?

And she loved it.

And so I reached out to this person because we'd already interviewed her.

And her name is Roberta Kreitz.

She goes by Robbie.

She is a longtime education specialist in special education.

She currently oversees a number of programs for three different schools, but in addition to special education, it's also mental health and wellness, and that's something that's been a focus of the commission.

Robbie grew up in Alameda in the spirit of full disclosure, once upon a time, she was a babysitter for my twins when they were young.

And that was a trial, I'm sure by fire.

But no, they always loved her.

But no, Lillian really affirmed for me that uh that she is really just so energetic, so passionate about what she does, and um Robbie Kreitz is also looking forward to serving on the Social Services Human Relations Board.

So those two nominees will come to the council to vote on for approval at our next meeting.

Okay, and with that, we are done and we are joining this meeting.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, staff.

Good to see you.

Drive home carefully.

Good night.