Right, are we ready in the balcony?

All right.

I don't care if staff is ready.

The balcony is ready, so we are going to and we've got a quorum, right?

Okay, so we've got um lots to cover.

Well, at least some really um I mean everything's important, right?

So we but we just don't want to waste any time.

So we are going to, I am going to call this meeting to order.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the city council meeting.

Tonight is June 2nd, 2026, and we are about to go into closed session.

I just want to take a minute before we go into closed session to say June 2nd is also election day.

Drop everything, grab that ballot, go do it now.

You have until eight o'clock.

It is your solemn duty as an American citizen to vote.

So please, your voice is your vote, make it heard vote.

So with that, Madam Clerk, could we please have a roll call?

I'll step down with my vote box.

Council members bullet briefly.

Have you heard from either of them?

I can reach out.

That would be great.

Okay, um uh Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers on the consent calendar?

We have none.

Okay, we will then move on to um item two A on the consent calendar.

Could you please introduce that item?

So 2A is designating the negotiators for um 1701 Monarch Street, um, which is building 29.

Uh, and it's with Long Shot Space Technologies corporation.

Okay, and so what I'm looking for is a motion and a second, like instantaneously to um approve um Adam Paul's your interim city manager, Abigail Thorne Lyman based reased Recent Economic development, Director Alicia Straub, based reviews manager, Ada Wang executive Vice President, everyone listed on this agenda item to be the negotiators.

Do we have a motion?

I so moved.

Moved by Vice Mayor Prior, seconded by Council Member Bowler.

All those in favor, signify by stating aye.

Aye.

That motion carries.

And so we did do a little um flip of the items.

We are actually going to take um item four B first, then we'll do four A, and then we'll do four C.

So Madam Clerk, could you please introduce the closed session items and in the order that we're going to take them?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um 4B is conference with legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section nine four nine five six nine A.

The case name is City of Alameda versus Greenway Golf Associates, Inc.

The court is Alameda County Superior Court.

Case number is twenty two CV zero one one nine six four.

Uh four A is Commissary property negotiators pursuant to government code section five four nine five six eight.

Property is seventeen oh one Mark Street building twenty-nine at Alameda Point.

The city negotiators are the interim city manager, base for use technology development director, base for use manager, assistant city attorney, and um uh Jones.

Um, sorry, Joe Ada Wong from Jones Lang LaSalle.

Um the negotiating parties of the City of Alameda and Long Shot uh Space Technologies under negotiation or price in terms of lease and force is public employee performance valuation pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven.

Uh positions evaluated at our city attorney and city clerk.

Thank you, madam clerk.

So at this time, I'd like all staff and um non-staff who are involved in item um for B related to Greenway Golf and Associates versus or the City of Alameda versus Greenway Golf Associates to join us in the room behind council chambers, and we'll call the next item as it comes up.

And to the public, we intend to be back before you at seven o'clock this same evening.

Thank you so much, go vote.

Hello, everyone, we um have just come out of closed session, give us five minutes, and we'll be back before you don't go away unless you haven't voted yet.

And then get yourself immediately to the voter drop box or uh voting location.

Okay, we'll be back.

Are we ready in the balcony as if they're always ready in the balcony?

Okay, as promised, it is 7.05, and we are back before you.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the city council meeting for the City of Alameda.

Tonight is Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026.

And the count before I even get into that, I just want to state that it's 706 and it's also election day.

So if you have a registered voter in California and for some reason have not yet voted, you need to get to, if you've got your ballot with you, just take it right outside to the drop box on Oak Street at Santa Clara, or there's a couple of voting locations actually on Central Avenue, not far from here, but you must vote.

So please please honor your civic duty to do so.

In the meantime, the council has just returned from closed session.

And I would like to ask the um the city clerk to please um report on uh any actions taken in closed session.

City Clerk Laura Weisiger.

Thank you.

So um for item four A, which was real property negotiations for building 29, um staff provided information and council provided direction by five eyes.

And for item four B, which was um a litigation of the Greenway case, um, the city council authorized the city attorney to execute a settlement agreement with Greenway where the parties would bear their own costs, work to revise the lease between the parties to clarify certain provisions such as audit and green fees, and the pending litigation was dismissed.

This item carried also carried by uh five eyes.

And then my understanding is council will return into closed session for the last item for C, which was evaluation.

That is correct.

Thank you for that, Madam Clerk.

And um, so with that, I will adjourn the um special city council meeting the closed session and I will call to order the special joint meeting of the city council and successor agency to the community improvement commission, which was once known as the redevelopment agency.

And we start with um the pledge of allegiance, and I'd like to ask my council colleague Greg Bowler to please join us uh to please lead us in the pledge.

One nation.

Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Council Member Boulder.

Um Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Council members buller.

Jensen prior.

Here, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft.

Five present.

Thank you.

And um, we move on to the um consent calendar, and again, this is the consent calendar just for this special meeting of the successor agency.

Um, and uh the consent calendar routine items that are approved by one motion, unless council members or commissioners remove the items for discussion.

Um, do we have any?

Um, do we take public comment on this?

Okay, we do.

And there's no, there's a where exactly is that on the agenda?

Um, oh, the public comments, but yeah, it's it's just the like getting consent calendar, public comments allowed.

Yeah, but we usually never have any on this.

Do we have any?

No, we don't.

Okay, we'll close public comment.

And um, any questions or comments?

Council on again the successor agency uh consent calendar.

Oh, and madam mayor, if I might as just in the hearing.

There is a public hearing that's establishing the prop for appropriations limit for fiscal year 26-27 and adoption of a related resolution for the proposition for limit.

So, um, this item it is a hearing, and if there were speakers, now would have been the time for them to comment.

So thank you.

Perfect.

Um, thank you for that.

Okay.

Yes, uh, Councilmember Jensen.

Thank you.

Just to um point out and appreciate that the um city of Alameda is well under the GAN limit, which is the limit for expenditures established by proposition four.

And this isn't the case for all cities in California.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

Okay, so um, what I'm looking for is a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar for the successor agency item set it's moved by Vice Mayor.

Okay, uh by a council member Jensen, I think I saw Vice Mayor Prior's hand up to second.

All right.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Um, and then um also on this um uh in this special joint meeting is um agenda item 3A.

And Madam Cook, would you um uh introduce that item while whoever the staff that are presenting make their way up to the podium, please.

We'll do thank you.

Adoption of resolutions approving and adopting the mid-cycle changes to the city of Alameda budget for fiscal years twenty six-27, excluding the operating budget amendment for the rent program.

Um, and adoption of resolution approving workforce changes and amending the management and confidential employee association salary schedule and amending the Alameda City Employee Association salary schedule in fiscal year 26-27 effective July 1st, 2026.

Thank you and welcome.

Good evening, madam mayor and city council.

My name is Katerina Burton, and I am the budget manager, and I will be giving you a brief presentation um for this uh particular item.

So, want to start off as always with the city council strategic priorities here, which guided the uh budget process, and now just want to remind everyone about what was given as council direction at the May 5th budget workshop in regards to the fiscal year 26-27 mid-cycle budget.

Uh council directed to add a parking technician who is offset by revenue.

Uh council directed to add four police officers, and the other major change council added was to convert um the following full-time positions to part-time equivalents.

Um, and we do want to note that all new positions are to be reviewed by the new city manager before any actions are taken.

This table right here shows those uh part those full-time positions being converted to their part-time equivalents so you all have a sense of uh what that totals to in terms of savings.

Uh, and then in terms of the overview of where the mid-cycle budget is after council direction, uh, we you know do want to continue to iterate that you know the city is in a stable but tight financial position uh in terms of the general fund budget, uh, 159 million is for expenditures that is both ongoing and one time and the revenue budget is 158 million, and again, that is ongoing in one time.

Uh, as was mentioned in the uh May workshop, uh the aquatic center construction bid has increased cost by five million and will be coming to your consideration at the next uh council meeting in June.

And so we wanted to show you um where we anticipate the ending residual fund balance to be uh basically a 9.7 million with the aquatic center increase included.

Uh these next two tables are just going over at a high level what is in our general fund budget.

First, first we're going over revenues, so you can see the types of revenues broken down here.

And again, this is both ongoing in one time.

This table right here goes to over the expenditure costs and how they are divvied up by department.

And as you can see, you know, fire and police have the lion's share of the general fund budget.

And we shared the slide at the May 5th budget workshop, but just again want to, you know, reiterate to council and the public that the city is beginning to see the uh beginning of a difference between our revenues and our expenditures, where our revenues are being outpaced by our expenditures.

We do want to remind you all that there are upcoming uh budget costs that we are expecting that will be factoring into the biennial budget.

So uh we are still in uh a process of continuing to try to make the best financial decisions for the city that ensure the city's long-term uh stability.

So, in terms of next steps, uh before you all, um, we are wanting to, you know, per the staff report uh bring back uh the decision of whether to convert part-time positions to full-time positions after completing the five-year forecast.

And for tonight, your uh next step is to approve and adopt uh the budget and workforce changes as proposed proposed in the staff report.

So if there are any direction uh questions, uh or please give them to us now and I'll answer them or finance director McCarthy will answer them.

Um I have a couple of um uh questions, thank you, and whomever can um answer them.

So I think there was some passing reference to this, but I think it needs more attention.

We are all waiting with bated breath to see if this measure that has gotten enough signatures to be placed on the November ballot, and I'm not talking about the transit measure, I'm talking about the measure that would impact charter cities like ours, and force a change in our ability to collect transfer tax.

And the League of California cities did a survey of charter cities in our region, the East Bay region, which are the um, well, I think they did it statewide, but we have we have a more than a few charter cities, Alameda included in the Bay Area.

We stand to lose from our general fund anywhere between 10 and 18 million dollars.

And so I am aware that there are negotiations going on in Sacramento as we speak to keep that measure off the ballot, but it will require some sort of a compromise.

I'm not sure because I'm not in the room where it's happening.

But I don't think that we can realistically and responsibly budget for money that might be taken out of our general fund.

So that's more um, I you know, I didn't see too much how I I guess my question is how are you all addressing that?

Because it wasn't really highlighted.

Um, just to say that transfer tax is is volatile, it changes, but it could go away altogether.

Yeah.

Good evening.

You want to introduce yourself?

My name is Ross McCarthy, finance director.

Uh, thanks, Mayor.

Yes, that is a great question.

Um, ultimately, though, we do not deal in hypotheticals.

I mean, we try to do our best, but if that were to pass uh through um as a ballot measure in November, um there would be significant changes that we'd have to make.

So we'd have to come back to council no matter what it's we're we're not presenting two budgets to you, one if it passes and one if it doesn't.

We're just saying, hey, this is a hypothetical situation.

We will deal with it if if if it comes.

Okay, um, you might define hypothetical a little differently than I do.

Um, all right, um, I think that might be my only um and by the way, you're projecting transient occupancy tax to remain flat, and that's even with um the Australian national team come into Alameda um correct correct I mean it's a short term uh and half of it is this fiscal year and half it is next all right that's all for me thank you okay other questions um clarifying questions vice mayor prior okay yeah I have uh questions I'm gonna I think they're related so um so on page six it says the anticipated residual fund balance is expected to be 9.7 including the increase in the aquatic center um and so without the aquatic center um it would be 14 million last year I thought it was a year ago our ending residual balance was about nine million so now it looks like it's gonna be 14 million so it looks like it went up but wait don't hold that thought um however um on page 10 it says there is the um anticipated cost increases and those add up to be six million so could we include the pool costs say that our like if all of those things are true and the budgets which has cons you know can certainly be you know pretty um you know close to target that our actual ending balance could be about three million wait nine point seven is about ten so I'm just gonna round up ten minus six four million anyway did I do all that right um yes uh thanks vice mayor um so the six million dollars is for the next biannual budget so we were projecting out so that's not to this mid-cycle budget that we're doing right now we're doing the second half of last year's biennial budget um and so the six million dollars is in anticipated costs we know these costs are gonna come and so that is not projected in the ending fiscal balance as or the estimated ending fiscal balance as of June 30th 2027 that's before the next biennial starts so that's for about uh for the six million dollars um as far as uh your first question was concerned we had yeah roughly nine and a half or so um in the last biennial budget uh what we're asking now also is um to tap into our OPEB trust fund um I think it was on the slide that um eCAT had presented um which is basically um asking we have you one of those slides that ECAT was showing was basically showing a you know our revenues growing at a slower pace than our expenditures and as that gap widens we need something to fill it so either a we need fund balance to fill it or b we have other pots of money that we can use in the short term um to fill that gap and so we've asked for this biennial um to dip into our pension trust fund um and we're asking for this mid-cycle budget coming up to dip into our OPEP trust fund which has about 30 or 31 million dollars in it.

But just to be clear if I could jump in but only for uses authorized under the trust correct so the OPE trust fund is it pays for the OPEP costs of the city right as does the pension trust fund it goes towards our Calper's unfunded actuary reliability or UAL.

So in a year when we might have trouble making those payments out of our general fund we can turn to the trust fund correct exactly okay and you should keep that thought in mind when we talk about what hiring we want to approve now going forward because we are dipping into our trust fund yeah and that and that we see that gap why why excuse me is our mayor we see that gap widening between our expenses growing up at a steeper uh steeper rate than our than our revenues okay thank you okay did you finish vice mayor I did thank you any other clarifying questions before we go for public comment council member days so on on the OPEB um and the um uh the other uh CalPERS um funds so the UAL you mentioned so are you saying for the um for the uh UAL you know what the acronym is um that we're dipping into a trust fund that we created to pay for the normal costs that we should be paying so typically we should be setting aside roughly what seven million dollars or so just to cover the annual bill that that CalPers gives us right isn't that isn't that the case so so the PSRP or the pension rate stabilization policy outlines what we can pull from our op from our pension and opeb trust funds and and we are doing that so our for our pension trust fund we rec we um think our actuarial UAL plus our normal costs will be around 30 million dollars and so we're gonna be polling three three point two million dollars we sorry the PSRP says we can pull up to ten percent of our of our contra of our uh required payments to to CalPERS so for our pension and so we we estimate to be around three 30 million dollars so we're gonna be pulling around three million dollars from our from our pension trust as far as the OPEP trust is concerned we can pull uh what we need to cover ops so the entire 100% um so therefore our staff is recommending that we pull um roughly around 3.6 million dollars I think it might be 3.8 million dollars from the OPEP trust and then um the safety officers do contribute to the OPEB trust during the year and those contributions go to roughly around six hundred thousand so the six hundred thousand from the from the ongoing contributions from our safety officers plus the 3.7 or 3.8 million will get us to our 4.4 million for the OPEP costs which will be which we're asking um city council to approve tonight okay so let me just try to clarify so several years ago the city council had created a fund using a formula dealing with excess reserves so some of that excess reserves went into a pot of money for um for CalPERS unfunded liabilities in the future and another I think went to to deal with OPEB now those pots of monies are separate from what typically city council pays um to CalPers I forgot if that's the normal or if that's the UAL I but it's usually seven million dollars so um are you saying that let's just assume that the two trusts don't exist that that seven million dollars that we normally pay when each year CalPERS says this is your bill um just focusing on CalPERS are you saying that we we can't make the typical 7 million dollars so that instead we have we can only make four million dollars and in order to make up the difference we are going to now grab from that um separate um retirement fund that trust fund yeah um if I'm understanding uh let me just take a step back here yes about eight or nine years ago or so we created the pension trust funds we'll just talk pension and just talk cowper's yeah yeah so the seven million dollars is roughly the normal costs which is the costs that we put that we match with um with the employees based off of uh whatever CalPERS needs us to pay that that pay period or that year and so those are the normal costs of funding about okay yep um so we've so the the PSRP or the pension restabilization policy says hey if you have any extra money at the end of the day or at the end of the year what we're gonna do is before you put it all in the bank we're gonna take half of it and then put it in our trust fund or or pay down the UAL plus put in our trust fund but what close 75% UAL.

Anyway so yes right now we are polling from that 25% that we set up that we set aside we're pulling 3.4 million dollars from that trust fund okay so but that tells me is because somehow we don't have enough revenues from our typical sources of revenues to pay for the seven million dollars and in order to make up the difference we have to pull from that that separate nest egg basically correct you can see it like that yeah I mean we we'd find a way obviously to pay it, but yes, it's um that we're we're using that to supplement our our our payments to to CalParers, yes okay.

If I could follow up on council member Dakesak's question, I do understand that expenses are growing faster than revenues, and so I think you're trying to be proactive and and um prudent.

What if we're in the same situation or worse next year?

Um we keep drawing down.

Yeah, we'll keep drawing.

I mean, there's there's gotta be like that's the idea.

That's the I mean, ultimately, though, that's the idea of having this kind of trust fund for to use.

But yes, it would be the same thing.

We would we would ask you pull from.

Yeah, I I understand it quite well.

I was the council member who brought the idea forward, and fortunately the majority of my colleagues um agreed, but it isn't as though it has a magic, you know, well underneath it keeps replenishing it.

We replenish the trust fund.

If we're having trouble meeting our basic expenses, it's probably safe to assume that we're not also not adding to the trust fund.

Correct?

Yeah, correct.

Okay.

So then at some point the balance is drawing down, it's drawing down, and at some point it's gone.

But do you have you stopped to think long range?

How you would approach that?

I can go ahead and uh assistant city manager Woldridge.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, yeah, we every year we are are looking at that, and one thing we are planning on doing this summer and fall is a five-year budget forecast, and that also is another tool in our tool belt to really look forward at exactly the things you're talking about is in because no, we would we wouldn't be we you know, we are very responsible in what we bring to you and really thoughtful in that, and so we wouldn't just draw down until there's nothing left.

We'd really be thoughtful about it, and if we were getting that dire of a situation, we would be looking and coming to you with recommendations of much more severe cuts uh in various areas of the organization before we empty our trust fund, for example.

So, um, thank you for that.

And I'll also note that our new city manager will be on board by this summer and certainly will have input.

Were you um did you have something where you wanted to add?

Okay, but again, everything that we just heard is are things that the council should take into consideration when we decide what to approve or not approve tonight.

But thank you for that information.

Um Councilmember Bowler, did you have your hand up?

No.

Okay.

Um are there any public comments on this item, Madam Clerk?

Okay.

Uh first Mitch Ball and then Denise Trapinier.

Okay, and is it just the two?

Yes.

Okay.

So you'll tell them their time and all those good things.

Yeah, they get three minutes.

All right, thank you.

Um I welcome Speaker Ball.

Thank you.

Within this mid-cycle update, there is one workforce change that clearly stands out amongst the rest.

The increase from two to three parking technicians is expected to be fully self-funded because additional enforcement brings more money through ticket fines and increased meter compliance than it costs to hire.

This is very unique to this role, and it's important that the city make financially sound hiring decisions such as this when asking the public to consider new taxes through a ballot bond measure.

We should recognize why hiring more parking technicians is such a lucrative decision.

Meter compliance is low and illegal parking is frequent and common.

When I bike on Webster or Park, I typically get stuck behind an average of two illegally double parked cars in the bike lane that I have never once before seen ticketed.

Those are reached 79 dollars with the new proposed master fee schedule.

An enforcement technician could probably rack up $500 an hour for the city easily during peak times.

But that money is simply left on the table if unenforced.

Regardless of positive budget implications, the primary purpose of parking enforcement is to have properly functioning roads, which is why parking enforcement is as universally popular as it is.

Well, sometimes there is pushback for motorists regarding street design for active transportation.

Everybody hates illegal parking.

If you frequent the popular co community forum, the Alameda Peeps Facebook group, you will know that it's become a tradition to post pictures of driveways blocked by illegally parked cars.

And each of those posting residents stuck in the driveway is a car owner.

Many car owners often frequently complain about being unable to find street parking, and street parking is often taken up by parked cars that spar surpass the 72-hour rule.

Every day on my way to work, I pass by two old rusty project cars that sit in the same street parking spots on 8th Street south of Jean Sweeney Park for months.

Well, I have to admit it's cool that some of these cars are still around.

They should be parked in a private driveway or a storage facility, not on the public street at the expense of others.

Lastly, well, I do want to applaud the city for hiring a new parking technician.

It needs to be clearly stated that three is nowhere near enough to fix legal parking.

The nearby city of Berkeley has not three, but twenty four parking uh staff positions, and that city isn't much larger than ours.

Next full cycle budget update.

The city of Alameda should make a commitment to hire at least nine parking enforcement technicians so that parking budget becomes revenue positive in a legal parking ends in Alameda.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Denise Trapigny.

Welcome, Speaker.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

I'm here speaking on behalf of Bikewalk Alameda to, as our previous speaker spoke to, approve the new parking technician position being requested by public works.

As we mentioned in our letter, and as Mitch just stated very eloquently, this position is revenue positive, meaning that the revenue they'll generate more than offsets their fully loaded salary expense.

When bike lanes were painted on Park and Webster a few years ago, we were assured that the city would keep cars out of the paint only bike lanes through enforcement.

However, that's been a broken promise for years now.

Parking enforcement is body at best.

The bike lanes have become de facto spots for double parkers and DoorDash drivers while cyclists are forced to dangerously merge in with car traffic.

Currently, enforcement is mostly aligned with either their parking metered hours or street cleaning hours.

There's no enforcement after 7 p.m., the busiest dining hours, and none on Sundays and holidays.

It's been years that we've been leaving revenue on the table and creating a dangerous situation through an action.

Further, we should not be asking residents to support a bond measure this fall while we continue to leave this revenue on the table due to lack of enforcement.

We urge you to support staff's request for an additional parking technician so that we can create a safe place for people to bike through our commercial corridors with extended enforcement hours that we'll get with an additional parking tech.

And again, let's Mitch said, we need more than the one they're asking for, but you know, we'll take whatever we can get at this point.

Um thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, that was the last speaker.

All right, with that, we will close public comment on item 3A.

Um, I wonder if I could ask public works director Aaron Smith to come up and just give us a little overview, if you will, about this requested parking technician uh position.

Is it going to magically um transform all the parking violations into tickets?

Tell us what you envision and welcome.

Thank you.

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

So, yes, public works manages a majority of our parking program in Alameda.

I do just want to acknowledge that our police department also plays a role, particularly as it relates to abandoned vehicles and anything that requires towing.

So we collaborate on parking enforcement, but we public works do the majority of parking enforcement related to, you know, time restricted.

Uh, we focus on safety, parking in 88 curb ramps, um, bike lanes, etc.

We have have currently two full-time technicians and three part-time technicians, um, and then we have a program manager.

Um, so we are asking for a third full-time technician, which allows us to align.

We have three street sweeping zones.

Um, it allows us to ensure we have equitable coverage across the city, um, and it does allow extended um hours and coverage for our parking enforcement.

Um, our public speakers correct, we don't have currently have enforcement um on Sundays that would take a programmatic change of extending when we have paid parking, etc.

But yes, there's absolutely an opportunity to continue to expand our coverage, both geographically and um time-wise.

Uh right now, the is the request is for one parking technician.

Our next request very likely will be a supervisor.

We do not have a supervisor for our parking program.

We have a manager, and then we have all of our uh bodies that are in the field.

So before we can really continue to expand the number of actual technicians we have, we really need a supervisor position.

Right now, our manager is doing, there's a whole adjudication process that happens for parking enforcement, and a lot of those require internal review, and we just we don't have the resources.

If we just continue to hire technicians.

We'll we'll need to be asking for a supervisor, and then yes, there is potential capacity for more technicians in the future.

And help us understand what a supervisor would do.

Yeah, so supervisor, it's primary purpose.

Well, there's probably three primary purposes.

One would be oversight and coordination of schedule with the technicians and the part-time.

The primary objective or role for the parking supervisor would be those what they're called first level reviews.

So if you can test a parking ticket, a first level review is a review that needs to be done by somebody other than the technician, um, but somebody that has knowledge of the program that's typically done by a supervisor.

So our program manager right now's time is taking doing that.

Um, and then so the supervisor's adjudication number one would be their priority.

Um, and then we have a lot, surprisingly, like a lot of phone calls, a lot of interacting with the public, a lot of triaging requests that come in from a variety of different locations, so really needing that higher level position to help us assess that incoming data, determine hot spots so that our program manager can focus more on resource allocation, and we have some additional ordinances that might be coming forward to allow us to cite other safety measures like parking in all types of uh bike lanes, which we don't have right now.

All right, thank you.

Any um questions for okay, and I saw Council Member Jensen's hand up first, then I'll go to you, Vice Mayor.

Go ahead, Councilmember Jensen.

Oh, thank you.

Um, I actually it's it's a question or comment actually uh more just an explanation I'd asked for.

I um recently I've been as always out and about in Alameda, and I noticed on Webster Street recently that Alameda Police, APD, was doing uh bike lane enforcement.

I and I'd like to understand a little bit better.

I see that Chief Josh is also here, but understand a little bit better how the two how public works and APD collaborate on that those sorts of activities and whether this has been effective.

Yeah, I'm happy to share from my perspective, and then um Chief Joshi can.

But uh yes, the police department has every right to cite those same citations.

Some citations that we cite can overlap, and they have resources and we have resources, and is and it just means more resources.

Um, so that's my perspective from public works.

There are a few things that the police department does that we do not do as one, we're not sworn officers, and there's other restrictions, but I'll let Chief Joshi uh respond from the police perspective.

Thank you, Director Smith.

Have a have a seat, yeah.

Good evening, good evening, Chief Joshy.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council.

Um to answer your uh question, Councilmember Jensen.

Uh, so APD and uh public works, we work very closely together, we collaborate.

Uh it's a joint effort.

Uh APD does not have dedicated parking enforcement um personnel.

We do have one person who's assigned to the abandoned vehicle detail, and what she does is she um she goes out and addresses parking enforcement and and also um tows vehicles that are blocking driveways or vehicles that have been parked beyond the 72-hour uh limit.

So, but we certainly do have a good work in relationship with public works, and we communicate and collaborate to address parking issues as best that we can.

Thank you.

I um as I I mentioned to you when um I noticed this, this was it was not exactly parking enforcement to the extent that tickets were being given, it was more just um notification, and the officer was was advising people who were parked in the bike lane to move their vehicles, and it was working quite well.

So I want to appreciate that.

And um, and I know that you have a all of your officers have big jobs, but this was something that on a on a weekday, weekend day with a lot of people on the streets and a lot of double parking in the bike lane, I think it was very effective.

So thank you.

Yeah, no, uh credit to our our staff.

Um, Captain Kubiyama's also here.

He's uh he's been hearing from the community uh that there are some concerns about parking and in the uh bike lane.

So he's been uh very creative on on deploying resources and and identifying where the where the issues are.

So uh we're we're definitely working to address those.

So thank you for your you noticing the work that's being done out there.

Absolutely, thank you.

And uh Vice Mayor Prayer.

Um, so yeah, I do have a follow-up question for Director Smith.

For Directory Smith, yeah.

Well, while Chief Josh is still there, I mean, and on the um subject of parking violations, so sometimes you get a call from the Grouchy Mayor, and I was coming down central, which is we've done a beautiful job on the the, you know, there's the roundabouts, and now we've got you know one lane in each direction and a center left turn lane and bicycle lane.

But more than once I've seen it's usually a UPS truck just parked there.

And so not too long ago, I had enough time to find a pull over, find a parking space, go over with my phone camera, photograph the truck in the in the lane, the license plate, text it to the chief, and probably do you too, Director Smith, and say, What is going on here?

And so, so how are we dealing with that?

So, anytime we get information like a license plate or identifiers from um commercial vehicles, we'll reach out to the business and notify them of a concern.

Um, I've written letters myself to both businesses and um and residents in the neighborhood to let them know that some of the concerns that are that are coming up.

Sometimes a letter and a communication and education is is a good way to start.

If the problem persists and continues, then you know we have to sometimes uh step up and and take an enforcement posture.

Okay, I appreciate that.

And I think um Director Smith is up, so you can probably be at ease.

Um come on back, Director Smith, and it's um yours, uh Vice Mayor Pryor.

Yeah, I thank you.

Um I have a follow-up question because you were talking about the supervisor for um parking enforcement officers.

Uh, what is or what would be a like um good ratio or uh of a supervisor to enforcement officers, parking enforcement officers.

Yeah, I ideally we, which is why our next position would be a supervisor, so it'd be five people beneath that supervisor, which is if this position is approved this evening with the part-time positions makes five bodies that this person, this potential supervisor, which we're not asking for this evening, yeah, but looking forward at some point will would oversee it at a minimum five five people.

And then um just so that as we're talking about the future, um, what is the typical salary?

Do you know of that position?

So, like when we are doing um, I just want to excuse my interruption, I just want to make sure that we're staying within Brown Act.

Are we okay?

I think it's okay because I'm assuming the vice mayor is exploring budget impacts for um, you know, for her overall consideration of the budget and for that purpose.

Yeah, I mean, I guess yeah, because I um because it does say on page four that the adding the park parking, adding a parking technician is offset by revenue, but then if there's a financial impact because we're adding a supervisor, which it does sound necessary.

I mean, with you know, when you explain the phone calls and the um the oversight and then also reviewing uh parking violations, I feel like that person would be very busy.

Yeah.

So just wanted to clarify on the revenue generating um aspect that's come up a couple times um this evening.

While yes, they generate this ape that position generates revenue.

Um we are very thoughtful about our overall fund balance.

We need to make sure that all of the parking costs are funded by the revenue, and at this point, we are not yet, because if for those little bit of history public works took over parking about a little less than five years ago, and at that time we established a separate dedicated parking fund.

We do still have debt service on our parking garage that hits that fund.

We have overhead of a lot of equipment, handheld devices, license plate reader technology, vehicles, offices.

So it's more than just the person and even their fully burdened rate.

It's a lot more than that to run the program.

So it's not it, yes, they are revenue generating, it makes it great to support that salary.

But when I make a recommendation for additional ask, I'm really looking at the entire fund and to ensure, and at this point in time, I would not recommend the supervisor until we can really get our arms around what our revenue coming in is.

We have some new facilities that have come online, like the ferry terminals, and we're also cognizant of the fact that revenue like enforcement should go up high when we really start enforcing, but the idea behind it is that people comply.

Like we don't want to just cite people, right?

So we are just we're five years in, we're learning, we're bringing new facilities online, we're waiting to see if that yes, our revenue has done this in the last five years.

We're waiting to see if that is arcing, and so which is why a little bit more time for us to recommend that supervisors, we're really looking at the fund health as a whole.

Okay, thank you.

I'm not sure if that answered.

Well, it does is very informative, thank you.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying, and eventually people will just be smarter and not do what they're not supposed to do, but then not get tickets either.

So yeah, I I mean, if we approve this position, it's not because it's a moneymaker for us, it's because it's a you wanted to be clear.

Yeah, thank you.

And if if we charge that much in fines to cover the all the costs, we'd really be hearing from the public.

Okay, thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for directors?

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um, so I I know that we have this list of workforce amendments.

Um I um really hesitant about approving all of them tonight because I don't I think there's some that can wait, and I'm saying this for a couple of reasons.

Again, the uncertainty with the budget, and as far as all the negotiations that are going on about whether this transfer tax measure is going to go to the budget, go to the November ballot.

Madam Clerk, do you recall isn't it August by which time ballot measures have to be have to be designated?

So we it's not that far off.

It is now June.

We will know in August whether that's a threat to our transfer tax.

I don't consider it a hypothetical.

I think I'd give it some Las Vegas odds because um there's a lot going on there, and um, so I just knowing a significant hit could be coming to our general fund, I would caution the council to um just wait a little longer.

Again, at the end of this month, we will have a new city manager in.

And he should definitely have a say and weigh in, and also by August, we will know whether that bill to get rid of Charter City's ability to collect transfer tax, and I think there might be some retroactivity to it.

It's it's pretty grim, whether that's a going concern or if it's not what it was negotiated out with.

But just looking through these, I I could definitely make the case for the the parking technician because I do think that that's um it's public safety, it's you know, we we encourage people to get out of their cars, take bikes, but we have to keep our bike lanes clean and clear.

And the um the IT item.

I mean, IT does so many things to protect us from cybersecurity risks, which would cost a whole lot more money if we get hit with something.

But I for some of these, I would just ask that, for instance, there's a number of asks for the planning building and transportation um department.

The one thing I would say is we do have a sustainability manager.

She's doing amazing work, and we should make sure that her salary range and working with our HR director is is where it should be.

But for some of these other positions, and I'm happy to hear from department heads, I would say we are going to be hiring after the new city manager comes on board, we're going to be recruiting for a public uh planning, building and transportation director.

So certainly that person should have some say in how their department is structured.

So for some of these things, I would just ask that we not move forward now, but wait, you know, until probably after we come back after our August our August recess.

I, you know, we have already talked about the police positions, and that I think is a matter of public safety and important, but I just um I think we do need to tread carefully here because what we don't want to do is authorize positions and then have to lay people off.

And again, for some of these, we shouldn't even be recruiting before a new public works director, not public works, not public works director, planning, building, transportation.

I get my P's mixed up.

Um before that new director is on board to to have a say over how they want their department structured anyway.

Enough for me.

What else do um what are my colleagues think?

Council member Bowler got any thoughts.

Um sure, thank you.

Um I definitely think that the council was definitely pushing back somewhat at the budget workshop, and there were five full-time positions.

Um that were vetted.

There was actually more that departments recommended quite a bit more, I think.

And I believe the interim city manager worked with the department heads and came to a shorter list, but even that list we pushed it back with the exception of the parking technician, and that included such things as division manager for public works, which had a lot of appeal to it, and that something we should strongly consider later, given given that we also put a big preference on the public safety side with the police officers, um, trying to get ourselves up closer to the to the full staffing of 88, but certainly trying to deal with some of the the needs and some of the recruitment efforts that have gone pretty well in recent years, and we had a whole big conversation about that.

Um but I we didn't had our block budget workshop pushback on the workforce amendments, which I think which is interesting because we didn't, you know, we didn't really dive into it in detail during that workshop, but it was it's I think it's a one-point.

If I'm reading this right, it's it's it's 1.8 million in terms of uh enhancements to these are enhancements to uh existing positions where positions are upgraded or reclassified, and you know, I don't know that a lot has changed since the last workshop.

I'm I know that staff is recommending these um these workforce amendments and upgrades.

I'm I'm still comfortable going forward with them.

That's just kind of where my head's at at the moment, but I'm open to hearing more from colleagues or staff.

Um, two things.

We didn't delve into the possibility of losing transfer tax revenue from the general fund that did not come up.

Um, so that's another 10 to 18 million we need to consider, might not be here.

And secondly, I need to do a motion because I'm about to run out of time.

Um, what I would like is to have, I don't know, we've got to get through a motion, um, five minutes added to speaking time, and that would be across the board.

All right, I make a motion to add five minutes.

Thank you.

Okay, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Is that unanimous?

Okay.

So the city clerk knows how to do that.

And are you saying you want to hear from your colleagues?

Did you finish your remarks?

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Days, your thoughts.

Uh no, no.

I think I've uh stated my concerns at the previous workshops.

Um, so there's nothing new to add.

Okay.

Vice Mayor.

I'm definitely aligned with what council member uh uh Bowler said.

I um when I look on page five and on the uh presentation, because it talks about the full-time positions and that we had asked for those to be part-time.

Um there are two positions.

I I I can see waiting, you know, to see, like you uh like you had said mayor, um, for input from the um new city manager um in these positions, um, like for the finance fire and um well that one's at zero, so I'm just gonna leave that there, but for the safety off part-time safety officer and the part-time park maintenance worker, I feel like those are this is work that I think is important that needs to get done, and um I don't think it I think it's just a better investment in the long term debt to fill those positions.

Um I I think the other ones are also important, but I don't think waiting um I I don't have a problem with waiting to fill those if that makes sense.

Do you um do you want to go down the and and I do see that there are some that don't involve a cost because it's just a reclassification.

So I don't think that's um that's controversial.

But um, and I guess there's different ways we could also approach it, and one is to say that positions won't even be advertised until the new city manager we could approve it, but just say, but we'll wait to advertise um the positions when the new city manager is on board because he may well want some input into how the position is worded, and also again, especially when we we don't even have a planning director right now.

I I think I want to give deference and respect to whoever does come on board.

Um so that's a possibility if we could defer that.

Yep, I think that makes sense because he's gonna be here soon, so it's not like we're waiting six months.

I'm sorry, I don't know if you guys can hear me.

Yeah, he's gonna be here at the end of this month, and also um, okay.

So I could I could get on board if we if we agree that we will wait to even advertise until the new city manager is on board.

Um, when it comes to the aquatic cost increases, and I've asked questions and I've gotten some answers.

Um, when this comes back to us at another meeting, I definitely need some questions answered about how um literally from one day I was told we needed four more million, and the very next day we needed five million more, and so um we need this is this is a significant jump and we need a better explanation.

So just putting folks on notice to to be prepared for that.

Um Councilmember Jensen.

So uh just to be clear, um Madam Mayor, you're suggesting that these be deferred that the the part-time position be deferred or so I don't know what's less complicated.

I don't disagree with the vice mayor that like the recreation and parks positions are important to do now.

I think the parking technician is time critical.

There's ones that don't even, it's just changes in classifications, but if it but some of these that I've talked about, especially in um in the planning department, with the exception of bringing the sustainability manager to where they should be, um salary-wise with their peers.

Um I if you know if we could be somewhat selective, but I do think we need to put a pause on positions that would be um new to the planning department until the new person comes in.

I just think that's respectful.

Um the only one that I would suggest, or well, I um my first suggestion might be that we that we pass the other recommendations, which are the um parking technician for police officers and 4.4 OPIP for the trust fund, and then um, and it does the recommendation does say that all new positions to be reviewed, but perhaps this could come back for the other positions in before the end of the year, like after the city manager is here in July or late July before we recess.

And if that's not uh if you don't you want to I understand that you want to know uh the likelihood of the um transfer tax.

I imagine we all want to know because that's um it I mean if it gets on the ballot, that's significant.

We'd have to wait till November to know if it passes.

If it doesn't get on the ballot, that's we uh well, and depending on what took its place.

As I understand it, it'll be June 27th that it has to qualify for the ballot, whether or not it already has or or whether that's the last that's the last time that the legislature can make enough changes to have it pulled, I guess, is um according to ballot Pedia and Cal Matters.

But um regardless of that, I I understand the concern there.

So my other suggestion is that at least one of the positions be approved, and that's the um risk management position because that is a money saving position, as I understand it, the division manager or excuse me, the safety officer in HR, as the presentation showed that at least even um uh part-time would save contract money according to what the I I think the city attorney is shaking his head in disagreement.

That one I would like to hold on, but uh city attorney Shan.

Do you want to explain what you want?

I'm sure the HR director can partner with me on this, but there were no contract funds planned for the coming fiscal year.

So um while there was a one-time allocation of contract funds for the current fiscal year.

Um we did not plan for continuation of that contract, and so there are no offsets um for the upcoming fiscal year.

So you're saying we could safely defer on that one.

Well, uh, do you want to come up?

Good evening.

Go ahead and introduce yourself.

Yes, hi, good every uh good evening, everyone.

Noelle White Human Resources Director for the City.

Um, yes, uh these are not going to be offset by bringing on a part-time staff member.

However, what it will do is create a gap for the city in its safety program, going from having some sort of resource in order to address safety issues to now no resources, um, hence the request if if the ideally the full-time position would be ideal, um, but at least with part-time uh funding, we can at least have someone available to address that gap to make sure that the safety program is moving forward.

Um and waiting two months, would that create a hardship?

Not necessarily, no.

Um, I think my concern would be is just again lack of resources, staff if something major were to happen within those two months, whether it's a um situation that occurs, uh my concern would be from a liability perspective, making sure that we have the appropriate subject matter expertise and um individuals to be able to respond to some of those needs.

And I know the city attorney is concerned with the city's liability.

Um does your office provide any assistance in risk management?

Well, so we don't we don't have safety resources, um, which is what this ask is.

One of the things as the HR director was speaking, one possibility if the council's desire is to delay for two months, is that the current contract um was executed under staff authority was executed under my authority, and to the extent that there are leftover monies, right?

Staff authorities up to 75,000.

And so to the extent that there are leftover monies, we can continue the contract for two months.

And then a two month basis.

Exactly.

Assuming there's money left over, right?

Because we can't exceed the 75, but we can extend the term under my authority, assuming that um uh there are still funds left over.

Okay, um, back to you, uh, council members.

That answers my question, thank you.

Okay, okay.

Do you think that might be a compromise?

Yes.

Uh yes, that sounds like it would be provide sufficient um resources for the program.

If we were to delay two months and again to um city attorney attorney Shen, if if there are funding available to help us at least bridge that gap in the event that there's an incident, um I think from a liability perspective, just keeping us proactive, that would be amenable, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, and then I would also with the two-month delay, just to be clear that would be um acceptable as well.

I but I think we should be really clear that we'll be in recess in August.

So this would be more like uh six weeks, no, yeah, six weeks or so from now.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, um, is there?

Yes, please?

Who?

Oh, as it's in city manager, um if I may, um a couple things.

One is I wanna point out, uh, well, let me continue on this thread first.

Um, an example that that um director White was talking about is if something occurs with an employee and there's an OSHA um complaint filed, or or there's various factors that could factor into account.

The directors of different departments aren't necessarily qualified to manage an OSHA complaint and Ocean Concern.

That's where this kind of position or contract would come into place.

Um I'm a little concerned because we don't know if there's funds available unless we have confirmation of that.

So it certainly is a possibility.

We just don't know sitting here if there are funds available.

Um that said, I wanted to lead to two other points.

One is that um we wouldn't do any hiring for any of these positions until July 1 anyway, and so um our new city manager will be in place by then before we would do any hiring, and certainly could have it within his authority to make decisions of whether he wants to approve the recruitment or not.

Um so I just wanted that's already a procedure that's in place.

So just wanted to lift that up as well.

So hiring and recruitment are two different things, because you have to do recruitment first, and I'm thinking that the new city manager might like to even see what those materials look like and you're correct, Mayor.

And and my point is we we don't start the recruitment until July 1, and um that we have a process what it's called requisition where the city manager has to approve to even open the recruitment and start the recruitment.

Um, not talking about that before we could do the actual hire, the city manager has to approve the recruitment of positions.

So I just wanted to make sure council knew that was the process.

And I appreciate that.

Um if um it were determined.

How do we determine if there's funds available?

Is that in finance?

Is that yeah?

We can do that.

We just don't have it necessarily right in here in front of us.

We could do it.

Okay, so maybe um when we get around to crafting the motion, there's an you know, if this then that, and if not, then that so um because I I think I would like to just exceed your um uh use your authority to extend the contract in place now and get us through the interim and then go to what you're saying.

And I understand that's a great idea.

We all want coverage.

Okay, okay.

Um the last point I wanted to make is is there are several positions PBT planning building transportation has been mentioned.

Those are not general funds, so I just wanted to make sure all of council's aware that that's fund 209, which is uh funded by the planning fees and and revenue sources.

So that's a separate revenue fund.

So just wanted to let sure all the council's aware.

And I appreciate that, and it's also a conversation I've been having with folks about needing to revisit some of the fees that are that are being charged by folks doing work, um, and it would be good to just doing work on their properties because we are hearing that um some of our our fee amounts are getting to be burdensome, and and it we've always been a um uh a system where your the permit fees cover the work, but to in today's economy that might need to be revisited.

Um Councilmember Bowler.

Oh, thank you.

Okay, sorry.

Um, I just want to follow up with what um assistant city manager Woldridge said about these different funds because it looks like in those workforce changes, um there are you know a significant investment on the general fund, such as the police officers, but these are a lot of these are upgrades.

Um there's a lot of different departments involved here, and there's a lot of different funds involved.

Fund the funding source lists include the AMP, uh the general fund of course, the IT fund, the library fund, the PBT, the planning building transportation fund that we just mentioned, and then also um I think there might be gas tax fund.

And in my estimation, the council already pulled back, I don't know, a large majority of things that were up for consideration after the interim city manager all already did some betting.

So I continue to feel comfortable with the staff recommendation, which is to approve these.

I do think it's built in.

It sounds like it's built in that the the new city manager will have discretion as to whether or not when it comes to hiring any one particular person, that isn't gonna happen unless the city manager approves it, which is I think pretty standard.

So I would only feel comfortable.

We should have dived into these things last time if we had concerns because these are all there before, and I would be more comfortable making changes if we heard from each of these departments to see how it affects things.

We've only focused on one so far.

I think we focused on several.

Back to you, Vice Mayor Prayer.

Um I do.

I I agree with council member uh Bullard said.

I I do want to I jump back to the um safety um, sorry, I was gonna say safety officer.

It's the is that was that the name of the position?

Okay, um I was confused.

Um I heard seventy-five thousand dollars.

Is that what we pay a year or is that what we budgeted to pay contractors?

Uh, Vice Mayor.

Sorry, Vice Mayor, the the existing contract uh is with envirotech safety, and it's for a one-year period with a maximum not to exceed of 75,000.

Oh, got it.

And we are we have them like at this moment.

We have them at this moment, that's right.

Um, I mean, I think it would make sense to have them until that position was filled.

I I think that actually makes sense.

Um, okay.

Yeah, I still I mean, just based on the last conversation we had about that position, it just sounds like it would be more efficient.

It covers all the departments.

Um so I mean, I I don't think I mean we haven't had one this whole time.

I don't think I it's like um that we need to fill it today, but I I still think it's important.

I still think of you know full time.

I thought going to halftime was the compromise, so to not do it is a I just I strongly support having that position.

That's it.

I think it's just a matter of how it's funded, and so we're gonna learn more about what's in the fund.

Well, and it's we pay 75,000, the position we budgeted for was 90,000.

So to have somebody who's here all the time who's doing preventative work with all the departments.

I feel like the what's that 90, 75, is that what $15,000?

I think that it's I I feel like it's a big benefit for $15,000 difference.

Okay.

Um do you feel comfortable coming up to share?

Come on back.

Thanks, Mayor.

There's plenty of money on the contract.

We have about 75,000 contract and about $30,000 in current costs.

Okay, so we can keep it going with what's left in the budget.

Awesome.

Thank you, Director McCarthy.

Okay, does that help?

Yeah.

Council member Jensen.

Um, just to be clear to the finance manager, to be clear uh with this presentation, the the recommendation is to convert full-time positions to part-time positions, and that's what we've been discussing.

But we also have in the um recommended workforce changes, we have a number of of um expenditures that are part of as uh we as was pointed out part of not part of the general fund, and those are uh going to be what if the workforce changes are adopted, those will be approved as well.

Is that for example the um planning there's four planning building and transportation positions that are PBT fund 209?

Yeah, I I would say to your question, Councilmember Jensen, that we're I think we're discussing two things.

We're discussing both position upgrades, which are for existing FTE, having their classification change to a higher upgrade.

Um that is one part of this workforce changes, and then we do have the um the part-time positions that you all have designated.

Um that is also for consideration.

So I think depending on the motion you all choose, uh we would go forward with your direction.

Um, the safety officer is a part of the second camp, the part-time positions.

So that would be a new FTE.

The position upgrades are existing personnel and would be changing their classifications.

Thank you.

Anyone other comments, motion?

I think we've got some compromise.

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

I'll make a motion and certainly accept your motion amendment if you have one.

Madam Mayor, but to uh adopt the recommendations for the resolutions approving and adopting mid-cycle changes, including the workforce amendment.

Okay, but are we going to go with the um using the city attorney's budget for the safety officer for now?

And then when will that uh that's that's the question I guess I'm trying to I'm struggling a little bit with when would that come back and what which positions are being deferred and when would they return?

So my motion would be to approve, except for the part-time conversion positions, I guess, which are the um four positions, and those would be deferred until although uh I'll withdraw my motion because I'm still a little confused.

Sorry.

The attorney, can you help us out with the funding on the explain how that would work?

Sure.

I think we can work out the funding later.

The important things that there are still dollars left in the contract, and so I could continue to exercise my authority to extend the contract for two or three months while the city um undergoes its recruitment in the fall.

May I ask a question?

On that, um are we just talking now just about the safety officer position?

That's my understanding, council member.

Okay.

And then I just have a question for my colleagues.

Like, what is it particular about the safety officer position that I mean because there's a lot of other things that are a lot more expensive here, and I think I mean I've had conversations with um Adam Politar, interim city manager.

Um, I know that he was concerned about this and but definitely wanted to get the ball rolling on getting you know more safety emphasis.

I I guess we could ask our city attorney too from a risk compliance standpoint if this is or risk assessment standpoint.

Like, do you have an opinion on this?

Because the staff recommendation seems to be look after council direction that already pulled back from a um suggesting or maybe it's for sorry, uh director white.

Yeah, so but this this the original recommendation was for full-time positions, including this one, and we've pulled it back to part-time.

So, does it change our risk profile at all if we make this change?

I think it really depends.

Um, you know, I think with the compromise, we're able to extend the contract by two months with the remaining funds there, right?

We can mitigate that gap.

I think my concern would be beyond that gap and where that leads us, right?

If we, you know, exhaust the monies that are there for the two months, the decisions, okay, we're not moving forward the part-time.

I I exposes us to to quite a bit of risk and liability.

You know, the evolution of this position has been it started as part-time, we did the contract for the year, we've we've asked for the full-time position now.

With the compromise of the part-time on the table, um, in order just to keep the program going and to really coordinate with our departments and particularly focus on the departments that may not have as deep knowledge within safety.

So to I to answer your question, I I think it does expose us to great risk if we um it's particularly if we we don't bring on any sort of resources beyond that two-month gap, because then again, we we won't have anything to rely on um with that subject matter and subject matter expertise.

If we do have an OSHA complaint, um we are looking at it from a compliance perspective and needing those resources to really push that program forward and to keep it to keep it um uh effective.

But if I understand correctly, the annual cost of the contract was 75,000, and there's thirty thousand dollars left, and we're talking about doing this for two months.

So does that increase your confidence level?

I mean, I it increases my confidence level that we could efficiently get through the two-month gap.

I have more of my concern would be we get through the two-month gap, let's assume we exhaust all funds.

What's next, right?

Um, and what would be the next steps in order to make sure that we continue compliance and mitigate that risk, yeah, and and um I believe you've met with our new city manager, and again, he'll be here in less than a month.

So thank you for for sharing that.

Okay.

Um city clerk, did you want to share any information?

Oh, I just I following up on the discussion of that um initiative statewide initiative, there is a June 25th deadline that the Secretary of State will certify the initiative is qualified to the November ballot unless withdrawn by the proponent prior to certification.

So that's the certification.

Yeah.

So it's got the signatures in from now until the end of the month to well, those two deadlines.

If I might those two deadlines, the deadline of um that the assistant city manager pointed out with July 1st being the date to um that any new positions would be posted, and at that point there will be information about whether this initiative is on the ballot or whether it's been pulled at least by the Secretary of State.

So I would be comfortable moving forward and um having uh um uh a budget amendment come back to us if that is the case, if the mayor um feels that the that enough uncertainty after the 25th of June.

I think it's prudent to wait till the 25th of June.

Um, however, we could get there, vice mayor.

I I do tend to agree, and I mean, because if I wanted to put a pause on anything, I think I would delay the pool, to be quite honest.

Um I feel like these positions, and I don't want to delay the pool.

I'm just saying if we're being that speculative, I mean the pool went up by a million dollars.

I I but like I just think you know the cost right now is 280,000 for the added positions.

So when I weigh that against what we're gonna throw at the pool, I I just um and that's for all of these.

I I don't think it's that big of a deal to wait a little, you know, for the new city manager, but I also don't want to um I, you know, I I did feel like this was really important to us, and the only reason we're we're kind of backtracking is because we might lose some money, which is a big deal.

Like I don't want to be a responsible, but I do think that these are positions that are helpful to the city.

Um I think that they were uh a lot of thought went into them.

I think a lot of compromise and reducing even for these four positions.

I um and there's only these.

Well, the four four of the I'm sorry, there's four positions for the uh that would be the police officers, um, and then the one position um for the parked um parking technician, and then the four part-time positions, those are the only new positions.

I don't just based on the salaries or in the benefits, etc.

But I I don't think that we would be I think that if if that came to fruition, God forbid, you know, we lost all that money.

Um I don't think those four part-time positions are gonna be the reason why we go into default or you know, worst case scenario, we're going into our reserves.

Um yeah, so I I I just I think that I still think it's fiscally responsible to to do this.

But I don't think it's um irresponsible to wait at the same time.

I don't know if that makes sense, but um, we don't have a motion on the table.

Do you want to try to fashion something?

Councilmember Bowler.

Yeah, I just a comment and then the motion if I may.

Just I just feel that um, you know, we definitely are very excited with the coming of our new city manager.

I feel like if he has concerns and want to pull some of this back more or that's beyond his normal discretion, we're all gonna be amenable to that, I think.

Um I would just move to approve and adopt the budget and workforce changes as proposed in the staff report.

And could we um just add that that to be clear that they wouldn't go into effect until is it July 1st or the first city council meeting of next month?

It's July 1st.

With the start of the budget cycle, okay.

And um, I move to extend the time by five minutes.

Sorry.

Okay, we appreciate that.

That's a motion to have a second.

Okay, all in favor signify by stating aye.

Aye, aye, okay.

That was at least four.

Um the um uh so uh well what putting it off a little bit, and this might be you know saying the same thing just different ways, is we will know, and by the way, it's not a matter of the city, I mean the Secretary of State pulling the ballot measure, it would be the proponents um that they've worked out some compromise um with the many folks who are opposing it.

Um but we'll know more at the end of this month, even before the end of this month.

So, um, I just think our if I may first.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thanks.

I just I just think that if that happens, we've got into the microphone.

We've got a bigger problem than just these upgrades, and I think the vice mayor made a good some good points about what the scope of the the monies are involved here and it involves different funds.

So I think we'll have a a bigger problem.

I think the city manager is gonna want to have conversations with all of us if that happens and then decide on a plan of attack that includes looking at everything, not just this.

So I I'm I'm still comfortable with going forward on the stuff.

Okay, and then if we could just add the caveat to the motion, if um, I guess this is um a friendly amendment that the everything that we are approving tonight would be subject to the new city manager's final approval, because by the time he gets here, we will definitely know what the risk to the general fund could be or none, and that could give us more flexibility.

So I mean, if we say that, you know, he he has that discretion to um make those decisions.

I know he's looking at stuff now, so even though he starts on the 30th, he could probably weigh in by the first.

I guess I just have a question about that because I my concern as you remember before was that we hadn't talked to all these different departments, but putting that aside for a second, isn't it already built in?

And I maybe this is a question for um assistant city manager Will Ridge who has the experience on this.

Isn't that already built in?

Does if we approve the staff report, does that mean all of this has to come into effect, or does the city manager still have discretion and what the city manager wants to delay it for some reason and bring it back?

Is that built in or no?

I think that might be a city attorney question as well.

Uh either one of you could you start, Mr.

I'm happy to start and partner with the assistance to manage city manager.

I think that's right, the city manager just uh certainly has discretion to delay uh any time.

Okay.

So we don't have to add that to a motion and uh an assistant city manager, would you concur with that?

Uh I I completely concur with that.

It's as I was mentioning before it's actually built into the system.

Um our our our the system that we use, the city manager has to approve the the opening of the positions.

And and I appreciate that, but we're here before the public, and the public might not know quite the intricacies that we operate with.

I understand that's why I was explaining before, and I'm just reiterating so to um answering Councilmember Bowler that yes, it's it's built into the system that the city manager would approve the recruitment of any position before it opens.

Okay, and and then we'll no no recruitments will open before he arrives.

Correct, because it's not funded until July 1st, so we wouldn't open recruitments until July 1st, and he starts on June 30th.

Okay.

Okay.

So did we have a motion?

Did you make a motion?

Yes.

Okay.

Who moved in and seconded?

Bowler moved and Jensen seconded.

Okay, all right.

Um, okay, and with the understanding that none of this will go into effect until the new city manager gives his blessing.

I will also support this.

Any further discussion, Council?

Councilmember Designs.

Uh thank you.

Um I'll be no voting no for the following reason.

Um, when we adopted the two-year budget last year, we agreed to set the police general fund spending budget at a total of $39.8 million for fiscal year 25-26.

That 39.8 million dollars was meant to accommodate 88 sworn police officers positions.

Why 88?

That's the annual number of sworn officer positions that we have used as the number needed by a city of our size every year since 2011.

But when we adopted the police spending budget totaling 39.8 million dollars for fiscal year 25-26, on that night last year, we froze police hiring at 72 positions, 72 positions, even though the 39.8 million dollar budget could accommodate 88 sworn officer positions.

In effect, when we adopted the 2526 budget last year, we effectively cut the budgeted sworn police officer positions from the traditional budgeted 88 to then budgeted 72 positions.

Now, before us tonight, before us is an effort to set the police spending budget at a total of roughly 42.9 million dollars for the next fiscal year 26-27.

Now, again, bear in mind that 42.9 million dollars is spending total that is associated with budgeting for 88 sworn police officer positions, but once again, by city council direction, the police chief would now be limited to a total of 76 hiring 76 budgeted sworn officer positions.

So let me repeat, it's not a revenue or a money problem.

We have projected receiving enough revenue such that in the published budget, we are designating a total spending amount of roughly 42 point million, 42.9 million dollars for police, which is an amount that can accommodate budgeting for 88 sworn officers.

But once again, we are purposely limiting the sworn officer positions that the chief can hire now to 76 positions instead of 72 last year.

So even though the presentation tonight says we are adding four police positions, in reality, we are not adding four police positions.

We are instead freezing the chief's ability to hire no more than 76 officers versus last year's hiring freeze at 72 positions, but either freeze still keeps us from 88.

Some say that the police hiring freeze at 76 budgeted positions instead of 88, is okay.

It's okay because logistically, given the time it takes to hire police officers, the chief couldn't hire 88 this coming year anyways.

I counter by saying by imposing the freeze at no more than 76.

We are not giving the chief a fighting chance, a fighting chance to start working towards 88 this year by hiring a 77th officer, a 78th officer, maybe even a seventy-ninth officer, on his road towards 88, whether it's this year or sometime in the near future.

And I certainly don't support this hiring freeze that we have in place, whether it was 72 last year or 76 this year.

I think 88 is the right number.

Thank you.

Um thank you for your comments, Councilmember Desag.

Chief Joshi, you're here in the chambers.

Is there anything you'd like to say?

Because I often put people on the spot with little notice, but we're always happy to hear from you.

Welcome.

Uh good evening, Madam Mayor, members of city council.

Um yeah, so this is a tough conversation.

Um absolutely we would like to have as many police officers as possible.

Um to get that to get to that number 88, it definitely requires um, well, as I look at what I have on the horizon, I'm on track to be at around 76 uh likely 76 police officers in December.

But at the same time, I have 71 candidates that are in the background process.

Um, and so if we were to let's say eliminate 90 percent of those candidates, and you know, we could we could potentially end up with seven qualified.

What I plan on doing is making timely notifications uh to council to advise of what our situation is in the event you know there we we need to go beyond uh uh 76 or what what do we do with the those officers when we reach that point?

Um so it's it's difficult to say to predict and project exactly how many officers um are gonna come in.

But what I do know is at this time in the field training program, um we have a certain number of field training officers.

We're trying to recruit more, so as those numbers go up, we can accommodate uh training more police officers.

So I say all that to say that um as a police chief, I will make uh timely notifications as the situation um evolves.

But of course, would I like to have 88 police officers on the police department?

Absolutely.

But do I recall correctly, Chief, that in the past, possibly at the last budget hearing, you told us that you do need to have enough field training officers to bring on new officers because they have to spend, is it up to six months with the FTO?

So they spend 19 weeks with a field training officer as long as there are no issues.

Um most recently uh members of the of the police officer association or president uh or their leadership approached me and suggested that we look at maybe bringing if we can if we don't have enough field training officers that could those officers be placed into other ancillary assignments before they go into field training.

And theoretically, yes, we could we could do something like that.

It's a little bit different than what we've done in the past, but at this time uh we can we have six available field training officers.

Uh, that can accommodate six trainees at a time.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we've had a motion, it's been seconded.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The motion carries um five.

Uh no, it doesn't, four to one.

Um we have not added a council member.

Okay.

Um, and we go.

I think um council member bowler, you're gonna recuse yourself from 3B.

Yes, um I have a um investment uh in residential rental property now.

So I'm gonna recuse myself.

Thank you.

And um, we will take this item uh next.

Who's presenting?

I don't think there's a presentation associated with this.

This was just carved out just for council member, so there was nothing additional.

Okay, right.

This is just it is it was part of the budget, but because council member um bowler needed to recuse himself.

Okay, so what I'm looking for, and it um is just a motion and a second to operate um to approve, adopt this mid-cycle operating budget amendment for the rent program to the city budget for fiscal year 2627.

Um I move that we adopt the resolution approving and adopting the mid-cycle operating budget.

Uh the and specific for the rent program, the rent program.

I don't know.

Okay, and was that you, Councilmember Jensen seconding?

No.

So sorry, you two sound so alike, especially without looking.

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

Any further discussion, seeing not all those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Okay.

That passes with a vote of four with one abstention absent.

Okay.

And now we um do roll into the regular city council meeting for it is still uh Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026.

Madam Clerk, may we have the roll call, please?

Roll call has been notified present.

Thank you.

And are there agenda changes?

There are two, madam mayor.

Um, uh the agenda noted uh or was revised to note that item 5i has been withdrawn by staff.

And then um under the special orders of the day, um the 3A Yeah, I give you that.

3A we're hoping to have that at our next council meeting on, I think it's June 16th.

Yep, it's a presentation of a domestic violence prevention video that the youth advisory board and they advise the Alamedi Family Services has put together.

They're high school students.

They have schedules that involve finals and end of the year projects and lots of things, and they just weren't ready to present this evening, but two weeks should give them enough time.

So thank you for that.

And so um, and those are two agenda changes, right?

Correct.

Okay, and so um, but we do have a proclamation this evening because the month of June is LGBTQ plus um uh um Pride Month, and I am happy to present this proclamation.

Every June, lesbian gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, or LGBTQ plus Pride Month is celebrated to commemorate the anniversary of the June 1969 Stonewall Uprising in which LGBTQ plus patrons of Stonewall Inn, a gay nightclub in New York City, sparked six days of resistance against police brutality and state violence.

On June 28, 1970, the first gay pride marches were held in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and sparked the modern gay liberation movement, bringing LGBTQ plus communities together to demonstrate for equal rights and fight against discrimination, issues that continue to say shape conversations today.

UC Berkeley's equity and inclusion website notes that at a time when LGBTQ plus people are experiencing a challenging national climate shaped by ongoing public debate debate, legislative and legal battles, and concerns about discrimination and safety.

Pride month remains both a celebration of community and a reaffirmation of dignity, visibility, and equal treatment for all people.

Pride was and still is resistance through visibility, joy, and celebration.

Governor Gavin Newsom recently observed that this month is a celebration of progress and joy for the LGBTQ plus community.

It's a moment to stand together in defiance against hatred and bigotry, and California proudly fights for everyone's right to love and live freely.

In his 2025 Pride Month proclamation, Governor Newsom stated that the LGBTQ community has fought tirelessly for their very right to exist and to be treated with the respect and equality that everyone deserves.

But their fight is far from over.

Members of the LGBTQ community around the world face continuous hate-filled discrimination and violence.

Across this country, deplorable efforts targeting our LGBTQ community are undoing decades of progress, attacking our foundational rights and freedoms as Americans.

This kind of hate and intolerance is not new, however, there has also been enormous progress due to the unrelenting work of the community itself.

LGBTQ plus people come from all walks of life race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, and economic status.

LGBTQ people have made important and lasting contributions to our great state and nation in every field of endeavor, including but not limited to business, government, medicine, law, humanities, science, literature, politics, education, music, philanthropy, sports, and athletics, arts and culture, and serve as role models for all.

The City of Alameda is a vibrant community that champions the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, and proudly recognizes LGBTQ plus individuals among our dedicated city staff and board and commission members.

On October 11, 2024, we celebrated the opening of QTAC, the Queer Teen Alameda Center, a drop-in center and safe space for LG LGBTQ middle school and high school students to socialize with and find support from each other and adult role models.

The City of Alameda is committed to fostering an inclusive community where every individual feels safe, respected, and empowered to live authentically free from fear or marginalization.

Now, therefore, I'm Marilyn Ezie Ashcraft, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby proclaim June 2026 as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, or LGBTQ Pride Month in the City of Alameda, and urge all residents to celebrate the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of our LGBTQ plus people, work to advance the cause of equality for LGBTQ people and their families, and learn more about the diverse culture of the LGBTQ Plus community by participating in activities presented by the Alameda Free Library, including Pride Rainbow Sewing Workshop for Kids on Wednesday, June 17th, 2 30 p.m.

at the main library, a Pride Festival on Saturday, June 20th at 10 30 a.m.

at the Bay Farm Island Branch Library, and Pride Bannercraft, which is happening June 1 through June 6th.

All day drop in to do this craft at the West End branch library.

There's also Pride Keychain Craft, June 8th to the 13th, and this again is all day drop in at the West End branch library.

On June 14th, there's Pride Dancing Ribbon Ring Craft, going from June 14th to the 20th.

All day drop in at the West End Library.

Again, all they drop in at the West End branch library.

There are also Pride book displays at the main library and West End and Bay Farm Island branch libraries and an online book list at the Alameda Free Library website, which is Alameda Free.org.

So thank you, everyone.

And we are about to go to oral communication, but before we do so, I just want to recite the ground rules for conducting and participating in a city council meeting.

And that is to say that this is a business meeting.

We are here to do the business of the City of Alameda.

It is not theater, it's not a sporting event, therefore we don't clap, boo, cheer, jeer, do the wave.

We sit and listen respectfully to our other speakers when it's our time to speak.

We get up and speak, and when our time's up, we sit down or even before our time's up.

And I say this almost every time because public speaking can be very stressful.

It's one of the most stressful things some people do.

And I never want someone to not speak in a council meeting because they felt intimidated, because the previous speaker was booed, and they certainly don't want that to happen to them.

So, and and also because sometimes we have young people in the audience, and we want to set a good civic example.

I don't, I mean, a number of you are younger than me, but not young people like kids.

However, they may be watching um remotely, and we want to set that good civic example of what public engagement should look like and we want to create a safe space to speak and to be listened to and to hear others who might not agree with your um your viewpoints we treat people the way we'd like to be treated if you have signs to hold that's fine that's your first amendment right I just asked that if you're sitting in the audience unless you're in that last back row with the police chief please don't hold them up over your head where they would block the views of the people behind you because everybody wants to be able to see the speakers and then I have to read this magic language from the California Penal Code for tonight's city council meeting which states California Penal Code section 403 states 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 elections code section 18340 first violations will receive a warning and continued violations will require additional action which could involve police intervention and so with that madam clerk we will move on to oral communication on non-agenda items over which the council has jurisdiction we'll take 15 minutes now and when I finish talking you can speak but man not before that council member design and so with regard to any item not on the agenda over which the council has jurisdiction we'll take 15 minutes now at the top of the agenda and there'll be another opportunity for speakers to comment under section nine at the end of the agenda.

Yes Councilmember I just wanted to slip in a quick comment on item 3b it would be real quick and the comment is this you know what please save that for your council communication but it's on the proclamation I know and that is when we take council communications thank you so much for your courtesy and understanding I do appreciate it madam clerk do we have oral communication we do we have two speakers so they got three minutes each first is James Golden and then is Karen Kirschbaum welcome Speaker Golden Mayor and um everybody bring that microphone right to where you need it so we can hear you hi good evening madam mayor and council people I had a car accident on Saturday at um walnut and Clement at the extra space storage and while we're waiting for the police the lady who lived at a house there came out and said they really need a stop sign there.

And the policeman said there's a council meeting on Tuesday so I'm here I don't know if this is a place to talk about it or not but you since they put in the two bike lanes on Clement you come out of this extra space toward you cannot see traffic to the left and that's what happened a car apparently you have to look half a block down and when a car enters there then wait till it comes out so you can be sure there's nobody in there which I did but apparently somebody turned from Elm Street and so I pulled out right in front of him is my fault but I've had three or four close calls there I go there like once a week should have a stop sign or reduce the parking on that side neither of which are going to be popular but I'd like to consider.

Thank you so much for your comments and does the clerk did you have contact information for Mr.

Golden correct?

Yes.

Okay excellent thank you we've heard you thank you so much.

And your dress Sunday was beautiful.

Thank you you were at the luncheon I next can I next speaker Corinne Kirschbaum welcome speaker Kirschbaum.

First I want to remind you of something that you forgot to include in your budget it seems that you have forgotten that all that money what 10 million dollars Marilyn that money unaccounted for that all of you are trying to cover up has to be paid back and how much is in your reserve so what does that make this city bankrupt and if you haven't heard the news we've had another death that did not have to happen Elijah.

He passed away where's your outreach all the millions of dollars that we have paid for outreach where is it who's overseeing it look at all those eyes you were told not to look at me congratulations so where's your fabulous fabulous new outreach that taxpayers have paid millions for because nobody has seen anything of the sort not even one police officers know what I'm talking about at every meeting Marilyn you tell the public treat others the way you would want to be treated you also say we should communicate respectfully and civilly so I am asking you directly Marilyn does that standard apply to you because what you and Joshi this council and even the social services human relations board have done to me has not at all been at all respectful it has not at all been civil it has not at all been it has been discussed disgustingly cruel I came forward about serious concerns which have all been proven to be facts involving homeless services missing records missing reports unaccounted for public state and federal money all missing financial reports and the absolute horrible treatment of unhoused people in this city instead of answering me and having one of those civil respectful conversations that you speak of Marilyn instead of investigating instead of doing your jobs I was ignored dismissed publicly humiliated labeled as mentally ill defamed and dragged down your never ending rabbit hole of hell marilyn your comments or rather what you think is your litigation strategy about my mental health were irresponsible damaging and public they are all on video on YouTube.

They did not answer the evidence they defamed me they told the public not to hear me not to believe me and not to treat me like a person with rights you see her not giving me any eye contact at all because she knows she's wrong.

And so thankful your city has services to help oh and you are so thankful that your city has services to help as you stated just shows how little you know but that's what happens when there has been no oversight or accountability then it only gets worse you and Josh had me falsely arrested after speaking out and you can thank you that always happened for good for all of the crimes.

Okay so I am going to make you warn that you're wearing that for a while I'm going to read the warning and then you will be escated out warning all the cops know everyone know okay your warning is to leave and please stop disrupting the meeting thank you so much.

Hey all right um and uh do we have another comment uh public comment okay well with that we will close oral communication non-agenda items and we will move on to the consent calendar and these are routine items approved by one motion unless council members remove items for discussion removed items will be called after the um other non-pull or after the regular agenda item and council members may speak for up to three minutes you can ask questions about an item without pulling it then you have to wait for it to um come at the end of the regular agenda and so and we do have a hearing a couple hearings that the clerk will help us with but first off any items the council wants to pull from the consent calendar seeing none I just have a recusals um yes please do oh thank you on five F.

I would have in Frank yes, I recuse myself to do um financial interest in commercial property in the Park Street business district and then on five Maz and Mary recuse on the um through investments have interests uh in alameda rental properties.

And that's the master fee resolution, so there's fees involved in the rent program okay yeah okay so but council member can stay on the diaspora's just or yeah.

I assuming there are no discussions or comments.

Okay, stay tuned.

Okay, so um okay any questions, counselor has about any um closed session closed session consent calendar items.

Okay, Madam Clerk, would you like to make your hearing's announcements?

So um now is the time for public comment on the two public hearings that are on the consent calendar.

One is adoption of resolution amending the master fee resolution number one two one nine one to add a revised fees.

This is excluding the city attorney and rent program, and the next one is the hearing to revise the master fee resolution to revise city attorney and rent fees.

Okay.

And um, do we need to do more than that?

No, because there is no public comment.

Okay, I was just gonna read the public comment on the consent calendar.

With that, we will close public comment on the consent calendar.

Um, council any further comments?

Are we ready for a vote?

And the motion will be to approve the consent calendar and then noting uh council member bowler's recusal on five F is in Frank and Amazon Mary.

Um or FM radio.

Um anyway.

Um I do have a motion in a second.

Um I move that we approve the consent calendar.

Okay, with those um, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Um so we have a motion by Vice Mayor Prior seconded by council member Day Sog, all those in favor, please signify by stating I.

Aye.

Okay, that passes unanimously.

And so then um I am looking um okay.

And I always give us a break um at two hours because it's a lot of um work for staff to be doing what they're doing all this time, and we need to get them to move around.

So even we're like a little shy of two hours into the meeting.

We're gonna take a break now and come back at nine oh five.

It's eight fifty-four.

Please come back at nine oh five.

Thank you.

Okay, I know five.

It's nine oh six.

Oh my gosh.

Are we ready in the balcony?

They're always ready in the balcony.

Thank you.

Um, Madam Clerk, where are we?

We're at 7A.

We're at seven eight.

Look at that.

Okay.

So would you please introduce this item and whoever is.

Sorry, I just put a cookie in my mouth.

Welcome.

And Council members, my name is Justin Long.

I'm the recreation and parks director, and I'm here tonight to present uh the Aquatic Center parking plan.

We were last here almost a year ago in July, where we approved the aquatic center design.

Um which uh you all then gave some extra direction to uh explore different parking strategies that we could look at.

Um, and we're here to do that tonight.

So we'll get started.

So the overall project was started with the approach of putting it in a location that was central in the island, um, to minimize uh people miles traveled as much as we could, just even by locating it where we did.

Um, we also wanted to think about operational needs, sizing the parking lot, um, correctly, thinking about spillover.

We also wanted to look at um what potentially are some of the different strategies we can implement along the way to reduce um uh how people get to the aquatic center.

Uh and then as the aquatic center comes online, it's putting together a system where we can actually observe how people are coming there, what the overall usage is, and then potentially even shift our strategies as we move forward.

And so we're here to talk about that.

So after the last meeting, we contracted with Dixon Resources Unlimited, which you guys may be familiar with.

They've done the studies on our ferry terminal parking and our paid parking.

So they were hired to evaluate the difference between a 67 space parking lot and a 57 or 50 space parking lot, and to look at what some of those impacts might be and come up with some strategies for how we would address those.

Which goes along with a lot of the recommendations council gave us last time, which was let's look at off-site strategies for accommodating additional parking.

So this is to give you sort of an overlay of the parking lot.

Is part of the direction we were given is to produce a bid alternate that would reduce the parking space by the 17 spaces to 50.

The spaces you see in red are those spaces in the bid alternate, 50 space stop.

So the overall layout of the parking lot is relatively similar, and a lot of that was done because of the parking that is being retained that we will get full-time access to in the college lot to the north, as well as a safe connection into that adjacent parking lot.

We couldn't just shorten the parking lot because it would get too close to the existing entrance to their parking lot.

And so there was some traffic design work that had to happen around that, which is why you see the red spaces that you do there.

So part of the strategies, and and Dixon came up with a slew of them, and so these are the ones that we're recommending for adoption.

The first one it was to secure off-site parking for our employees.

So we were able to secure with the College of Alameda an additional 10 daytime spaces that we could dedicate to employee parking that would relieve any type of parking needs out of that 50 space lot for employees.

So we were able to secure that.

We're also looking at, you know, trying to figure out what can we offer in the transportation demand plan, and we'll get to that a little bit later, but through discounts and education about different events that we could have to attract people bicycle, but also what would be the reduction that we could provide employ anyone who is taking alternate transit like buses, bikes, walking, etc.

And then again, was spending a lot of time with the adjacent property owners and into looking at what we could potentially do.

So, as I've said, we've secured the 10 daytime spaces.

We have 126 any evening and weekend spaces with a college that we've secured.

We'll go over where those are on the map in a second.

And then we are still in talks with Blue Rise to identify 25 to 35 unrestricted spaces on their property that would make sense for overflow parking during our busiest times.

And just want to repeat some of those busiest times that we have really are our heavily programmed summer that that June through mid-August.

So that those eight that eight-week period, we're gonna be really hit pretty hard.

And so, in conversations with them, we're still just working out to identify those, but I think we will uh be able to do that pretty shortly.

And then we also looked at time limits.

Most of the folks coming to our aquatic center are coming for specific programs, they're coming for lessons.

So they're coming for very specific period of time.

So we're looking at limiting the parking up to two hours, 90 minutes to two hours as part of that recommendation, just so we can keep the flow and turnover in the lot moving.

Um we also looked at how are we going to promote again people walking and biking on top of the 110 spaces we have, the bike lockers we already have on site, but also being able to provide a 5% discount to those who can show that they either have a bus pass or came by a bike or some other method of travel so that we can provide something to as an incentive to get people to even financially to take an alternative mode.

And then looking at uh one of the recommendations was what when and if the parking lot we determine after the it is in use that we make it flexible for other uses.

So if they want to have community events or open it up to a food truck at lunch, and is there another way to market the parking lot if it isn't fully utilized during our non-peak times?

So we're open to accepting that one as well.

Um so here it gives you an overview of kind of the shared parking that is currently what we've secured with COA.

So the white outline identifies 126 spaces.

There's a yellow marker at the bottom part that is the trail connector that now is open and connecting Challenger Drive directly to the Cross Alameda Bike Trail and then across to Wood Street further down, and then the bluish color to our left, that Ren Green color line, so just go with that color, are the 10 daytime spaces that we have that are dedicated for our employee parking.

Um, and so this just kind of gives you an overview, and then a little bit further to our right in that Y-shaped lot is where we're looking at some of those other unrestricted spaces that we would be able to offer from Blue Rise themselves in for overflow.

So again, getting back to some of the transportation demand management things that we have offered before, but we're actually adding a few things now.

So by providing the 5% discount for the public transportation, we were going to host a series of bike events.

We already partner with um uh several of the bike events that we already have, like the one that took place at Ruby Bridges earlier this year.

Um, we'll continue to do so and to attract folks to the um to aquatic center that way.

Um, and then also as part of the registration, people will be given information that be available how to get there through transportation, everything else like that.

Um, but also as you know, we already implemented the bike improvements for uh the trial cross connectors, um, and then we've also put in a very large drop-off area in front of the aquatic center so that people can either drop off their kids, but also the community gardeners can actually drop off supplies there as well and then go park after they've dropped us off and unloaded them.

So there will be times when that's available to them for that.

And then when it comes Dixon also was hired to look at what would it take to implement paid parking.

So they did a complete study about what it would take and and the ability to do so, and uh that we're gonna reserve to a future option to see how the aquatic center is performing before we were to implement that.

There's also some complexity around that with having shared parking agreements with our neighbors that don't have paid parking.

We didn't want to force individuals to park there who were trying to avoid our paid parking.

So until we had a better grasp of what was actually happening with the operations and usage, we've held back on that recommendation so far, as well as the one to the south, whether we needed a residential permit or would need a residential permit, because I think if we have this overflow parking and our parking lot, we'll probably meet the majority of the needs, and we'll evaluate that and hear if we're seeing any impacts to those neighborhoods before we work to design any type of program there.

But we'll be very conscious of it and tracking it and working very diligently to try to ensure that those are minimized to the neighborhood.

Um, so tonight what we're here is we're asking you to approve the smaller 50 space parking space.

There's seven EVs in that location as well.

Um, it's the 126 shared spaces, the 10 unrestricted, and we're working to secure the additional 25 to 35 unrestricted as well, as well as the small changes to the TDM plan.

Now I just want to put because we have one second, so maybe I can answer a question.

So a lot of these off-site negotiations are able to be done through discounts that we're offering to uh College of Alameda students and their teachers, as well as providing either memberships or passes to Blue Rise so that their employees can access our facility.

And I think it's a good benefit win for everybody involved, especially uh College Valamita students.

I think it'd be really nice to have this in their backyard to have this as a facility that's readily available to them.

So with that, I thank you all for your time, and I'll open it up for any clarifying questions.

Thank you so much, Director Long.

Um, Vice Mayor Pratt, did you have a question?

I did, so we I we're gonna take clarifying questions, then we'll go to public comment.

Okay, back to you.

Okay, so uh Director Along and I spoke, but I wanted to ask this publicly.

Um, can you elaborate on other accommodations for the community garden?

Um so as I mentioned about your uh Michelle had asked a council member uh sorry, prior.

Vice Mayor Prior had asked a question about uh community gardeners and being able to drop off.

Um, part of the equipment that'll be supplied to the community garden will be those sort of landscape wagons, so that they'll be kept at the community garden that they can borrow and go get their materials so if they unload their car, they're not having to to hoof it or haul heavy bags that there will be equipment on site that they're allowed to use for that method.

Thank you.

I have a couple questions, and thank you for this.

Um, how many bike parking spaces or lockers or whatever?

How many bikes can you accommodate?

Can we accommodate at the aquatic center?

So we have parking for 110 bicycles, we have two cargo bike lockers, and we're gonna have six um just bike lockers themselves.

So there's two that'll be larger for the cargo bikes, and then the others will be the standard size that hold each locker holds two.

Okay, and when you say two cargo bike lockers, does that mean it holds two cargo bikes or more than two?

The the cargo bikes themselves, because of the size, each one can only hold one, so there'll be two cargo bikes that can be locked in the lockers.

Each one can only hold one.

Okay, is that enough?

Um I again I think as we develop into more cargo bike parking, we also have cargo bike parking that they can lock to that isn't in a locker.

So we created larger, more spaced out bicycle because they need larger equipment to lock to to secure their wheels.

So we have several of those as well.

So I think there's four of those as well.

So four of those that can be locked to and two, so six six cargo bikes.

Okay.

One of the things, I mean, we're talking about we want to get people out of their cars to not use so much um automobile parking, um, so they're gonna come on other through on other means of um transit and or travel, and for parents with kids, I mean those cargo bikes are pretty brilliant because you can carry the kids and all the gear and stuff that goes with them, and um I would be worried that that might not be quite enough.

But if you found there was more demand, would there be um could could we add more cargo bike parking?

So the good thing is the plaza in front of the uh aquatic center is relatively large, and we would have the ability to put them on the north side of the plaza if we had to put more in.

So there is capacity to expand if we need it.

Okay, that sounds great.

And um I have a question, and I guess it'll segue into discussion too.

I'm concerned about the concept of the timed parking between 90 and 90 minutes and two hours.

I guess it is.

I certainly understand.

Like some of my friends are these serious lap swimmers, and they are out there when it's still dark and they get their laps in and then they get ready and they head to work.

But you know, summer's coming up, and next summer, hopefully we'll have an aquatic center.

Will we almost and it's and certainly something I did growing up in Alameda just hanging out at the swim center, and so um, and I do realize that we're just talking about the amount of time you can park.

Um so maybe some of the kids who just want to hang out while we get in there on their bikes or something, but you know, for parents with little kids who didn't come in a cargo bike, it's hard to rush little kids.

Um I once had small twins, and it was just, you know, and if they're having a good time, you know.

So let's um I mean, did you what's the what's the um the calculus that went into that time range?

Sure.

Um thank you for the question, Madam Mayor.

So what we looked at was the average duration of time slots that are we have factored into our our proposed programming.

And so for again, a lot of our lab swim are offered in one hour chunks.

They're offered in um, you know, uh depending on when you show up, you know, they're generally in one-hour chunks.

We looked at our swim lessons.

Our swim lessons are offered in 30-minute windows.

And those are scattered throughout the afternoon, early afternoons, as well as on Sundays and Saturdays when we're going to have a lot of overflow parking.

And so the times when you're gonna have those components where you're going to really want to have sort of the time to play in a lounge for more than an hour or two, that's gonna be on the days when we have access to the overflow parking.

So the the time limits that we were really focusing on were the weekday targeted times where we know that between three and six, at six to ten, we're gonna be pretty busy, and so we're trying to guarantee a turnover in that.

So that's that's what we were looking at.

We're trying to look at the average times of programs that we're offering to pick that time frame.

So are you saying that there will be well so if you if we have a limit 90 minutes, two hours, whatever it is, what happens if you exceed it, do you get a ticket?

So, you know, again it comes down to enforcement, and again, we'll be working with the the new parking staff from the budget point.

A two-hour limit would would require parking enforcement to come periodically through the lot to check.

Um I think it's you know, with the license plate readers, it's how they measure other two-hour time limits and things like that when you're parked along Santa Clara, for example, in a non-metered space.

Um I know that's just because of outside my office building, I see the traffic cops coming by periodically and writing tickets for even the 30-minute window one.

So uh again, I think I don't think it'll be uh a heavily enforced activity, but um that would be the only way you would enforce it.

But then would you have a different enforcement or none at all on the weekends?

Well, I think what I'm what I'm trying to get at is the time limit would would happen, but there's enough parking where there won't be time limits because I can't dictate a parking time limit on the um private property.

So at least in the conversations I've had with them, they don't want me to do that.

So there'll be signage that makes it clear that there's parking limits and you could get a ticket if you exceed your time in the lot at the aquatic center, but no limits except when you're allowed to park there, I guess, on the other.

Okay, and then uh yes, I'm sorry, may I add to that a little bit?

Yep.

The time limits also kind of like all the other the TDM and and other uh paid parking.

There's gonna be a period of time where um Dr.

Long and his staff will be assessing, and so that's certainly something that he can be reviewing.

They could even look at um the we'll call it two hour time limitation only during certain time periods, right?

So maybe it's not on weekends or maybe it's not during you know, so that's something that they can be assessing and they can always change, and maybe it gets pushed to three hours if it becomes an issue if they're hearing a lot of complaints.

So it's something they can certainly be evaluating.

I will note for the record that Assistant City Manager Wildrich and Um Vice Mayor Pryor are going to attend next week's Alameda County Mayor's Conference.

I'll be in Washington DC, but Vice Mayor is gonna stand in for me and and the assistant city manager's gonna go too, and it's going to be held at the aquatic center in Piedmont.

So ask lots of questions about and course Premont, they have no parking, so they messed up some parking policy Uber or something.

I don't know.

Um and then there is um a passage in the staff report that talks about um during non-peak hours, um, people who are there for like park use or events or something could park, but how would you know like during the week which car has a swim team person versus someone just using the park for the same?

So it it'll be very difficult to determine if there's someone there just for the aquatic center, which is why the whole parking lot would have the two hour limit, not just people who are swimming or people who are coming to the park.

So it would have to be the whole parking lot.

Okay, okay.

That's all my questions.

Other um council questions, council member Jensen.

Uh, with regard to I have a couple questions about the about the the use of the parking at the College of Alameda.

The you shared in one slide, there's a a spot where the cross-alameter trail where there's access right now, existing access to that parking lot.

And will that be retained?

And is that going to be the main access for the for clients and people who attend the aquatic center?

So uh councilman member Jensen.

So that connection will remain.

Uh it was just installed.

Um there's parking on either side of that.

Um, there's a uh protected crosswalk that is there.

Um so that will maintain uh that is not the primary entrance to the aquatic center.

That is a secondary entrance to the park.

The primary entrance will be along Atlantic to the uh west of the parking lot at, and if I can pull up the slide.

Um I can maybe talk through it here.

So the main entrance is to your left off of Atlantic.

This uh area with this large tree to our left right there is the entrance plaza to the south of that's the entrance plaza.

But that is the near main driveway into the uh parking lot for the shared parking, the road connection on our top.

Um, sorry, my bad on the top there is uh to the right by the 67 up there.

That's the entrance into the College of Alameda parking.

So there will be access along that way in through our parking lot as a shared space.

And then to the right of the left point, is where the community garden is anticipated to be.

The community garden is actually to the south on the other side of the where the city of Alameda's name is at the bottom of the slide.

It'll be on that side down there on the southern side of the cross trail.

Thank you.

And thank you.

So, with regard to the um parking with the College of Alameda, do you anticipate a lease agreement or a memorandum of understanding or how will that be facilitated and how will we be confident that the it won't be it'll remain?

So we're looking at entering a license agreement with them for the spaces as well as with um Blue Rise Ventures.

Um there's a third layer, they've all formed an HOA.

So we've got to do an agreement with the HOA on top of the two property owners.

So we're we're trying to work it all together and make the make uh make the agreements work, but um it it'll be through a license agreement with the two of them.

Is there gonna be a cost for that?

Um the cost is right now being shared as the discount that's being offered.

Um we're still working out the details around long-term maintenance and striping and would we contribute to any of that?

And so we're working out those details currently.

Thank you.

Are there clarifying questions?

Councilmember Bowler.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Director Long for your hard work on this and and your um report.

Just thinking about the Dixons um report that's basically their recommendation was for 67 spaces, but it sounds like the delta between the 50 and 67 is actually just decreased.

Is that true in your opinion?

Because you've got now 10 unrestricted spaces, right?

That is correct.

So the Delta has narrowed to that um from what we were gonna have dedicated in our own lot to only seven spaces, and I think with the overflow with Blue Rise, I think we can accommodate that.

So it would be the equivalent of what we had proposed on our own property.

And who do you anticipate using the 10 spaces?

So the 10 spaces we are anticipating to be our employees, whether they are full-time or part-time, because those individuals would traditionally probably park in the easiest possible location, which would be our own parking lot, and so what that does is it frees up spaces for the public to activate those spaces by pulling the employees out of there.

Okay.

And it sounds too like in your presentation, it sounds like you had some pretty high level confidence on getting the 25 to 35 additional spaces at the uh Marina Village to the the office park, right?

Sounds and what and you said there's a timeline maybe within a month or so.

So I would say probably within the next 60 days we can work out the all the little details between all the three parties.

What we were doing was trying to identify um what is reasonable considering how far away someone would have to walk and trying to identify those spaces and how we would sign them and everything else.

So we'll work out those details probably in the next 60 days.

So what does that look like?

What are you is it going to be a pretty reasonable distance to walk?

Is it going to be manageable?

How would you decide who who goes there, that type of thing?

Well, during our peak times, if we're having to activate those other any time spaces, you know, at any given point in the summertime we might have upwards of 20 to 25 employees at a time, and we would require that all of our employees park furthest away first, and then leaving as many uh closer spaces available to the public.

So it as we can start monitoring the daily usage and be more predictive about what we're going to see, we'll be able to um assign employees those further spaces so that we can minimize impact to the general public.

Yeah, because it seems like with the Dixon plan or recommendation that that the peak periods were definitely gonna cause issues, and so the that recommendation was leaning towards 67.

But if that's but if you get to these significant additional unrestricted spaces that are basically guaranteed for use, it really changes the equation that that um the consultant looked at, right?

It it does, and that's why one of their main recommendations was to try to secure off-site parking as much as we could uh through agreements or license agreements was what we're what we're actively pursuing.

So if we, for example, were to say, hey, we let's say the city council approved the staff recommendation, but with the with the additional requirement that we get at least 25 additional unrestricted spaces, would you be comfortable that you think there's a good chance of success?

I think there's a good chance of success, and I was also talking to our attorneys earlier.

Um your base bid includes the 67 spaces.

So moving forward, even if at a later date we told the contractor we only want to go with the 50, you already you've already paid for the 67, so there's no additional charge.

They actually in the bidding process only issued a $1 credit for the reduction of the 17 spaces.

So at that point, you're protected in any direction if it once we award the contract.

So I am but I am confident we'll get the the spaces from the business part.

Yeah, and I kind of read in between the lines like if the council, for example, said, like, look, if it doesn't look like we're gonna get the 25 to 35 spaces, we want to hear, we want to come we want it to come back.

That's kind of what you're saying.

It sounds like we would be able to come back and re-examine with this.

Well, what I'm saying is that staff would have the ability with the 67 that you've already approved that in or at least will that are in the contract for the pool, you have the ability to be flexible, is what I'm saying.

Yeah.

And there's other ways to be flexible going forward too, right?

For example, paid parking is something that the your presentation indicated could be considered in the future.

What are the what is your assessment of the pros and cons of that?

Because there is a I think it it could supplement the city's goal um climate goals and and TDM goals if uh parking is not all just always free.

So we we evaluated that and we looked very closely at the recommendation, and yes, paid parking is something that they believe the facility, if it were implemented, would cover its own costs if not generate slight bits of income after the cost of additional staffing, as we've just heard as part of the budget.

Um, but I do think that as we have explored these off-site parking, the the cons to it are is potentially having pushing non-paying customers onto private property because we have paying paid parking on ours, we have joint lots, joint access, and people parking in their lot in times when they're not supposed to.

So we wanted to take the time to evaluate that operation before we implement that to see how the overflow is working, how people are utilizing it prior to us implementing paid parking in the future.

But you know, it is a valid point that we could potentially do that in the future, but I think we want to evaluate once the aquatic center is open and functioning.

And I know there's also conversation last time, and it was referenced in the report about other technology that could potentially be used to essentially create an adaptive parking um program where certain spaces are shifting based on requirements and time and needs for, you know, there's all there's gonna be a wide rate a range of users that we want to accommodate.

So is that also something in the future if we needed more flexibility we could examine?

Yes, Councilmember Bowler, I think all of that will come with that same type of technology that you put in that's actually monitoring how many people are in the spaces at a time.

It'll the from what my review of the software allows you to do is to do dynamic pricing at times.

You know, once you start collecting the data, those systems allow you to start doing that.

So during peak times you can charge more versus charging less to try to control people's actions of how they operate and how they get to the facility.

So all that could come as part of that tech package.

And what are the departments like vision in terms of the user experience coming in, checking in for the um the center and uh is there a possibility of having that process kind of poll people, see how they got there, encourage them, give them handouts.

Here's here's another way to come, that type of thing, create carpool opportunities.

Do you know?

Yeah, so there's as part of the user experience, we're looking at our reservation software about so when you either reserve online, whether you buy a 10-pack for swimming, or if you just want to pay at per use as you go in.

Uh, we're gonna have a short survey as part of that that allows them to check how did you get to the pool, you know, how long do you plan on staying?

You know, just so we start collecting that information from folks at the time of entrance and um to try to get a better idea.

Uh, and then what we're going to implement is staff will periodically go out at peak times and during the day during what we think are our peak times to evaluate how full is the parking lot, you know, just so we can get a better idea of what is actually happening, and so that we can actually start building up a regular information base that we can actually make educated decisions on about you know what times are we the busiest?

When do we need to um alter uh strategy on the parking and where we go from there?

Yeah, and just to kind of sum up, it sounds like the at first when you look at this, it seems like there's a conflict between the parking consultants plan and recommendation and what the staff report um recommendation was, and yet there's certain assumptions that went into the plan that can change over time, and you've already identified additional off-site potentially unrestricted spots that could be number in the range of 25 to 35 on top of 10 that you've already secured.

So is it the question is Is it fair to say that you believe that you're setting yourself up for potentially more flexibility than even what the Dixon plan was recommending?

Um I believe we're setting ourselves up for uh a good amount of flexibility because the Dixon plan did not account for those additional spaces or having secured just as much as we have, and so I think you know for for us to try to second guess their choices.

What they were when I spoke with them set up their um study, it was about trying to figure out you know what are the maximums, where are we looking at and how do we create the best flexible space that we can?

And um, you know, in their professional opinion, the 67 space was the most flexible because it was the largest.

So, you know, then looking at the 50 and trying to look at these other secured spaces, I you know, they weren't anticipating even getting additional on top of that, and so this is additive and gives us a lot more flexibility, I believe.

Okay, thank you so much.

Are they clarifying questions?

Oh, yeah.

Council Member Desag.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so on page nine of nine, there's bullet points on different um supplemental parking scenarios.

So just a quick questions on the 126 shared parking spaces in Marina Village with College of Alameda.

Um, would you be are you negotiating with marina Village, whosoever owns that whole property, or are you negotiating with College of Alameda?

So 860 Atlantic is owned by the Peralta College District.

So the 126 and 10 are solely owned by the Peralta College District.

Okay.

And on that, are they envisioning um charging some kind of lease?

Uh, I mean, rent.

Um, how does that work?

They're not looking at charging us any rent in my conversations with um the chancellor as well as the college president.

Uh, we are going to be offering discounts to the students and faculty of the Peralta College District to come utilize our facility since they're such close neighbors.

Okay.

And um so far, uh, is there any preliminary um indication as to how long the license or the lease will be?

Um, our initial proposal is for five years and with terms to extend.

So they could change their mind at the end of five years.

Uh potentially, but hopefully, as a good neighbor, we'll we'll try to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Okay.

Um, now is the 10 unrestricted off-site spaces, is that within the 126 or is that uh separate?

Um right now it is identified within the 126.

Okay, it's all right.

And the 25 to 35 unrestricted off-site, is that separate from the 126?

That is separate from the 126.

And is that also um subject to um some kind of lease um arrangement?

Um are we going to pay rent on that?

It'll be a license agreement with Blue Rise Ventures.

Um, and again, what we're going to be offering is a uh we're working it out the details with them on whether we give them 30 membership passes and they hand them out to their tenants to come to the facility.

We're trying to figure out what's the simplest for them to implement because they have a lot of tenants, so they want to try to distribute it evenly.

Okay, and again, um is there any indication as to um the time in which um you're discussing at least the um initial terms of the lease?

Again, what period of time?

I'm aiming for them to be five years so that they'll operate on the same time frame as we go to renew.

I see.

Now, even if we did 67, would it be correct to say that we'd still have to make some kind of arrangement with regard to any of those three bullet points, the 126 shared parking, 10 unrestricted 25 to 35 unrestricted off site.

Would that so according to the Dixon study, the even the 67 space parking lot without overflow parking will be subject to not if we won't meet the demand of what's necessary during certain times.

So we will still want to have a shared parking agreement.

I see.

Okay.

Um great.

Well, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay, seeing no other um clarifying questions from council Madam Clerk, do we have public comment?

We do.

Um we have two in person.

Uh uh, we'll get three minutes each.

The first is Mitch Ball, and the second is Denise Trapigny.

Okay, and do we have any that are online?

Okay, no.

Okay.

Welcome, Speaker Ball.

Hello.

I'm happy that we've been able to reduce the number of parking spaces to 50, but I'm disappointed that staff are not considering paid parking or residential parking permits at this time.

Additionally, as someone who does chemical transport and technoeconomic modeling for a living, I believe I'm qualified qualified to criticize the parking model produced by Fair and Pierce and criticize Dixon Resource Unlimited for choosing to treat it as legitimate in further analysis.

The most consequential flaw of the parking demand model is the assumption that 90% of visitors would drive for main activities and that carpooling is nearly negligible at 1.1 people per vehicle.

It's pretty questionable to expect 90% of visitors to drive when this aquatic center is proposed to be built along the cross Alameda Trail and did an intersection away from Alameda's busiest bus rapid transit stop.

But even more shocking is the expectation of 1.1 people per vehicle.

This could only be possible if no more than one out of 11 main activity visitors is a child as children can't drive.

That's a lower child to adult ratio than when you typically see it at Almanac Brewery.

Dixon also performed an additional paid parking financial model to show that paid parking would return profit.

And while I agree with that prediction, I have some serious concerns that they drastically underestimated that profit.

They proposed parking at 50 cents an hour, which they admittedly claimed was conservative, but even a dollar an hour would be conservative, as that's the cost of parking on Webster, which was proven to be too low by the city in 2014.

They also assume 60% compliance and a cost of enforcement, but not a single dollar of revenue from ticketing.

If enforcement isn't ticketing, then what would we be paying for?

I also want to read this quote from Dixon's plan.

Limited or uncertain parking availability can reinforce car dependent travel patterns, increasing overall reliance on driving.

If this doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't make sense to me either.

Uncertain parking availability discourages people from driving.

It doesn't encourage them to drive more.

I've read this section over many times, and I'm honestly questioning whether they just didn't proofread that section.

Regardless, even despite these concerns, Dixon still recommended paid parking, which would certainly be financially responsible considering that the city is asking voters for a bond measure, and this project has already gone five million dollars over budget.

I understand the concerns about spillover and to nearby neighborhoods, but as I mentioned in an earlier item, there are already illegally parked cars sitting there every day, and a residential parking program like Dixon recommended would be good not only for this neighborhood, but also the many others that are already constrained by non-resident parking.

Lastly, there has to be a better arrangement of the 50 parking spots.

The proposed 17 to remove 60 to remove from 67 don't give us the benefit of useful parkland, but instead create a weird patch of grass near a fence cornered in by wide asphalt path.

Perhaps the southeast corner can be removed and the eastern side of the driving loop brought westwards.

In summary, it is unlikely that parking demand will exceed on-site capacity, but we can ensure it doesn't if the recommendations for paid parking and residential parking permits are taken.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Denise Trapigny.

Welcome, Speaker Trapanier.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members again for hearing.

On behalf of Bikewalk Alameda, we're really grateful that staff took the time to work with the neighboring neighboring business park and college Vallameda to secure existing dedicated parking.

We're also really pleased that with the additional work they've done, they've basically cut the size of the lot in half from what was initially proposed.

We would still like to see the smaller, of course, and we believe we should be further unbundling the cost of parking from the cost of using the pool.

People who don't arrive by car should not have to pay for those who drive, which is what will happen if we continue to give away free parking.

As I mentioned in our earlier comments on the budget item, we need to stop subsidizing parking, encouraging additional VMT, and leaving revenue on the table.

While we're excited that staff will continue to explore paid parking for this facility, we do want to thank staff, the College of Alameda, and Blue Rise for the creative solution to preserve our very precious open space and encourage you to approve staff's recommendation.

I would like to personally make one comment, not on behalf of Bikewalk Alameda.

I want to speak as a homeowner on Eagle Avenue, immediately south of Jean Sweeney Sweeney Park near the Parrot Village.

So please don't weigh the concern of overflow parking and consider paving over more of Gene Sweeney Park to mitigate that concern.

That park is a gem, and we should be doing everything in our power to preserve it, not pave it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And was that our last speaker?

Okay, with that, we will close public comment.

Um, I just want to say thank you to staff for um bringing this to us.

Um I love the shared parking.

I've been advocating for it for years because the business park and the College of Alameda that took over one of the businesses of buildings in the business park has been several years now.

They're they're busy and they're booked during school hours and work hours.

Um Dan, oh, Blue Rise Ventures, um, general manager, whose name I just went blank on, but they hosted us for a council retreat uh a couple months ago.

And they're great community partners.

They provide great amenities to their tenants.

So I think you're gonna you know cement that deal.

And I agree with the last speaker that we should not be adding more paved parking space.

We need to, um we don't need more pavement, we need permeable surfaces, and it's part of keeping our our island um cooler, and so um I think these are great solutions, and I think time will tell about the parking, whether it should be paid, but that's what we can do our observations on.

Um I do, and I would also agree um emphatically with staff that let's keep the parking program simple to begin with because we're gonna we're opening a new aquatic center, people are gonna be getting there in different ways.

We are going to see different usage, and so we'll learn more as time goes on, but I think that it's just easier to administer a um a simple program rather than one that is more involved, and the only other thing I wanted to say, um if my iPad wouldn't freeze up so I could get to my notes, but I pretty much remember them.

Is that um I do appreciate the outreach that staff did?

There was a note that staff spoke to one member of the Transportation Commission.

I would gently and refreshfully note that one member of the Transportation Commission is simply a community member, one of 79,000, um, and does not speak for the whole Transportation Commission.

But I do also want to encourage staff to make good use of our appointed boards and commissions.

Um they are smart, diligent, hardworking.

And you know, we recently had a little hiccup with the use of Little John Park for expanded little league um games that that is being worked out and it's coming to the the uh Transportation Commission or maybe or recreation parks commission.

I want to say, but it should have started there.

And so on this one, you know, this has to do with transportation issues.

I I do wonder why it didn't come to the um to the to the transportation commission because again, it's been almost a year since this item came before the city council last time.

That was plenty of time to um to schedule a meeting before one of our public bodies.

So I would just ask, implore going forward staff, please make use of our very talented, hardworking, diligent boards and commissions because um you get great public participation when it's a public hearing, we maximize transparency, and you get great feedback.

So, um, with that, um, you know, I'm ready to support this staff's recommendation, but let's hear from others.

Um want to start, Vice Mayor?

Sure, yeah.

So I'm I'm glad that we got the parking whittle down to 50, um, as the mayor had stated and and we've heard tonight.

Um, it's great to just use the concrete that is already there and not create more um and but with that I'm glad that there is uh the the in the park there is the parking for the community garden because um I know that was a concern for them like having to having big giant things of you know fertilizer or pot, I don't know that if you know equipment's heavy shovels are heavy.

Um so I'm glad that the loading zone is there for for though for our community gardeners, um and I think that's all that I was just looking at my I wrote my comments, so I think that's it.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Jensen, I have no okay.

Um Councilmember Bowler.

Um I I support the staff recommendation.

I was just wondering if we could add the requirement of staff obtaining 25 to 35 unrestricted spaces as forecast in the report that is highly likely to happen.

So that's that's uh off site spaces, it doesn't change the 50.

I support the staff recommendation otherwise.

Um I'd like to keep it simple and just support the staff recommendation.

Um of the 50 spaces and 10 bike parking, 110 bike parking spaces, um, etc.

etc.

Um, but that's just my view, Councilmember Desong.

We did you finish, Councilmember Boer?

Yes, thank you.

Just a quick clarifying question.

Um the pavement surface area that we contemplate um covering is um is it correct to say it's wide enough to accommodate 67 spaces, but should but per staff's recommendation only 50 spaces will be um uh painted.

Is that is that correct?

Um that's incorrect.

Or the spaces that are were highlighted in red just will not be paved at all, will not be paved at all.

So it'll all be vegetated instead of paved.

Okay, I see.

All right, well, I appreciate that correction.

Um, yeah, that's a really interesting situation.

Um I think what concerns me is you know, we're banking a lot on these agreements that are very limited in time, five years, I think, was expressed for both of them.

And you just never know, maybe at some point in time the College of Alameda might find that it has to sell its um its real estate, or or even the um was it Blue Rise Ventures.

Um perhaps they also should they if they own their site um might have to sell their space.

Um so things change.

Um but by the same token, it's important to note that whether we're at 50 or 67, um, we still need these um supplemental spaces.

So let's not you know, let's not pretend that 67 is you know the the the ultimate answer.

But um, but you know, what the uh analysis presented by uh Dixon.

Um uh it's hard to um avoid especially the one I think we've all seen it on page eight where they write the 50 space configuration is particularly vulnerable with regular overflow expected throughout the year, except during non-summer weekday mornings, evenings and weekends, dot dot dot.

And then by contrast, the 67 space configuration experiences overflow less frequently.

So it does it will uh experience overflow, but it experiences overflow less frequently with greater availability during non-summer weekday midday periods and summer weekday morning periods, uh, first and foremost, let me make sure to say love the uh the idea of the poll, so definitely supportive of it.

Um I think we're banking a little too much on the on these license agreements um with um uh with uh these two entities.

It is interesting though, how how the emphasis on license, because you know, within ourselves when we talk about license, we oftentimes refer to license giving us as the um as the um uh master uh as the owner of the property at Alameda Point.

We we talk about licenses as opposed to leases in a way that because licenses seem to give us greater flexibility, um but in this case though, we would be the licensee.

Um and it worries me that that um things can change.

But like I said, whether it's 50 configuration or 67 configuration, we still need whether it's licenses or some other kind of instrument for supplemental spaces.

You know, I love the poll, can't, you know, can't wait to see it happen.

Um, but I'm gonna go with 67.

I think you know, as um as uh it's written in the um uh uh analysis, the 67 space configuration experiences overflow less frequently with greater availability during non-summer weekday midday periods, etc.

Um, and I did I do want to make sure to add um you know it uh hopefully a lot of people will ride their bikes and perhaps even walk to the swimming pool, but um but the comparison to Piedmont really doesn't work because as we all know, Piedmont is all of 1.7 square miles, so people probably live at most three quarters of a mile away.

I mean, I'm not quite sure exactly where on Magnolia Avenue the um aquatic center is, but that's 1.7 Piedmont is 1.7 square miles.

Whereas Alameda is what 12 square miles of actual uh land.

So I think um given the distances that people were require, we do need um we do need space um for people who are gonna drive, particularly from the east end of town.

Um so anyways, I guess I said my paces.

Thank you.

And to be clear, Councilmember Desag, I was that was kind of tongue in cheek.

Of course, we're not Piedmont, but it is also an all-electric pool as we are doing, and it's got it's got a really nice um layout.

So I'm just saying that um assistant city manager Oldrich and Vice Mayor Pryor will get to see it now that it's finished.

I just want to know, make sure to say once more.

Whatever decision I make tonight, it's just about the parking.

Love the pool.

Yeah, great asset for the West End of Alameda.

And to your concern that you know a business might sell or whatever, there are a number of businesses in the business park, and I think any number of them would be happy to do a shared parking agreement.

I think some things you can take on faith.

Dan Peritsky is the um the manager of the um Blue Rise Ventures, and I I just think that it's a really inspired idea and keeps us from painting more surface, um, paving more surface.

Do we have a motion and a second?

Um I move that we um accept the um recommendation for uh, I'm sorry, but I'm trying to figure out how to word this.

Do you want to just read from the first paragraph?

Yes, um, that uh uh I move that we approve staff's recommendation for 50 space on-site parking with shared use.

And okay, um the city that with the College of Alameda and the paragraph there, just because that's the staff recommendation.

No paid parking.

And and that's at okay.

I'm just gonna read this at the top.

Sorry, I was reading the highlights.

Okay, rec recommend so I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry.

Um, I uh I moved that uh we approve the recommendation to approve the city aquatic center parking action plan with a 50 space on-site parking lot, no paid parking, and prioritizing shared parking um agreements, off-site employee parking, uh time limited parking and incentives for alternative transportation.

Is there a second?

A question about the motion.

Council Member Bowler.

Uh thanks.

Um, did you say no paid parking?

I wasn't no paid.

Paid parking.

Um is the motion intended to basically create that as the permanent plan because I I don't read the staff report as recommending that there never be paid parking.

It just doesn't how does the current plan?

So it's that necessary part of the motion.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Um, they're gonna revisit it during over time.

Uh how about no paid parking at this?

Well, there's no recommendation to do paid parking at this time.

But it I it was evident that they might revisit it after some um, yeah.

I guess I guess that there's that is a good idea.

That's the motion that we support it better, maybe.

You know, let's bring uh Director Long back just to make sure we're clear on what staff is recommend recommending because you've said a number of things.

Yeah, so uh thank you, Mayor.

Um we're recommending that no paid parking at this time, so we're not accepting the recommendation at this time to implement paid parking, but we will revisit it in the future as we collect more data on the operation for that.

So we'll keep it in our toolkit for upcoming um strategies if we need to put them in place.

Can I add a caveat that um that the paid parking uh will be revisited in the future?

That's a great part.

Yeah.

The other question about it was there was a reference in the motion to um something about the off-site parking, and I'm just trying to understand if that's making that a mandatory part of this, or what was the intent of the motion that way because that is that is not necessarily part of the staff's recommendation either.

Um I was reading from the top of the staff report it is prioritizing shared parking agreements, off site employee parking, time limited time-limited parking and incentives for alternative transportation.

So prioritizing those and with the understanding that as the recreation parks director said it would be revisited, and I think the assistant city manager would like to add something, and I see you Councilmember Desag, you will be next after assistant city manager.

I just had a suggestion if helpful for the motion, it could be that the the parking plan will continue to be assessed or it continue to be uh evaluated will will and and because it the parking what do we think because it includes potential for paid parking and we talked about the time limits and and that various components will continue to be assessed and and um changed as needed.

You're nodding, is that in this?

Yeah, I guess I would be I would request that um vice mayor consider that as a maybe as a friendly amendment, like because if it's continue to be assessed, I think that addresses some of these concerns, including my concern that it sounds highly likely that we're gonna get 25 to 35 additional unrestricted off-site spaces, but if it's at least it's being assessed as part of it, it's I think that's sufficient to cover that concern too.

Yeah, I had a ongoing assessment.

Yeah, the caveat to assess.

Sorry, the caveat to consider that paying for parking might come back, but also.

Sorry, exactly what Greg just said.

Because I I think my caveat was very limited.

Um, so I I do want to expand it for.

I I I don't know adjustments is needed.

Assistant city manager, do you want to restate what you said?

I think that might be down a bit.

Sure.

I yeah, my my suggestion was instead of instead of to your point being specific about the paid parking, to simply say to have the motion include that um staff continue to assess the parking plan and update as needed to to address it.

But at this time we would move forward on the no.

Yeah, so I was just with staff continuing to assess correct.

I was just adding it to the end, yes.

Yes, absolutely.

Madam Clerk, are you getting that?

Yes, okay.

Councilmember Design.

Oh, since uh Director Long is up and I raised the issue.

Can you explain to us why the the matter that that for for why you're seeking discussing um uh instead of leases, you're either you've been having discussions regarding licenses.

Well what's the why the difference?

So in my conversations with both property owners, uh Council Member Desog, is their recommendation that we enter into a license, their preference that we enter into a license agreement.

Um I I we can propose the other, but I've been trying to keep fees low and trying to keep costs to the city low, and so um I've been working with them on these license agreements as a method of doing that.

Um there's some conversation um about differences we can look at that, but license agreements seem to have been the what what I've entered in with Blue Rise before as well as um COA.

A question for the legal staff.

Um is there anything substantive, any substantive difference that that sticks out between a license versus a lease?

Councilmember, there could be many, um, but in this case, because we are uh trying to attain parking space and not, for example, build buildings or erect permanent structures.

Um, I think Director Long's recommendation of a license seems appropriate.

Well, thank you.

Appreciate both of you.

Okay, so I think we have a motion that's been amended.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Bowler seconds.

Any further question or discussion?

Seeing none, um, it's been moved by Vice Mayor prior, seconded by Councilmember Bowler.

All those in favor, please signify by stating aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

When opposed on the parking plan.

Well, it's on the whole thing, my friend.

Um, all right.

That motion passes on a vote of four to one with council member um uh days of voting no.

All right, um, thank you.

Um thank you, staff for all you could work.

Um, and then um city manager communications.

Anything from you, Assistant City Manager, okay.

None from you.

Um, any further oral communications, non-agenda items, madam clerk.

There's none.

Okay, um, then we'll go on no council referrals.

Council communications, council members, um, may speak for up to nine minutes, although we're going back into closed session.

Keep that in mind, uh, council member days.

Why don't we start start on my right?

Uh, anything to report?

Three items.

One is like everyone else.

Uh, it certainly enjoyed the memorial day.

Um, is probably not the best word, but enjoyed the memorial day event at Harbor Bay Um Park.

Um item uh number two, also uh enjoyed um the luncheon at um the Alameda Point Collaborative Um Garden area.

Yeah, farm.

And item number three, what I wanted to mention earlier this evening, um, on the matter of of uh um celebrating um commemorating um June as uh gay LGBT uh pride month.

Um, you know, I encourage uh the residents of Alameda could come out to City Hall to view the nice grand flag uh that is draped um over the steps of City Hall.

It's beautiful.

Thank you for that.

Um council member Bowler.

Oh thank you.

Um I joined the rest of my colleagues here at also at the Alameda Point Collaboratives Farm to Table Benefit Luncheon, and um that was on Sunday, and that's all I have to report.

Right.

Um I on Saturday I kicked off the walk for hearing, which is um a benefit walk for the HLAA is hearing loss association of America that does activities to promote um protection from hearing loss and then to help people who have experienced hearing loss.

And I placed on the desk outside um the clerk's office um these very handy.

They're like book size size bookmark size information sheets about how many decibels a particular activity are, what you what you should avoid, how to protect your hearing.

Um, but it was it was very nice, and even the Alameda cheer team came out to kick everyone off before the we the walk, but people came from all around the Bay Area.

And yes, I also attended and spoke at our Memorial Day ceremony at Veterans Park by the Bay from Island Bridge, and I I think we had a full council attendance um attended the um Alameda Point Collaborative's urban farm to market uh luncheon out in the out in the on the farm.

It was very pleasant.

Vice Mayor?

Um yes, so my two events are the same.

Um it was wonderful to be at the Memorial Uh Day celebration.

Um, and it was great to be at the Alameda Point Collaborative French.

It was those events were amazing.

And Councilmember Jensen.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you for advocating for people with hearing loss.

I appreciate that.

As a deaf person.

Any opportunity to bring to bring more um attention to hearing loss is really really valuable, especially in in our community.

I also want to thank you for your proclamation earlier this evening.

With your proclamation, we celebrate the beautiful diversity, resilience, and joy of our LGBTQ community.

Pride is the time of year when we share our history, our ongoing responsibilities, and the deeply rooted values that define Alameda.

Alameda.

When we raise the pride flag, we aren't just putting up a symbol.

We are reaffirming that Alameda is a place where everyone can live authentically, love openly, and feel safe, seen and valued.

For me, this commitment isn't new.

It's a foundational part of my public service to this island.

One of my biggest struggles and greatest successes happened during my tenure on the Alameda Board of Education when I led the community to adopt one of the nation's first elementary school curricula, specifically designed to teach students about all types of families.

By integrating those lessons into our schools, we address bullying against LGBTQ students, families, and teachers.

We proved that when you teach kindness, inclusion, and basic human respect at an early age, you build a safer, healthier community for everyone.

And the work that started in our classrooms years ago is the exact same work that we carry forward on the city council and across the city today.

And again, thank you for the proclamation.

Inclusivity isn't a milestone we reach and then check off of a list.

It's a continuous practice.

And I think it is continuous in Alameda.

It's about ensuring our policies, our public systems, and our neighborhoods reflect this community's diverse needs.

So as we celebrate Pride Month, let's honor the Trailblazers who fought to get us to this point.

Let's protect the progress that we've made, and we fought so hard to get to, and let's keep working together to make Alameda a beacon of love and equality.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Happy Pride, and let's have a wonderful month of celebration.

Thank you.

And now to um end on a little bit of a sombre note, but I want to recognize and remember a well-known figure in this community, Mr.

Christopher Buckley.

I'm so sorry.

Do you want to do 11A?

Oh my goodness.

All of our boards and commissions, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry, sorry.

No, I just don't want you to adjourn it.

Yes.

Let's see here.

What you gave me that.

I I have it, I have it.

Um I don't say this often enough, but we would be, I would be lost without staff and all they do for me.

Um so this evening, I want to announce reappointments to various boards and commissions, and these are of um incumbents who are eligible to have their um to serve another term, and I'm delighted that they're um willing to, and by the way, I am going through we've had many applications for boards and commissions, but these are the ones from three different boards and commissions that I'm reappointing, and and the clerk's office reaches out there ready to serve another term.

So from the commission on persons with disabilities, and these are for two full terms.

The incumbents John Lip and also Jane Schmidt's from the um golf commission, and for one full term is Yatin Shastri.

And then from the public utilities board, Elise Hunter is our incumbent who is now eligible to serve a full term.

So that means council at our next council meeting, because the mayor gets to appointment, the full council must ratify.

We we will be voting on those um four individuals, and I will be introducing some um some more nominees because man's staff has um scheduled lots of interviews.

And I always interview with um the applicant and then whoever staffs a particular board or commission, and we're gonna get it done.

We've got some great applicants.

Okay, and now we move to adjournment.

Thank you so much.

Is there anything else?

Okay.

Um, so a longtime community resident and well-known fixture, Mr.

Christopher Buckley, passed away on May 12, 2026, just a couple of weeks ago.

He was 77 years old.

I mean, I have known him since I served on the planning board, which goes back to 2006.

And Chris was a um a planner by profession.

He worked for 30 years with the City of Oakland Planning and Building Department, but his home was in Alameda, and he cared so much about historic preservation.

He was a frequent um speaker at planning board meetings and city council meetings.

He helped found what is now the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and also the preservation awards that they do annually.

Chris served on the City of Alameda's Historic Advisory Board, attended countless city council meetings he did.

He was part of 100,000 Trees for Humanity and also served on the Committee of Casa Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.

And I will say that Chris and I did not always see eye to eye.

We didn't always agree on the best approach moving forward on things, but he was always a complete gentleman, so civil, and also just so knowledgeable and willing uh to share his knowledge with others, including me.

We lived in the same neighborhood, and I would enjoy seeing him out and about walking.

And I could ask him about just about any house historical house in the neighborhood, and he could tell me it's history.

I don't think he was just making it up.

He was very knowledgeable.

And so um there will be a funeral mass for Chris Buckley Saturday, June the 13th at 11 a.m.

at St.

Peter's Anglican Parish, 6013 Lawton Avenue in Oakland.

And Chris um left our community a better place than he founded, and he will be missed.

So thank you for remembering Chris Buckley as we adjourn this meeting.

And with that, it's not quite adjourned, is it, Madam Clerk?

We're gonna adjourn in your case.

And then so um, yes, so if we could have the city council back in room, um, and and also uh madam clerk, please join us.

Okay, and city attorney don't go far, but we'll be we'll be able to get on the level of the whole thing.

Oh, it left my cover.

Kentucky Fried Chicken Denite.

Didn't know Kentucky Fried Chicken Light?

Package chicken.

But I do like Alan Allen.

I that's who I voted for.

I like yeah, I like him, but um that's not who we endorsed him.

Yeah, but I do I do like him.

All right, everyone.

Um we are back from finishing our closed session item, which was um item uh 4C, which was the um 4C was uh public employee performance evaluation for two positions, and the positions evaluated were city attorney Ibn Shen and City Clerk Lara Weisinger.

So I would like to announce that um on the first vote, and this actually had to uh uh pertain to City Clerk Laura Weisinger, uh council uh gave direction and and ratified that by a vote of uh five to nothing, so all council members voting in favor.

And then we took a second vote, and that pertained to city attorney Ibn Shen.

And in that case, um council gave direction, which was ratified again by a unanimous vote of five to nothing.

And um that's all there is to it.

And so at this time, I think it's about 11, 10 a.m.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, everyone, and good um, good work and good.